The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 09/13/2011 GMP Amendments2010 CYCLE GMP AMENDMENTS COMPLETE AGENDA SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS 2010 CYCLE including petition CP- 2008 -19 BCC hearing only (ADOPTION HEARINGS) ti O H G R n E 1 11 aa. fp nw' v Collldr County Florida Leo.. Dorn I� Y M P@810 -7 aa. fp nw' v Collldr County Florida --- -- -- r Petitions: CP- 2010 -1, CPSP- 2010 -2, CPSP- 2010 -5 & Petition CP- 2008 -1 EAC: July 06, 2011 (petition CPSP- 2010 -2 only) CCPC: July 21, 2011 BCC: September 13, 2011 I� Y M --- -- -- r Petitions: CP- 2010 -1, CPSP- 2010 -2, CPSP- 2010 -5 & Petition CP- 2008 -1 EAC: July 06, 2011 (petition CPSP- 2010 -2 only) CCPC: July 21, 2011 BCC: September 13, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS BCC - Adoption of 2010 Cycle GMP Amendments September 13, 2011 Agenda nda 1) TAB: Table of Contents. 2) TAB: ORC Report. 3) TAB: Legal Advertising. 4) TAB: Ordinance(s). 5) TAB: Executive Summary(s). DOCUMENT: Table of Contents DOCUMENT: DCA Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report with State Agency comments DOCUMENT: BCC 2010 Cycle Adoption; CCPC 2010 Cycle Adoption; & CPSP- 2010 -2 (BCC /CCPC/EAC) Proposed Wellhead Protection Areas Map Advertising DOCUMENT: 2010 Cycle Adoption Ordinances & Exhibit "A" Text and/or Map Changes (includes CP- 2008 -1, CP- 2010 -1, CPSP- 2010 -2, & CPSP- 2010 -5) DOCUMENT: BCC 2010 Cycle Adoption Executive Summary; BCC 2010 Cycle Transmittal Executive Summary; CP- 2008 -1 Supplemental Report; Straw Ballot Resolution and Precinct Map; Staff Summary of The Florida Senate Interim Report 2010 -107; The Florida Senate Interim Report 2010 -107, October 2009, "Population Need as a Criterion for Changes to a Local Government's Future Land Use Map "; Golden Gate Estates Area CIGM Map; Straw Ballot Executive Summary 2/9/10 Transmittal Executive Summary 1/19/10 for 2007 -2008 GMP Amendment Combined Cycles 6) TAB: Staff Report(s). DOCUMENTS: 2010 Cycle CCPC Adoption Staff Report; EAC Adoption Staff Report; CP- 2008 -1 CCPC Transmittal Staff Report; CCPC Transmittal Recommendation for CP- 2008 -1; CP- 2010 -1 CCPC Transmittal Staff Report; CPSP- 2010 -2 CCPC Transmittal Staff Report including Staff Report revisions 1/12/11; CPSP- 2010 -2 EAC Transmittal Staff Report/Existing Wellhead Protection Areas Map & Wellfield Model Report; CPSP- 2010 -5 CCPC Transmittal Staff Report 7) TAB: Petition(s). DOCUMENTS: CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Petition; and CP- 2010 -1 Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Petition x �y4 r? STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS RICK SCOTT Govemor "Dedicated to making Florida abetter place to call home" June 3, 2011 The Honorable Fred W. Coyle,.Chairman Collier County Boardof Cdunty Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Tram Ead, -Suite 393' Naples, Florida 341 12 -5746 Dear Chairman Coyle: BILLY BUZZETT Secretary The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Collier County (DCA No: 11 -1), which was received on April 1, 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 -8466 (p) ♦ 850- 921 -0781 (f) ♦ Website: www.dca.state.fLus ♦ COMMUNITY PLANNING 850488-2356(p) 850-488-3309(f) ♦ FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST 850-922-2207(p) 850-921-1747(f) ♦ HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &'D-488-7956(p) 85"22-5623(f) TRANSMITTAL PROCEDURES The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in Section 163.3184,. F.S., and Rule 9J- 11.01.1, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the County must submit the following to the Department: Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendment; • copy of the adoption ordinance; • listing of additional changes not previously reviewed; • listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the ordinance; and A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent. In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendment, and n 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). a Florida Department of Transportation RICK SCOTT 605 Suwannee Street A-NANTH PRASAD, P.E. GOVERNOR Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0450 SECRETARY May 12, 2011 Mr. Ray Eubanks Regional Planning Administrator Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 RE: Collier County 11 -1- Proposed Growth Management Plan Amendments - FDOT Comments and Recommendations Dear Mr. Eubanks: The Florida Department of Transportation, District 1, has reviewed the Collier County I 1 -1, Proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendments (approved for transmittal by the County Commissioners on March 22, 2011) in accordance with the requirements of Florida Statutes (F.S.) Section 163 and Chapter 9J- I 1 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The department offers the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) the following comments and recommendations for your consideration in reviewing the proposed amendments. CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict, Map and Text Amendment): Petition CP- 2008 -1 requests to amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan ( GGAMP) and GGAMP Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series, to create the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 190,000 square feet of commercial uses with a requirement to construct a grocery store with a minimum of 27,000 square feet on a 41 acre'site located on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard extending from Wilson Boulevard to 3'd Street NW. The department has no comments related to the proposed CP- 2008 -1 GMP amendment since the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict is located more than 5 miles away from I -75 and is not expected to have an adverse impact on the state roadway network CP- 2010- 1(Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict, Text Amendment): The property that is the subject of this amendment is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road in Collier County, Florida. Parcel 1 (9.2 acres currently zoned as Bradford Square MPUD) of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict currently allows a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial uses. Based on this Subdistrict designation, Parcel 1 can be developed as retail, personal service, restaurant, office, and all other uses as allowed in the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts, as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code. This Subdistrict also allows mixed -use development (residential and commercial uses) including general and medical offices, government offices, financial institutions, www.dot.state.fl.us Mr. Ray Eubanks Collier County I 1 -1 May 12, 2011 Page 2 of 4 Proposed Growth Management Plan Amendments — FDOT Comments personal and business services, limited indoor recreational uses, and limited retail uses. The department notes that the Subdistrict limits the maximum floor area for any single commercial use to 20,000 square feet. Petition CP- 2010 -1 requests to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), to allow grocery/ supermarket, physical fitness facility, craft/hobby store, home furniture/furnishing store uses in Parcel 1 to exceed the 20,000 square feet limitation for a single commercial use, up to a maximum of 50,000 square feet. The department notes that the amendment does not change the maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area limitation for allowable commercial uses. The department has no comments related to the proposed CP- 2010 -1 since the proposed text amendment does not increase the maximum amount of commercial density that can be developed in Parcel 1 of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. CPSP - 2010 -2 au and Text Amendments): Petition CPSP- 2010 -2 requests to amend the FLUE, the FLUM and Map Series to: a) Replace the language in Policy 5. l .d of the FLUE regarding provisions for properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description, but have nonetheless been determined consistent with the FLUE. b) Revise the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict to allow for its applicability when a proposed rezone site is abutting commercial zoned property within an Infill Subdistrict if the site also abuts commercial zoning not within an Will Subdistrict. c) Modify language in the Agricultural Rural Designation regarding Sending Lands provisions for essential services for proper organization, and to specifically list water pumping stations and raw water wells, within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. d) Modify language in the Conservation Designation regarding provisions for essential services for proper organization and to specifically list water pumping stations and raw water wells. e) Revise the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay description to correct a date, add performing art center type uses, clarify that uses are allowed as provided by FLUE Policies, and delete the development standard of feet per story. f) Update the Wellhead Protection Map, update the FLUM and Map Series to reflect annexations, make FLUM boundary corrections in rural areas and add clarity. The department has no comments related to the proposed CPSP - 2010 -2 GMP amendments since they are not anticipated to have an adverse impact on the state roadway network. CPSP- 2010 -5 (Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mix -Use Subdistrict. Map and Text Amendments): The property that is the subject of this amendment is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and County Barn Road in Collier County, Florida. According to the staff report, the most recently amended PUD rezone request, under the existing FLUM designation, allows for 35,000 square feet of commercial uses and 234 residential dwelling units. The maximum allowable development Would result in 4,974 daily trips and 461 p.m. peak hour trips. The amendment proposes two alternatives to revise the 22.8 acre parcel in the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mix -Use Subdistrict (DB /CBRMU) as described below: Mr. Ray Eubanks Collier County 11 -1 Proposed Growth Management Plan Amendments — FDOT Comments May 12, 2011 Page 3 of 4 CPSP- 2010 -5 Alternative # 1: The first alternative proposes to revise the Subdistrict to eliminate the commercial component and establish a maximum density of 5 dwelling units per acre. The maximum allowable development that could occur under this alternative is 114 residential dwelling units, which would result in 814 daily trips and 80 p.m. peak hour trips. As indicated in the following table, the proposed Alternative #I would result in a net decrease of 4,160 daily trips or 381 p.m. peak hour trips. PSP- 2010 -5 Alternative # 1: TRIP GENERATION AS PROPOSED 1. Trip generation based on the rates and equations obtained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (ntn Cauron). CPSP- 2010 -5 Alternative # 2: The second alternative proposes to "repeal" the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mix -Use Subdistrict all together, in which case, the land use designation would return to the Urban Designation, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. The maximum allowable development that could occur under this alternative is 365 residential dwelling units (16 DU /Acre) which would result in 2,335 daily trips and 218 p.m. peak hour trips. As indicated in the following table, the proposed Alternative # 2 would result in a net decrease of 2,639 daily trips or 243 p.m. peak hour trips. CPSP - 2010 -5 Alternative # 2• TRIP GENERATION AS PROPOSED Maximum ITE Size of Development PM Scenario Land Use Allowed Land Daily Trips Peak Acres Allowed Designation Density / Use Acres Development Trips' Adopted DB /CBRMU Intensity Code 22.8 234 DUs 1,542 146 Adopted DB /CBRMU NA 220 22.8 234 DUs 1,542 146 Adopted p (Residential) NA 820 22.8 35,000 sf 3,432 315 Adopted p DB /CBRMU NA 820 22.8 35,000 sf 3,432 315 Proposed (Commercial) 16 DUs/ 1 220 22.8 365 DUs 2,335 218 Proposed DB /CBRMU 5 DUs/1 Acre 220 22.8 114 DUs 814 80 Change in Trips (Residential -243 Change in Trips 4,160 381 1. Trip generation based on the rates and equations obtained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (ntn Cauron). CPSP- 2010 -5 Alternative # 2: The second alternative proposes to "repeal" the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mix -Use Subdistrict all together, in which case, the land use designation would return to the Urban Designation, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. The maximum allowable development that could occur under this alternative is 365 residential dwelling units (16 DU /Acre) which would result in 2,335 daily trips and 218 p.m. peak hour trips. As indicated in the following table, the proposed Alternative # 2 would result in a net decrease of 2,639 daily trips or 243 p.m. peak hour trips. CPSP - 2010 -5 Alternative # 2• TRIP GENERATION AS PROPOSED Trip generation based on the rates and equations obtained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (8th Edition). Maximum ITE Size of Development PM Scenario Land Use Designation Allowed Density / Land Use DAY Trips Pew Trips' Acres meowed Intensity Code Development Adopted DB /CBRMU NA 220 22.8 234 DUs 1,542 146 (Residential Adopted p DB /CBRMU NA 820 22.8 35,000 sf 3,432 315 (Commercial) Proposed Urban Residential 16 DUs/ 1 220 22.8 365 DUs 2,335 218 Subdistrict Acre Change in Trips -2,639 -243 Trip generation based on the rates and equations obtained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (8th Edition). Mr. Ray Eubanks Collier County I 1 -I Proposed Growth Management Plan Amendments — FDOT Continents May 12, 2011 Page 4 of 4 The department has no comment on either proposed alternative since the development limitation in the Urban Designation, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict (Alternative #1) or the potential "repeal" of the Subdistrict (Alternative #2) would result in a net decrease in trips during the daily and p.m. peak hour conditions,. The department notes that since the property that is the subject of this amendment is located along the south side of Davis Boulevard (SR 84), any access(s) from the property to SR 84 will be subject to the FDOT access permitting process as described in Rule 14 -96 F.A.C. The FDOT Access Management standard for SR 84 from Airport Pulling Road (M.P. 1.005) to Radio Road (M.P. 24.933) is Access Class 3. Standards for Access Class 3 require a minimum spacing of 2,640 feet (one half of a mile) for signals and full median openings, 1,320 feet (one quarter of a mile) for directional median openings, and 660 feet (one eighth of a mile, at posted speed limits greater than 45 I&H) between access points for any single parcel. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (239) 461 -4300 or lawrence.massey @dot.state.fl.us. LLM/gmb/llm Sincerely, Lawrence Massey District 1 Growth Management Coordinator Southwest Area Urban Office �ti,�c�� 11r,trc SOUTHFLogim WATER MANAGEmENTDISTRIcr OS • L� April 29, 2011 Ray Eubanks, Administrator Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: Subject: Collier County, DCA #11 -1 Comments on Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Package The South Florida Water Management District has completed its review of the proposed amendments from Collier County (County). The changes amend the Future Land Use Element, including the Future Land Use Map, Map Series, and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. There appear to be no significant water resource related impacts; therefore, the District forwards no comments on the proposed amendment package. The District offers its technical assistance to the County and the Department of Community Affairs in developing sound, sustainable solutions to meet the County's future water supply needs and to protect the region's water resources. For assistance or additional information, please contact Deborah Oblaczynski (561) 682 -2544 or doblaczy@sfwmd.Qov. Sincerely, q A----�� Rod Braun Director Intergovernmental Policy and Planning Division c: Ken Heatherington, SWFRPC Deborah Oblaczynski, SFWMD Jim Quinn, DEP David Weeks, Collier County Brenda Winningham, DCA 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 333406 (561) 68&aW • FL WAi5 1-800-432-2D45 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 • wwwsfwmd.gov P FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Kurt S. Browning Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES May 2, 2011 Mr. Ray Eubanks Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100 Re: Historic Preservation Review of the Collier County 11 -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 R 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 to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan to consider the potential effects of these actions on historic resources. While our cursory review suggests n that the proposed changes may have no adverse effects on historic resources, it is the county's responsibility to ensure that the proposed revisions will not have an adverse effect on significant archaeological or historic resources. We do note that Amendment CP- 2008 -1 appears to be adjacent to an archaeological high probability area, per the county's archaeological probability zones map. The most effective way to guarantee that such sites are not adversely affected is for the county to sponsor or require historic resource surveys so that it can ensure its archaeological resources and historic structures fifty years of age or older will be considered when substantive changes in land use are proposed. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact Susan M. Harp of the Division's Compliance Review staff at 850.245.6333. Sincerely, Laura A. Kammerer, Historic Preservationist Supervisor Compliance Review Section Bureau of Historic Preservation PC: Ms. Brenda Winningham 500 S. Bronough Street . Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0250 • http: / /www.flheritage.com O Director's Office O Archaeological Research ie Historic Preservation 850245.6300 • FAX: 245.6436 850.245.6444 • FAX: 245.6452 850.245.6333 • FAX 245.6437 Brenda Winningham /DCA/FLEOC 05/10/2011 09:50 AM To Scott Rogers /DCA/FLEOC @fleoc cc bcc Subject Fw: FDACS Review of LGCP Amendments Brenda Winningham Regional Planning Administrator Department of Community Affairs Bureau of Local Planning 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 (850) 922 -1800 Fax: (850) 498-3309 E -mail: brenda .winningham @dca.state.fl.us ---- Forwarded by Brenda Winningham /DCA/FLEOC on 05/10/201109:50 AM ---- d% Lakysha Perkins /DCA/FLEOC 05/10/201108:41 AM To Anastasia Richmond /DCA/FLEOC @fleoc, Brenda Winningham /DCA/FLEOC@fleoc, Bernard Piawah/DCA/FLEOC@fleoc, James Stansbury/DCA/FLEOC @fleoc cc Subject Fw: FDACS Review of LGCP Amendments LaKysha F. Perkins 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, Fl 32399 -2100 (850)922 -1762 ---- Forwarded by Lakysha Perkins /DCA/FLEOC on 05/10/201108:40 AM - -- 10494cott, W <Ray.Soott@f esMromflorlda . To < DCPextemalagencycomments @dca.state.fl.us> com> cc 05/06/2011 11:37 AM Subject FDACS Review of LGCP Amendments FDACS has reviewed the following LGCP amendments and has no objections, recommendations, or comments: Bradford County 11 -1 ER Pasco County 11 -1 Miami -Dade County 11 D2 Bay County 11-1 - Collier County 11 -1 Please call if you have any questions or comments: W. Ray Scott Conservation & Water Policy Federal Programs Coordinator Office of Agricultural Water Policy Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 1203 Governor's Square Boulevard, Suite 200 Tallahassee, FL 32301 (office) 850 -617 -1716 (mobile) 850 -544 -9871 (fax) 850 -617 -1701 Ray.Scott@FreshFromF[orida.com " Suber, Tnvy- <Tnicy.Suber@Adoe.org> 0 04/08/201101:27 PM Hi Brenda and Scott — To < brenda .winningham@dca.state.fl.us >, <scott.rogers @dca.state.fl.us> cc <dcpextemalagencycomments @dca state.fl.us> bcc Subject FW: Collier County 11 -1 (proposed) Because the proposed amendments do not impact school sites or increase demand for school capacity, I have no comment on the proposed amendment package. Tracy Tracy D.Suber Growth Management and Facilities Policy Liaison Office of Educational Facilities Florida Department of Eduptlon 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1014 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 850 -245 -9312 traa.subertDfldoe.ora hhta: //www.fldoe.orro/edfaclV From: Anita.Franklin@dca.state.fl.us (mailto:Anita.Franklin @ dca.state.fl-usI Sent: Thursday, April 07, 20114:24 PM To: evansw@doacs.state.fl.us; Allena.Nelson@dep.state.fl.us; SHARP @DOS.STATE.FL.US; FWCConservationPlanningServi ces @myfwc.com; lawrence.massey @dot.state.fl.us; jjackson @sfwmd.gov; dcrawford @swfrpc.org; Suber, Tracy; Sparkman - Allen, Lisa Cc: jim.quinn@dep.state.fl.us Subject: Collier County 11 -1 (proposed) We are committed to maintaining the highest level of service and we value your feedback. Please complete our Cultomer Service Survey. If you require direct assistance or a response, please visit our Contact Page. Florida has a broad public records law and all correspondence, including email addresses, may be subject to disclosure. 10 Collier County 11.1 (proposed).pdf JOUL Pease consider the environllt ont - print only if neces"ry. NW 11—IN 1926 Victoria Ave, Fort Myers, Florida 33901 -3414 Mr. D. Ray Eubanks Community Program Administrator Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100 Re: Collier County / DCA 11 -1 Dear Mr. Eubanks: SAY Council FAX (239) 338 -2560 52011 CORUUI" SIO OF a Staff of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council reviewed the proposed amendments (DCA 11 - 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 amendments at its May 19, 2011 meeting. Council staff has recommended that Council find all four (4) of the requested amendments not to be regionally significant, two (2) to be procedural, three (3) to be consistent with the SRPP and one (1) to be conditionally consistent with the SRPP. A, copy of the official staff report explaining the Council staffs recommendation is attached. If Council action differs from the staff recommendation, we will notify you. Sincerely, Southwest lorida Regional Planning Council Ke eth Heatherington Executive Director KH/DEC Attachment Cc: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation, Collier County i"N LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS COLLIER COUNTY The . Council staff has reviewed proposed amendments to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan (DCA 11 -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 M. 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 MMagni de Character Consistent CP- 2008 -1 no no no (1) not regionally significant; and (2) consistent with SRPP CP- 2010 -1 no no no (1) not regionally significant; and (2) consistent with SRPP CPSP - 2010 -2:. no no no (1) procedural; (2) not regionally significant; and (3) consistent with SRPP CPSP- 20010 -5 no no no (1) procedural; (2) not regionally significant; and. (3) conditionally consistent with SRPP RECOMNMNDED ACTION: Approve staff comments. Authorize staff -to forward comments to the Department of Community Affairs and Collier County. 05/11 2 n 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 Attachment I Comprehensive Plan Amendments 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, FAQ FOR DETAILS. Page 2 Attachment II . SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW 1. Local Government Name: Collier County 2. Amendment Number: DCA 11 -1 3. Did the RPC prepare the Plan Amendment: (YES) (NO) No n 4. Date DCA Notified RPC that Amendment Package was Complete, if Applicable: April 7, 2011 5.. Date Amendment Review must be Completed and Transmitted to DCA: May 5, 2011 6. Date the Review was Transmitted to DCA: May 3, 2011 7. Description of the Amendment: 1. CP 2008 -1 This request is an amendment to the Golden- Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to create the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 190,000 square feet. of commercial uses identified in the County's C-4 zoning district, with exceptions, and some uses identified in the County's C -5 zoning district. The requested change contains requirements to construct a grocery stare on the subject site. The property is located on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard and extends from Wilson Boulevard to 3`d Street. The subject site contains 40.62 t acres. 2. CP- 2010 -1 The applicant for this change is requesting a text amendment to the FLUE to modify the language of the Vanderbilt Beach road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. The amendment would change the Subdistrict on a 9.2 f acre site located on the northeast comer .of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road. The amendment would allow a grocery store /supermarket, physical fitness facility, craft/hobby store, home furnishings store; or department store land use that may exceed the existing 20,000 square feet limitation for a single commercial use and allow a larger commercial building up to a maximum of 50,000 square feet. The uses proposed on the site exceed the square -foot cap that is currently allowed for the uses within the existing Subdistrict and therefore requires an amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan. The Vanderbilt Beach road Neighborhood commercial sub district was established in 2005 and comprises two non - contiguous parcels. Each parcel has an overall building square feet cap, and each parcel includes a maximum size for any individual commercial use of 20,000 square feet. This petition applies to Parcel 1 which is located on the comer of the Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road intersection. In 2005, the subject site was subject of a Comprehensive Plan amendment (CP- 2004 -3) that established the existing Subdistrict. The approved Subdistrict. allowed the permitted and conditional uses of the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts, other limited commercial and non - commercial uses, and residential uses up to 16 dwelling units per acre to be constructed on the property. The Board of County Commissioners approved the petition on June 7, 2005 with the limitation that a single commercial user may not exceed 20,000 square feet after discussing development expectations with the neighboring properties owners. The neighboring property owners were concerned about the potential for a "big box" development to take place on the subject site and were concerned with the potential for future commercial development on the intervening parcels that were not included in the original request. This amendment, if approved, would allow, commercial-uses such as a grocery store size development to be placed on the property. 3. CPSP - 2010 -2 This petition contains several individual staff - initiated text and map- amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FUUM)- -and Map Series. These amendments were specifically, or generally, authorized by the Board of County Commissioners on September 14, 2010. Most, but not all, of the amendments seek only to add clarity, correct text and map errors and omissions, and provide harmony and internal consistency. However, there are exceptions, including 1) changes to Policy 5.1 to allow redistribution of use density and intensity; 2)- modification of the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict pertaining to its applicability; 3) changes to the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) to delete a development standard, add a use, and add clarity regarding applicability of FLUE Policies; and 4). update the Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas -and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs N Map based upon the most recent hydrologic modeling, as required in Objective 1 of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub - Element and .subsequent policies, and Objective 3.3 of the Conservation of the Coastal Management Element and subsequent policies.. 4. CPSP- 2010 -5 This amendment consists of County staff - initiated text and map changes to -the FLUE and FLUM and Series. -. These amendments were authorized by the Board of County Commissioners on December 14, 2010, with the concurrences of the owner /petitioner. In June of 2005, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the County's FLUE and FLUM that established the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed Use Subdistrict (DB /CBRMU). The DB /CBRMU Subdistrict consisted of 22.8 acres and included as allowable uses; a 5 -acre (maximum 45,000 square feet of gross leasable area) commercial component limited to certain uses set forth in. the County Land Development Code (LDC) as C -1 through C -3 uses that generally included office, personal services, and convenience retail. The DB /CBRMU Subdistrict also provided for residential uses on the balance of the property, with the eligibility density being determined by the Density Rating System in the FLUE: Additionally, the DB /CBRMU Subdistrict also provided for residential units to be affordable housing. The amendment establishing the Subdistrict was initiated by the private sector — except for the affordable housing requirement. n After the establishment of the DB /CBRMU, the property owner submitted a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning application. During the review process of the PUD, County staff and the applicant identified issues that required Comprehensive Plan amendments. On December 14, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners continued the PUD rezoning hearing until staff could process amendments to the DB /CBRMU Subdistrict. Based on the proposed amendments, the County staff report has stated that the amendments will either revise the Subdistrict to eliminate the commercial component, affordable housing requirement, specific development standards and requirements, and establish a maximum density of five (5) dwelling units per acre (Board of County Commission direction) or repeal the Subdistrict and leave allowable density as provided for by using the Density Rating System (County staff alternative) to be finally determined- by the Board of County Commissioners. If the Subdistrict were repealed, then the land use designation would return to the urban designation, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict for developing. affordable housing. The County staff prepared a comparative impact analyses between -the two alternatives. The analyses showed that the proposed removal of the commercial component and a limitation on residential density to a maximum of up to 114 residential dwelling units (5 units per gross eligible acre) verses the currently proposed density of 234 dwelling units (10.25 units per gross eligible acre) would result in a significant reduction of traffic impacts. With the reduction in intensity and density, there is sufficient traffic capacity to serve the proposed maximum allowable density of 114 dwelling units. Based on this information, the requested amendments involve a number of FLUE text and FLUM and Map Series changes that remove or revise the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed -Use Subdistrict entries in the FLUE. S. Is the Amendment consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan: 1. CP 2008 -1 In March 2010, the Council reviewed and approved Council staffs comments concerning this development request. Specifically, Council staff reviewed the requested amendments to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series that would create an Estates Shopping Center. Based on the requested changes the proposed development would have a maximum of 210,000 square feet of commercial uses as identified in the County's C -5 zoning district and contain a requirement to construct a grocery store. Council staff also stated that based on the County staff report, the proposed development had gone thru some changing parameters as it was reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and the petitioner worked with the County on a variety of concerns both public and private. During the public input portion of the CCPC meeting, Council staff pointed out that several people stated local concerns about the development, mostly dealing with increased traffic, consistency with the rural character of the area, whether there was enough population to support the development, and whether there would be disruptions in the quietness of the surrounding area. Based on the information provided in the original petition, County staff concluded that the project would likely reduce local vehicle trips traveled by providing additional commercial and employment opportunities proximate to the area's residents. Council staff agreed with the County staff's conclusions that the development would he appropriate with the conditions that the County was placing on the proposal. Council staff considered the local objections to the project and found them to be compatibility related and therefore was a local issue. Council staff also determined that there were no significant regional resources negatively impacted by the proposed development nor did the development have multi jurisdictional impacts. Council staff found that the proposed amendment was not regionally significant due to its sub - threshold magnitude, location and character. Council staff specifically stated that given its location in the County, it would help provide employment opportunities and reduce traffic on the adjacent road network. Council staff also found that the proposed development, given the development parameter conditions being placed on the development by the petitioner and County to be consistent with the SRPP. The current requested amendment has now resulted in a development that has been.. reduced in size to a maximum of 190,000 square feet, which is somewhat smaller than 4 n the original project that was reviewed by Council staff, and given that the project will reduce the impacts to -the surrounding area even more, and given that the concerns identified by the surrounding residents are -c_ ompatibility issues associated with the development site plan, buffering and other development issues and not related to significant impacts to regional resources, Council staff continues to find that the requested amendments under review is consistent with the SRPP. 2. CP- 2010 -1 Based on the information submitted, Council staff has reviewed the project and agrees with the County staff assessment that the proposed changes will result in less overall development and reduce the impacts to the surrounding transportation network. The existing Subdistrict allows the same uses as those proposed by the Growth Management Plan amendment and the existing Subdistrict . in that it does not contain development standards specific to the subject parcel. Additionally, the Mixed Use Planned Development (MUPUD) approved for the subject site contains appropriate development standards to ensure that the existing approved development within the project is compatible with surrounding properties. Further, the proposed increase in commercial intensity, from the 20,000 to 50,000 square feet for certain commercial uses, will be reviewed for compatibility with surrounding properties at the time of the rezoning/PUD amendment. There are no additional public facilities impacts resulting from the proposed amendment as noted by the County's staff report. Given that the concerns identified by the surrounding residents are local compatibility n issues associated with potential impacts from "big box development" that will be addressed in future zoning approvals and related conditions and are not related to significant impacts to regional resources, Council staff therefore finds that the requested amendments are consistent with the SRPP. 3. CPSP- 2010 -2. Council staff has reviewed this request and because the proposed amendments are related to adding clarity, providing corrections to the texts and map errors and omissions, and providing harmony within the County's Comprehensive Plans, Council staff finds these amendments to be procedural in nature. Additionally, Council staff has also reviewed the more specific changes related to Policy 5.1 that allow redistribution of use density and intensity; that allow the modifications related applicability of the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict; the changes to the B/GTRO that relate to the deletion of a development standard, add a use, and add clarity to the use of the FLUE policies; and the modifications that update the Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASR-s Map are also procedural. Based on these reviews, Council staff finds that the proposed amendments.are not regional in nature and are consistent with the SRPP. 4. CPSP - 2010 -5 Based on the County staff report the amendments will either revise the Subdistrict to eliminate the commercial component, affordable housing requirement, specific n 5 development standards and requirements, and establish a maximum density of five (5) dwelling units per acre (Board of County Commission direction) or repeal the Subdistrict and leave allowable density as provided for by using the Density Rating System (County staff alternative) to be finally determined by the. Board of County Commissioners: If the Subdistrict were repealed, then the land use designation would return to the urban designation, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict for developing affordable housing. County staff analyses between the two alternatives showed that the proposed removal of the commercial component and a limitation on residential density to a maximum of up to 114 residential dwelling units (5 units per gross eligible acre) verses the currently proposed density of 234 dwelling units (10.25 units per gross eligible acre) would result in a significant reduction of traffic impacts in the area of the subject site. Based on this information, Council staff finds that the request is not regionally significant in that the proposed amendments do not - exceed DRI thresholds, the location of the subject parcel does not impact regional resources and the character while regional because it will affect the supply of affordable housing in the County, it is not large enough provide regionally significant impacts. While Council staff does not object to the changes proposed to place a grocery store size facility and other commercial uses on the subject property, this change is not regional in nature. However, Council staff is concerned about approval of a request to remove affordable housing in the urbanized area of the County. Council staff would recommend that some of the approved affordable housing be retained on the site as possible as provisions are made for the commercial uses. Council staff therefore finds that the proposed amendments are conditionally consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP). If the County through its zoning approval can maintain the maximum number of affordable housing units on the subject site as possible, the proposed amendments will be consistent with the SRPP. 9. 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: 1. CP 2008 -1 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. 0 n 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 l: 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. Goal 4: Livable communities designed to improve quality of life and to provide for the sustainability of our natural resources. Strategy: Promote through the Council's review roles community design and development principles that protect the Region's natural resources and provide for an improved quality of life. Action 8: Working with all levels of government within Southwest Florida actively plan for lands that have been acquired for natural resource purposes to be maintained and managed to preserve their environmental integrity. Action 9: Insure that opportunities for governmental partnerships and public /private partnerships in preserving wildlife habitats are maximized. 2. CP- 2010 -1 . 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. 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. 7 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. Goal 4: Livable communities designed to improve quality of life and to provide for the sustainability of our natural resources. Strategy: Promote through the Council's review roles community design and development principles that protect the Region's natural resources and provide for an improved quality of life. Action 8: Working with all levels of government within Southwest Florida actively plan for lands that have been acquired for natural resource purposes to be maintained and managed to preserve their environmental integrity. Action 9: Insure that opportunities for governmental partnerships and public /private partnerships in preserving wildlife habitats are maximized. 3. CPSP - 2010 -2 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. 8 Action 9: Insure that opportunities for governmental partnerships and public /private partnerships in preserving wildlife habitats are maximized. 4. CPSP- 2010 -5 Livable Communities Goal 2: Southwest Florida will develop (or redevelop) communities that are livable -and offer residents a wide range of housing and employment opportunities. Strategy: Develop livable, integrated communities that offer residents a high quality of life Action 1: Encourage programs that promote infill development in urban areas-to maximize the efficient use of existing infrastructure. Action 2: Work with local governments to promote structures and developments that combine commercial and residential uses as a means of providing housing that is affordable and near employment opportunities. Livable Communities Goal 4: Livable communities designed to improve quality of life and to provide for the sustainability of our natural resources. Strategy: Promote through the Council's review roles community design and development principles that protect the Region's natural resources and provide for an improved quality of life. Action 8: Working with all levels of government within Southwest Florida actively plan for lands that have been acquired for natural- resource purposes to be maintained and managed to preserve their environmental integrity. Action 9: Insure that opportunities for governmental partnerships and public /private partnerships in preserving wildlife habitats are maximized. Affordable Housing The Supply of Affordable Housing Goal 1: Supply a variety of housing types in various price ranges to ensures that all residents have access to decent and affordable housing. Strategy: Increase the supply of affordable housing through public and private efforts. Action 1: Assist local governments in iden *dfizring the housing needs of very low, low and moderate - income households in the Region. 0 Action 2: Review housing elements of local comprehensive plans to ensure those needs are identified and considered when funding choices are made. Action 3: Assist. local governments and non- profit organizations in identifying and adopting innovative funding sources and programs for the development of affordable housing. Action 4: 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. Action 5: Encourage local governments to adopt strategies that promote the development of affordable housing by the private and nonprofit sectors including incentives such as one -step permitting/review process for developers and contractors and the donation of publicly owned lands for development by non -profit organizations. Action 6: Work with state programs to change current criteria that make it difficult to compete for projects in some portions of the region. 10. The effects of the Proposed Amendment on Regional Resources or Facilities Identified in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan: All the proposed amendments have been reviewed by Council Staff for Regional impacts and found that none of the requested changes will have significant impacts on any Regional resource or facilities that are found in the SRPP. 11. 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 comments, the new developments that would result ffom the requested amendments will not have extra jurisdictional impacts in that they are located internal to the County and will not impact other jurisdictions. In addition, the proposed amendments will not have extra jurisdictional impacts that would be inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan due to the fact that the changes are local in intent and wit not produce impacts that are regional in nature. The amendment requests that provide clarity, harmony and error corrections within the County's Comprehensive Plan are found by the Council staff to be procedural in nature and will not have extra jurisdictional impact that would be inconsistent with County's Comprehensive Plan. Council staff has found that the proposed amendments to reduce the number of affordable housing units in CPSP - 2010 -5 is conditionally approved in that the SRPP supports the provision of affordable housing units as much as possible. Collier County has historically 10 had difficulty providing affordable housing unit for its workforce and even given the reduction of housing prices in the County over the past few years, this need is still present. Council staff has stated in this report that the amendment is conditionally approved only if the affordable housing element in the request is maintained as much as possible. 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: 12. Compatibility among local plans including, but not limited to, land use and compatibility with military bases: Council staff has review the proposed land use and site plans for the proposed development and finds that the development parcels affected by the Plan changes are compatible with the adjacent land uses if approved by the County utilizing the development standards present in the PUD approval process. None of the requests are found by the Council to have compatibility issues if appropriate buffering and locations are approved. The proposed amendments will not impact any military bases. 13. 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, these amendments will not significantly reduce regional groundwater recharge on the subject sites and will not significantly increase the potable water consumption in the area. The proposed developments provided for in these requests have been shown by the County as to actually reduce impacts from what has been previously approved, therefore no significant regional resources or facilities. that are identified in the SRPP will be negatively impacted, including -groundwater and the water supply. 14. Affordable housing. issues and designation of adequate sites for affordable housing: The proposed amendment CPSP - 2010 -5 may have impacts on the number of 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 Council staff has provided a recommendation that affordable housing units associated with this request be retained as much as possible in order to be consistent with the SRPP, the affordable housing issue will be addressed. Council staff therefore finds that the affordable housing issue will be adequately addressed. 11 15. 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 not have impacts to regionally significant resources as previously identified in this assessment and has stated by the April 29, 2011 South Florida Water Management District letter. There are no springs requiring protection on or near the subject site. 16. 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: Council staff has reviewed the subject developments that would result from the proposed amendment changes and finds that the projects as described will produce fewer impacts to the regional transportation corridors and facility and thereby do not present compatibility issues. The proposed amendments will not negatively impact roadways, airports, public transportation systems, high speed rail facilities, and intermodal facilities. The Region does not contain any seaports. 17. 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 proposed amendments 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. . 18. Analysis of the effects of extra- jurisdiction impacts which may be created by the amendment: Council staff has reviewed the amendments concerning the commercial. and residential developments that would result and no extra jurisdictional regional impacts could be identified by the proposed amendments. 12 Attachment III Maps Collier County . DCA 11 -1 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments Site Locations Collier County Comprehensive Plan Amendments DCA 11 -1 CP- 2008 -1 APPENDIX 2 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Kt's R26E R27E RLOC LU O LLI co :.F • i I ti I !+ rierr � I � � �... . ` � � • ' l� •i. � f r � feT. 'S4.e. - 5 .1 WY ]y y • F K e 4 ; •� i•i PLANNED UNIt DEVELOPMENTS, a C.OMMERICALAND INDUSTRIAL } • f a ZONING Legend Lam; ' Q PUD u PUB COMMERCIAL .3 � j Legend _ It •r _�C.sg11RF'!.?YfT_ _ SLGGE _ PUB INDUSTRIAL E- - IRDUSTRIAL rJ e - COUMERCIAL r ?-! h �a eert� ee 1 __.3 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 36 of 71 36 EXHIBIT V.D.5 �11 >t1 ` 9• —'i G{''9 �yf� 1 . ,V 4 j1tl 3 r>•f iG3My `J'Y:f�i i �f`1' {P (�i� } " i��`� "`13�•� t �. Y },,+�� Sr �� y a, � � +,° , s s � u La i , A"in 5 �, (� 0 q s� Na %l t i•$ "'r ..ji. �'' ' #iij y; F'lr�tut;. ` R�' %`. ;'24 1 )n. ?90 I e. J WA �i$, iF .,. Sr `a"fSu !4�� i { Ja°' fi v Y 5 �` .1 Y ti.'e _ . �. �. `,Y t_.. .:.:Y�Ia .l. .!. t 1�:'!:. .,51; ..d 7 _ ... .e t r� t�f,5a i t Fes, rtr�ry,', �'1 IY11,'r}'f rY1 Ya"�r1�'��%-- ;'�XO''�tY�. ui4irgti• {!q ,11,!_ Pf, yyyy.vv r yFii��t3 y wTl _ tk J I a :F¢ GIra(y IinCC I Collier County Comprehensive Plan Amendments DCA 11 -1 CP- 2010 -1 Q R 25E R 26 E R 22 E 2006 - 2016 FUTURE LAND USE MAP vl Collier County Florida OVERLAY AREA ARE SHOWN ..7-FUTURE LANG uss mAp tinm OLUIR cou"T RUM A AamcuLTURAL 4mm 0 I SUBJECT SITE YOU., / r J R 25 E fi 26 E_ R 28E R 29 E R 30 E HENDRY CO— R 31 E I R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E URBAN DESIGNATION 11", 011 ESTAIES DESIGNATION o WNSERVATIM UESIGNA UO. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES .. ED =49— R 27 E AGRICULTURAL RURAL DESIONA710H 13 ■ In O lA NI �jLn E VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.B EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION SUBJECT SITE: VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT = 9.2± ACRES 11", 011 R 27 E 3 26 E R_29 In O lA NI �jLn E VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.B EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION SUBJECT SITE: VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT = 9.2± ACRES W, ti ytV V. . . .... Y, �.bd: 00 R 3p E R 3,7"" R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E In O lA NI �jLn E VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.B EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION SUBJECT SITE: VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT = 9.2± ACRES ROAD (C.R. 846) t ummurv� n tp�iJRA�EE,RL)(�u r i i h UARE ��f 'd !' SURREY CENTE APRIL sl��"E :- Jy');�� ✓ PLACE RECENT CONVALESCENT PARK CIRCI o IST RAN S C -4 LIVINGSTON NAPLES RK NORTHSIDE LAKES 29 RCH DAILY NEWS MEDICAL IMMOKALEE x 28 / CREEKSIDE TER (S) ROAD MALIBU GbLdN CAT6 E9TAT€S -3 COMMERCE 26 CENTER a THE LAKE t1N1T 97 A HERITF PARK STONEBRIDGE 25 BOSLEY 30 RICAS GREE 27 o a - 3 Z v BREEZEWOOD w CRESC NT ($) -t PELICAN LAKE HAMILTON a GREENS i O MARSH O ESTATE CO Z SfiQN61NG ' � � )N Z 2� bAKS `.. O E (n J I,k q r C -4 PELICAN 4 �aA iSLA (DRI�LK ; MARSH OC MARSH (n CU x 34 (DRI) IL (DRI) p 31 w G WtlEN OATEI E$7A1�E5 r' Ca ROAD ,1`;' C -4 35 a 36 WILSHIRE LAKES ; °: 1 1117, 1�� ` f 33 4. WALGREENS D )1: MARKER LAKE S IT E v PELICAN MARSH 9 C -4 VILLAS (DRI) j VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD VANDERBILT BEACH r BRADFORD VANDERBILT a `' LEMURIA SQUARE TRUST (DRI) VENETIAN PLAZA HEA `EP' MONTEREY FODUNTA LY VINEYARDS CITRUS (DRI) GARDENS PINE U EMERALD Kt RIDGE LAKES vi O n Z) 2 CAY SAPLACE H 3 Q cL LAGOON J UJ O (P) P BAPTIST Q: SLEEPY O m w HOLLOW 4 Y SUNSHINE J VILLAGE BEAR (5) Q o CREEK WILLOW PRINCESS m II OR n. :1.Ct0Efl0 0 1000' 2000' SCALE: 1" s 2000' VINEYARDS SQUARE TRUST (DRI) BRIGHTON GARDENS VINEYARDS CITRUS (DRI) GARDENS OAK ossom(S) GROVE LCS 1 NAPLES 6 LONGVIEW FIRST CENTER BAPTIST LONE CHURCH V.F.W. ) OAK 4fr;�tl�e` WILLOW PRINCESS " / 1+p PARK PARK `''Pu;`��-yl IrF a* ® GradyMlnor rymNn dlrHiM x:@.011.1111 Inrtl Thm pm12N. mlm moorH nal.lxfr.bnnn n nnld.r xan.au.tonl °n" fllil Enplmm>, Utnll FHrvcprrn • vr.nrlcrn, ulnmN.JI • 1'ImalN.rn • LandneapN Alrohllecln mwnwn l.: rmmmml ,Iran cen nr wnl.anmmlm nxn.fmMTllnnr.rnm V, Ilrml)nllnm and rMnnHvlen. l'. \. TEACH ROAD NEICHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL EXHIBIT V.A.) GENERAL LOCATION MAP ,.,.a t Or j ZONED.' VINEYARDS DRIIPUD 7 4 USE: PPL EASEMENT AND ORCHARDS SINGLE AND g MQUI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ,r r rx xr SCALE: 1" 00 ZONING; PELICAN MARSH DRIIPUD USE: GOLF COURSE AND SINOLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBJECT PROPERTY ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE USE: ANIMAL SAFARI PET HOSPITAL AND RESORT AND BOBBIN HOLLOW EQUESTRIAN CENTER EXISTING ZONING: BRADFORD SQUARE PUD EXISTING FLUE: VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD ' NEIGHBORHOOD - - COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT EXISTING USE: VACANT COMMERCIAL IN D PELICAN MARSH DRIIPUD USE FPL EASEMENT, GOLF f' � I "z COURSE. AND 116LF COURSE MAINTENANCE BUILDING C� wal ZONING: DRIIPUD (PELICAN MARSH) C USE: GOLF COURSE AND SINGLE FAMILY ZONED: VINEYARDS DRIIPUD j ZONED.' VINEYARDS DRIIPUD 7 4 USE: PPL EASEMENT AND ORCHARDS SINGLE AND g MQUI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ,r r rx xr SCALE: 1" 00 ZONING; PELICAN MARSH DRIIPUD USE: GOLF COURSE AND SINOLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBJECT PROPERTY ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE USE: ANIMAL SAFARI PET HOSPITAL AND RESORT AND BOBBIN HOLLOW EQUESTRIAN CENTER EXISTING ZONING: BRADFORD SQUARE PUD EXISTING FLUE: VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD ' NEIGHBORHOOD - - COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT EXISTING USE: VACANT COMMERCIAL "� .• , VA IL BEACILIltOA17 ;i°�- a C"y o- s�me K° i .w..e ,; � '_ _ADJACENT ADJACENT PROPERTY "A""I}y"`)�si�,r -7v ^' I.h`�'rY•:C. .c- r�:...J'.`" wal ZONING: DRIIPUD (PELICAN MARSH) C USE: GOLF COURSE AND SINGLE FAMILY ZONED: VINEYARDS DRIIPUD RESIDENTIAL ifl A' xIy`_ I USE: VILLAGE WALK SINGLE AND SOUTH 20NED: VINEYARDS DRIIPUD USE: BERMUDA ISLEt MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONING: DRIIPUD (VINEYARDS) USE: VILLA 'E WALK SINGLE FAMILY MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL .w p RESIDENTIAL Nam ❑• �• /r` 1 f - EAST ZONING: A AGRICULTURE USE: ANIMAL SAFARI PET HOSPITAL AND RESORT ' AND BOBBIN HOLLOW EQUESTRIAN CENTER "� .• , -.fins x u. S 1 WEST r Y'.•{ ZONING: DRIIPUD (PELICAN MARSH AND VINEYARDS) i •i C 8 USE: FPL EASEMENT, GOLF COURSE AND B #', - -). ORCHARDS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL xl ::{ a -. — ° a "a SI I - 2MUIT HIJ F N Ft r [ I I II 1.1:11111 GradyMinor N hlu LNILrllail ANDERRILf R.ICN RWO NEICNDORNOOD COMMERCIAL SUDDISM x¢Tx/MI4 M Nam ❑• 'lll1.111 TSUi EXHIBIT V.A.2 .. CI1il Lntilaanr+ • Land xuDenxx • PlonncrN • L.wim.1 . Arrxlteclx E %ISTINC LAND USE AND ZONING en.,n nnl. ral lxn a exn.�•mml.lnanvn ylxnw.a<Ll. enxwzxx _ x..,a .1 x "Ix.cmlpvhlxr.n,m q. rrnm axnxr nxn Axnlxmvx. ra. DATE AERIAL FLOWN: JANUARY 2008 a "w vi xn sxccr I of I I ZONED PUD PELICAN MARSH ( IBURON GOLF COURSE) LANOSCAPE BUFFER ARE HEW BERM INTO ExIsTING BERM BERM ERN TIE HEW INTO EXISTING BERM --TOE 0� BERM —PROPERTY LINE F rYPE 'F' CURB A TOE OF BERM RETAINED PRESERVE VEGETATION III Jill (1.35 AC.) TYPE '0' PROPOSED S' TYPE 'a' sinEWALK j (TYPICAL It I - I I L LANDSCAPE BUFFER mzz5Rn!!� 100 r - W PROPERTY UNE TYPE 0 : I , CURB ZONED A I'm ° ; "i 30' 1 7- + 1 1 ='Y - 1 200 (TYPICAL) (BEST FRIENDS !0 f 1 PROPOSED 6 PET RESORT) (410CEZ V U LAND summmy u. tam. E — - — - — — - TYPE All Ll PnPE4 wit M".. t WALK-- -4 In III w 11-C.N m, Lit ALITY WATER PRITREA E m t IWN 400 c c (0,42 AC.) 300 p " " TYPE 4 LANDSCAPE TOP OF BERM .,I— or T, wj., BUFFER I— �. . 1.1ml .1 "1 m'" com" ml PROPOSED 6 qw. PRCKRTY LINE Ill 101 1 11 n F] 171 J' TYPED' LANDSCAPE BUFFER I am Ty LINE 11- ISIDEWALK .1m Ci ........... .. ------- ... ........ T VANDERBIL.T A :TYPE 'F' BE Ok RbAG CURB CURB ----------------------- I ---------------------- I ---------------------- L - --- ----- ----- — -- --------- — ................ . ..... .............. Lu BRADFORD S 05134MP IHM LID 4396-01 Hose f— M.P.UiD. MASTER PLAN "BRADFORD SQUARE 90".FLWi0 I1 2� DEVELOPER u,, C. OIL HOLE moRms., Cr."_ of EXHIBIT "A" (CONCEPTUAL PLAN) 1.11VINGSTON VILLAGE LLC co! i O. 00 N! W 0- Collier County Comprehensive Plan Amendments DCA 11 -1 CPSP - 2010 -2 R 28 E r %l��41 R 25 E —T— R 26 E R 27 E R 28 E. R 3U L 2006 - 2016 _ FUTURE LAND USE MAP fl i.. RCCMT B.r `• rn Collier County Florida L♦1�11�� m .Y DETAILS OF THE RLSA OVERLAY AREA ARE SHOWN N AS MARCO H j mjm_ a ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP nTLED: ® " ESTATES OE8IGNATION � ^COLLIERCOU TY RURALA AGRICULTURAL 'm'' �"MP w/^'� B"BpsnRC, � CONSERVATION CEEIGNATION LO AREA ASSESSMENT STEINARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP" ® VRUM CDA5IAL IpINLE 9UBDISMCi BUSKERS PARR SVUDIBMICI w -CDR KSC4ppEN OVERLAYS AND - SPECIAL FEATURES y ' = SAI5WAM - 9V9nR5$ PAM AU'Ril CT ®CgSM141EPICI dOER S3ICT C.0 SUMIMICT UMMOOR M ROAD M INCORPMAIFD MW El ALES SWp PUP W 3RU.CE CENIEA SUBDISMItT C,,RSMROA MAED ME 319015" IT ... COASTAL MM HAZARD AREA CR -VY NR_Pk REMCERRAL MrtD UX NO..— SVMSMICT UNN091d1 POM / VCRgM'R MEMDIBM BlA9. CPSRDIIpAI AL" WE . SUMS "' MAFTM CUROFSII�I 1—CAR, MA OF CMOCAL 91A- CMCEM BVDPAY Ti ! MIAFMD USEEL TMCT YMUMM.T BEAM / SOISIDI BLM. i� dAPLCTR / PINF RIDUi C.1— SUBU,./ COMMERCIAL dnu 31ADICRT xx JOT HENDERSM CRDA ® P� 1 5 / Ilttpli 4TO3spPADS M ZD USE SUDD13MIC1 5111 1111A1MAL gESM1pC[ 1- �: E RC3EMM MD TE CLOST PARR AuMNIMMT AGRICULTURAL /RURAL PpplECndl AREA {NRPA) DMSAY LAm1oP VAR11'ATMy A V fRn 1 ,Ifr t'yl 1 — CLAM �•; 11*u RAY J11 NRPA ,1 •T nAnAl —.11 SVB HECI AURICULTUgPLA1UPAL ARM UBB PIUTxIDT f MCA PREm.1Y n�SP ViposmmS IRr '� S BMPEYM — UAPN pDAD ❑4MttD UX 6UM1f T .RURAL COAIMRCIAL CUBDISM.T ® UAVAK-RONURA, H OHRUY R 28 E r %l��41 R 28 E. R 3U L R 31 E R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E fl i.. RCCMT B.r `• MOgvAL�FSiD L♦1�11�� ^1.11• Rn rpMp. �M/pyI •.. QTY 9 -. ��I N AS MARCO H j mjm_ R 28 E I`" ! I FLORIDA PANTHER . ` S AMENDED - EMPVMT. IUUI �J 1s NATIONAL WILDLIFE FY1 ! REFUCE -rT u I� TH GOL7GN. E ESTAI VRPA FAKAHATCHEE STRAND STATE PRESERVE -rte L CAPE ROMANO - TEN 1NWSAl!Djtg [eS, + ' AOUARC PR SLR` ` �lHE_�+ y f SIY P ~ 1.�j'! 5. `i Li �:�'@HIG1�E8 \RATgNAL .PARR PPEPAPCD PT: p5/CAD IIMPMD S—ON CPDiYIH MMACEMENI DIY,MDN %UN.VMP AM RFAVL.1nM f'j 1`" - '.i•!I:� . PAM. 101— ERE. --l— R-26 E R 28 E R 27 E R 20 E R 29 E R 3 Q• R 31 E BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESuRVE R 32 E w -4 w -1 N w H w R 33 E R 34 E R 28 E. R 3U L R 31 E R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E URBAN D681CNATION aPNRERCUL 01U3gMT Ili— X,,E AREA DISMICT L♦1�11�� M[[B UUB MUTPIDT ® 9UBd51RICT RURAL RIOV9IPIAL p191MtT a UMAR RESODITN &MdSMICT AVCVAtt ERm MMD M .—R SusdRMe 0 "I'D. --M 01 ® " ESTATES OE8IGNATION � 'm'' �"MP w/^'� B"BpsnRC, � CONSERVATION CEEIGNATION LO ® VRUM CDA5IAL IpINLE 9UBDISMCi BUSKERS PARR SVUDIBMICI w MsrMM AM TECNNmDDr PMP RUS.— OMAx nESOENna TMNOE SugdsrdcT IAMCDOx n➢M / U—wt, LANE OVERLAYS AND - SPECIAL FEATURES 9V9nR5$ PAM AU'Ril CT ®CgSM141EPICI dOER S3ICT C.0 SUMIMICT UMMOOR M ROAD M INCORPMAIFD MW El ALES SWp PUP W 3RU.CE CENIEA SUBDISMItT C,,RSMROA MAED ME 319015" IT ... COASTAL MM HAZARD AREA t, REMCERRAL MrtD UX NO..— SVMSMICT UNN091d1 POM / VCRgM'R MEMDIBM BlA9. CPSRDIIpAI AL" WE . SUMS "' MAFTM CUROFSII�I 1—CAR, MA OF CMOCAL 91A- CMCEM BVDPAY MIAFMD USEEL TMCT YMUMM.T BEAM / SOISIDI BLM. i� dAPLCTR / PINF RIDUi C.1— SUBU,./ COMMERCIAL dnu 31ADICRT r/ AMPORT RdX ApU OVERUY HENDERSM CRDA ® P� 1 5 / Ilttpli 4TO3spPADS M ZD USE SUDD13MIC1 5111 1111A1MAL gESM1pC[ RC3EMM MD TE CLOST PARR AuMNIMMT AGRICULTURAL /RURAL PpplECndl AREA {NRPA) DMSAY LAm1oP VAR11'ATMy A V B Mur MNED uX suxdRMlm DE810NATION RMEME MeuT DYLmer nAnAl —.11 SVB HECI AURICULTUgPLA1UPAL ARM UBB PIUTxIDT f MCA PREm.1Y n�SP ViposmmS y S BMPEYM — UAPN pDAD ❑4MttD UX 6UM1f T .RURAL COAIMRCIAL CUBDISM.T ® UAVAK-RONURA, H OHRUY ® UCNMPNLIIERMIMRL /N OR 9TPC�T COREYl "D NE-11— ® CP3CRMMENCIAL SUMSTMCT VA .,kT BEAM ROAD 1. NUdMORHDOO COMIS[Rppl NUDDI1PICl R� AUML FAEIUB ARAM VL[ pUTRroT CpM1NNUY pdTl UtISE MFAUC DVCRUr MIEPMMPE o FA SUDDISMD ❑ E] MV.T A1.. Cr RCEEMXO IANPR PTRML MUIMCT ® SMMP LANDS SW EIS ..-CHAMR SUBdf 1 M i[OIN0.UVY PARR SVUPIS1PICT MIIIPAL LAMS MTN , A (i) nro BAR cM xDT X mw^.e+rP uMwr nrt ADAU PR ACn SES .NP rapes ar mE court courin Rnepnl uAHAwMDar ( TI[ NHS W9� Kra SMtl MQJTLS HVNPUJS RAVf d AepnOM Rf R0 WUIIRMPC NMF Wm VSf MM Rv MD IDeAICV ra G9rO..ierNE NM¢ LWD uCt e+vdi 1LTf. rIM. o w ynPX mnel (R) 111[ Nth[ I.VOfCV [WRAP CdR9 Paw. RSMDISMICR TC M— (R) M CdM1IMnPP RuBNAnPN R M.ROr 10 MAMUL AS AAM AM ACPM[U AHD 4pT M— —AR-- P (9) RRP A TX[ UD1U0141L ARE YABM PLAN MID IIIC MSMAIX AREA MAR- T1M IV1 NMR IIIIU USE RAPS 4 RIDfI N1IWIPR[B. PU1VR[ LARD USE NAP MOPTFD - .M1111MY, MUP All ALIEIIDFO - AAHUARY. IBSD w I`" ! I FLORIDA PANTHER . ` S AMENDED - EMPVMT. IUUI �J 1s NATIONAL WILDLIFE FY1 ! REFUCE -rT u I� TH GOL7GN. E ESTAI VRPA FAKAHATCHEE STRAND STATE PRESERVE -rte L CAPE ROMANO - TEN 1NWSAl!Djtg [eS, + ' AOUARC PR SLR` ` �lHE_�+ y f SIY P ~ 1.�j'! 5. `i Li �:�'@HIG1�E8 \RATgNAL .PARR PPEPAPCD PT: p5/CAD IIMPMD S—ON CPDiYIH MMACEMENI DIY,MDN %UN.VMP AM RFAVL.1nM f'j 1`" - '.i•!I:� . PAM. 101— ERE. --l— R-26 E R 28 E R 27 E R 20 E R 29 E R 3 Q• R 31 E BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESuRVE R 32 E w -4 w -1 N w H w R 33 E R 34 E EXHIBIT W, AMENDED - JANUARY 25, 2005 (Ord No. 2005 -03) AMENDED - JUNE �, 2005 (Drd No. 2005 -25) AMENDED - OCTOBER 14, 2008 Ord. No. 2008 -59 R 25 E R 26 E tg W T� N t > e V LEE W n > Cmi" cc a .. ■ 9 10 t1 iq GR am ✓'S20 11 1 a lm 17 K 16 m I It y a c 1 4 F a 12 r as f m at. v a a iz f 8 m x C.R 846 rL C.R. B46 a n 5 qa >s >o a a n a qi 11 aQ /( a a x as a C.R 862 Y 1 _ i i 1 S { a 6 4 12 13 10 1 / > C.R. 896 C.R. 896 v Lj w K " U Q K 17 f0 16 14 >S O D ¢ m v B s F Li a a a C.R. B86 tD a a a n a tllj ti C.R. 856 I -75 \\ C) SR 64 9 1 S.R. 84 YI O 14 i �17 ie " IA C.R. 864 O N F MIXED USE 6 INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER INDEX MAP a a a qa a m a a a Q U 0 1 MI. 2 W. 3 ML SCALE — 16 i N rn 4j N N 10 z vi a 14 n F PREPARED BY. CIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION - GROWIH MANAGEMENT DIVISION / PLANNING AND REGULATION DATE 12/2D1D FILE ACCESS - INDEX- 2010.DWG R 25 E R 26 6 AMENDED - JANUARY 25, 2005 (Ord No. 2005 -03) AMENDED - JUNE �, 2005 (Drd No. 2005 -25) AMENDED - OCTOBER 14, 2008 Ord. No. 2008 -59 � o o " -. , 1111111 ■��o� a � loom -01-1 ACTIVITY CENTER 01 LW. MLHR no" nn. "M - AOIPORT -p1 O MAO Oo N en.r e.u., w.Aa LEGEND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSK EXISTING ZONING \ = DEVELOPED LAND USE( // —W J _W EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 8 aoe n. rea uwvua sc;c: v wm ��e•.v um acuu�n PUD nAamex � 111111111111111111111111. IIIIIIiillt�o111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIH�1111 k. IIIIIIIIIIIIIm111N1111111; yr , y;. �, I �; -'.. e' � 111111111111111111111111. IIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIH�1111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIm111N1111111; 1111111111111 � 11111111111 111111�111��1 11111111111��11111111111 ®1111111��11 Illlllllllllimllllllllllll 111111111111 � � 11111111111 II afar f i %LI \ mw .mrn —.1 I aax m.. I E �F [eMMONI I'LtCE EAST ,y M1 o m pPUO r "uex ACTIVITY CENTER #2 TAI77AEG TRAM R7.& 171 - IMMOKALBR ROAD ma. ele, ==INGS EGEND ENTER BOUNDARY ONING // \ LAND USE \mss 1 ILDINGS AND STRUC TURES/ sm O,61t MMl'!w % +� MRMAIM.M 'RPUD I A I MPUD I RAROL mm rw O Z, A A MPLID � TRf[ GARM PUD 1 4 Ixmrna eAr fL`I y ema F eavm aRat vane � n.na yg 1Y0f1 0 � veer G ePUn nRe ,aAeT. xaRl7 sAr ^J.'r L' ' CINH I CARH ORAIIXILE ROAD t1I— III) DINORAEEt ROAD (0.11. ael) PUD �. v Rva9.ARO I p S A A w E.r ��ii�n�i Hu �nmm�n I \� RPUD w I t—, fW!i9:3)9111 ACTIVITY CENTER 08 WHORALRR ROAD IDS 8491 - OA. 951 s A rArrtfunGwamp�,AUmm ccmi RoIn AAA�.een�RA %U ® ��a efYe��comm LEGEND e99weIR ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY rtc� -3 EXISTING ZONING LJ DEVELOPED LAND USE(�T > * EXISTING BIRLDINGS AND STRUCTURES cat R. vRnA1sD sD ca xAmn rzcnoR �A�Aa �ne�l ��D o Ars RtauuwR ACTIVITY CENTER #4 IADAORALRR ROAD M.R. 8461 - MnMTATR T6 t.me e..nee, n.na LEGEND A� ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF.3 EXISTING ZONING ��= DEVELOPED LAND USE (m ) tsar -10- EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES sc u Q� o ear rt. CRCPRDWMN DT:' CIS /CAO NAHMD tECiioN RI MADA¢R T DMCIDN / PIANNINO AND RFDVLA6DR 16£ AL1- PD16.DYA OARI 1P /PDIo RMF6 uqu I �m awl 73 PIJD .x u. �i f t Sl;iy�; i� L i C -b reR.R Nev l B � HMF -'In (D i A \ �J � I v "• M. �T D � r O• rrcr � as O FIID rwa. R14 F T O Q c 0 ACTIVITY CENTER ES ,RR" DMOR ROAD B1H. RIM - TAWAM TRAR. NH. UI 6RMr �1R. AMY LEGEND 001111111111 ACTIMTY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -3 EXISTING ZONING r � DEVELOPED LAND USE (� ) ATy}n EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES uRU ORDIIM NINA � t RROR)N / %MTn• ARR R[WRAXON nm ACS- n�aN�m m n/Re�e ACTIVITY CENTER #6 DAVIS BDULBVARD MIL ell • SANTA BARBARA RDULRVARD teel� Onm MMe LEGEND SIMMONS ACTIMTY CENTER BOUNDARY R5F -(� EMNG ZONING Lt_j DEVELOPED LAND USE 1 J A^ lff' EMSTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES meet[ l nuua en eo/uo ewnxa fmnox w �u %�B mn em � {� a um emunen ACTIVITY CENTER #7 RAnUMNAKR RAWRIOCK ROAD CA RC/I - C.R. ICI uw rwW nwN. AMENDED — SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 Ord. No. 2003 -44 LEGEND SRO• ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RDF -D EmTRK ZGNMO /' ... DEVELOPED LAND USE I ) EKISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ]cnu e ]m rt. aV rt. PNSPAROt CW. 6O/CAC NeP" R:c11O11 f�1fE C tOt NCT CMROV I nAn Ci0 ANC m"AIRN ACTIVITY CENTER #8 Aueopnruuam RDAs Rea w _ DDLRDR own rARepwr kA eeR als.. pwry, IFNN rwe m A vnRrDR n.wnxso wumrrr m+rea ALLVRDIRULT 7716 WNr10NUTWN AND ACRRAD6 NDTk AIAADAr10R ARTig rR01J D[RRR ADITYITr OwPfBD6 LEGEND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY P. 5F.J EXISTING ZONING u DEVELOPED LAND USE( ) 'AS'r,11' EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES uela e Doo n. P . . Rh S/CAD 4APPMD R[MIDN M." INADEIA DMSIDN / PIANNRIO A1q pFe1MR0N f44 pC6 -wI0.DM DAIe 1Y /]DID ACTIVITY CENTER #9 C.R. 961 - INTERSTATE 75 W— —W Fled.. LEGEND ACTMTY CENTER WNIDARY RSG -.1 EXSTING ZONING / DEVELOPED LAND USE 1 ) M�$ EXISTING BUILDINGS AND SIRUGTURES BeHB o eoo' n. faoo' M. PREPARED BA CBgAB MAPMK BECWH .— i iGORD1 B OA16 6— ANO R[MATpI J ACTIVITY CENTER 010 PINR RMOB ROAD I01. 8961 _ tNTBRSTATE - 7e e.m. aa.. n.n.. LGGGND . �e ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RRF -3 EXISTING ZONING = DEVELOPED LAND USE (� ) M � EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES stets o eor rt nitaa °PUwr uimmi i riµin�o +,eo se�+nrm+ itF,ine- m+aa6e oem +./taco ACTIVITY CENTER #II EANEW0+1' M,IIOR LOAD Kla ADD - AI.IDAT- PW.91E 10AD W.R. IN .um amt I AcmeD °oDA+o�YA°�°1i'� wm' x �Twn�ARO A�cu.AOe Nobs AvaDATmN rARRm rmD aftm AQfIYN'2 Dvnua TAAm'A' � 1.Am MI T1A� I ss� I Q ANm A DRNEERW CT EAST -CS II--t y . nAn R PUD A°, 1.1 PELICAN MARSH ASq I, � RAm •S' Ot � pyCAN141D1,95M DPI .. "'lANR'iA �A Cr I � ^ IiF'S 45tl � ee_r r nMCl .D1Y g� ON DRIVE A ��'i ' iArG' A -f OALtLRIA DADS P2 AN MAARSi! r DD BOLERO AT 71BUAON AMf Y (PEA mAer •A-r i PUD - I PELICAN MAN SH I TURA Am.rt{ VIWDEPKI KWM ROAD (C.R. 962) VANDENDILT BEACH REND (CIL 652) I� :11rm 1' tAAm Y rr�JQR PUD PUD �� RA1DR'u4'S 2 wAm PUD VENETIAN D MARXtR q J M ' 2I M2A Y WE NLL AB '`: r' I VNETAIDS I 3 �. ��" i wADr2 �• CF �t FIVE) Jy,n lE6END 1 POCINSI- PAR. 3 I 1 tie D r i Ls ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY • I I Tn.m i txl AIR RSF.D EXISTING ZONING / Iii, DEVELOPED LAND USE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES P()D PUb EMERALD LAKES 1 ° VINEYARDS PUD i K Am ��✓ DRIOHRIN DAAOENS r� D® rt. MAX r7 ERQIq SAY DRIVE //CC EPORIN MANADFHFNT DMSARI / PIANR HI AND PECLNARON "O A ..A..DW. DAm liI _ .�iiii ��nu�►�` a�0� ►1 y . H. ��i :Ittt MI � VOL 1 m W%i YA sue. x i NSF -I RSF.I mot lulu ka ttD PUU aaum oaRme Pun 13 ACTIVITY CENTER 012 TAMIAMI TRAIL TOR. 4D - PPM RIDOR ROAD 10.1, 4161 t.e.. tmMR, Ilntb C -1 �IPUO d R!AF -O /j6y� i B LEGEND � A ttt A �I 11 e..,.an RSF.. EXISTING ZONING C -1 d R!AF -O /j6y� i B LEGEND J� 3 ® ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF.. EXISTING ZONING I / \ DEVELOPED LAND USEI J [pppEIR„C* EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES GC 2cuc R. PRFPARM 4d d5/ 0 NAPNNO XCIIpN QMY I mm= ":M / PV " AND R2MIIA" iRE1 AC12 -2MRDM MID 1212M2 1 MII�IIINIIIIIIM�IIIII � It 0 mill 01111 no�rv� �" � � ■111 �� . �;$, Iw � - ,r'1�i`��'3 C: C X11■ �Ki11� � Will m ■�� 4h yip. r B� I1 _ -211-1 A ACTIVITY CENTER 013 MRT'OR"fR,LRN "=n"—" - e1NR Iwo, LOAD WA,", AMENDED - DECEMBER 11, 2007 Ord. No. 2007 -86 LEGEND WOMEN ACRNTY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -8 EXISTING ZONING pqQ DEVELOPED LAND USE( — ) u ALyR;' EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES PPO'MFD BR q9 NAPPpOPM- OPOOM MWIA Ri OMp 000 / PIASgXO /JOG Pi001ARON rae Aca- mTa.Dnn Am n/mm a q i S k a Vt F-161 ■�� 4h yip. r B� I1 _ -211-1 A ACTIVITY CENTER 013 MRT'OR"fR,LRN "=n"—" - e1NR Iwo, LOAD WA,", AMENDED - DECEMBER 11, 2007 Ord. No. 2007 -86 LEGEND WOMEN ACRNTY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -8 EXISTING ZONING pqQ DEVELOPED LAND USE( — ) u ALyR;' EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES PPO'MFD BR q9 NAPPpOPM- OPOOM MWIA Ri OMp 000 / PIASgXO /JOG Pi001ARON rae Aca- mTa.Dnn Am n/mm Kx�9 F-1 � � C 11TA1 PNa nPM woolmc -rnM9 emAss noAo . ne..xl ax9a . i xnr�ee,;j uns c3attasA A I a +n ' a C•4 so Dame ona; ruaxAr en. eee I �x�. 49A 1e>< "•" I aIY 9P 9IRtl - 40W Etp I r.3 t6gj} A I � � � E - a• r r j n /r -- - ------------- nomxwn r•.x � r I I 1 SI — BAR I—AY an. 9e9 PMCL _. AST PMCM VA AST rurtol VA ACTIVITY CENTER *14 0001)IiP FMee, 800 W. Na aMDM DAU PMROAY M in — 6.19. — LEGEND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -3 EXISTING ZONING = DEVELOPED LAND USE1�� 1 .r_v' liv, EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES/ 6 aoo• n. rmrAxte enA�as�Ca. rao xen9x an9wm NM onapx / rtMxae AX9 ncaueox 1nG Amn- N10.DM Am 1!/9019 ' 1'• ACTIVITY CENTER 1015 GOLDER GATE PAREWAT CA nB . DORONADO PARIWAT OME OREIF NrNU ' AMENDED — JANUARY 25, 2005 Ord. No. 2005 -3 LEGEND s� ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF-1 EXISTING ZONING =I DEVELOPED LAND USE 461gP EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES seuX s Eaa n. we n. PREPARED ". GE/DPD NNRRNT BECTON M[.nA MARA0.1D1ON4v WD l�E 11 gMft RE0.RAADN ACTIVITY CENTER #16 TAMIAMI TRAIL R1R. ID - AIRPORT -MLIBO ROAD 07J1. III rm. ewe, w..lr AMENDED SEPT. 9, 2003 ORD. NO. 2003 -43 LEGEND I® ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF.d EXISTING ZONING r— DEVELOPED LAND USE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 10z /e..0 tOtl n. Nf A. OOM N NANAODANi O MON / PLAIRM0 ANO REO AAI me ACI6- IYIODWR OAIE, 1P/t010 ACTIVITY CENTER 017 TA g TDAM. ND. [M . MATTLPBMAXD RAYNOCR ROAD ROD• MI dabr as [Iwlb LEGEND MME ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -a EXISTING ZONING DEVELOPED LAND USE ff (E,, 9{}•R'• EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES uu[ o aad rt. gar n - OFFDAR[D MarA M. A C- II j"as/M cA D a MVAA T FlM Ex / o l 2s/E2rn010m N D ANO p[OULATON f�iEEEE� \ ►�\ T 111111111111111 PUL N I �illlllll �IIIIIIIII► '�� ... J EIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIII I�`O i n �Ih1 ill► ACTIVITY CENTER #IB nu AMENDED —APRIL 22, 2008 Ord. No. 2008 -21 LEGEND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY EXISTING ZONING [_J DEVELOPED LAND USE j+ EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES m e rro• n. PPPnRU !ll q5/M MNTMO QCNON R�UFM�N��N �iNOM1O m ;=I�1VwlMaMe Nlo IlfanAlwN I ,HIM1�01�1�� n ---- -- ��Ij � X111 �► �V�� Inml�u► �� :illl ►�� 1Willi 1111111 wall 1111p tlllllllllllllllllf Iv'`{' " " "'■ �llllllllll� nvo....o�llll1111111.0..■ ,;# nuuuuuuuuuuwnuuunnuuuu■ _ .1W �I /1111► 911111UIIININIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIINgl11 '�ii:r�eNe� I- iaw.rlmnnu�uu�lnnnnn�.� �'1 �WUI1111111W111�INN1111111111�� s 1 +Sy tJ3' 11111NIIIm11111 111 IIIINNIIIIilllll � �� ,> . � .1111,111111 IIIIIINIIIIIIIIII. 111111111yi ie�111111' � ,� �VIIIiI�`�� .. �� ij Nf ACTIVITY CENTER #20 M GM PASS AD. W.A. EADI . TAMAMI TRAIL MS. 101 bad beery. llnH. LEGEND 4>• ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -5 EXISTING ZONING / — DEVELOPED LAND USE ` ) EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES x�4 1� e 4DD rt. REMlD Dr: G4MM MMPMO 6Rli0N 40.E: ACIo-t01DDN0 DINDARe t4P� NM0 AND N[CIMTDN LY;41n[T 'Ax R25E R 26 E MAP FLUE -10 �I EXISTING ZONING CONSISTENT WITH FLUE BY POLICY 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TOWNSHIP 49, RANGE 25 &, 26 a A lD UI SME e ,n wti , wti taaano. 0 .timue;a er, m .mw rtr e ie �nin�e°O�'Fii =s�� .� ae`0>cn�xe xwumi c, t mz .xexo,o - moe,x ,,. :aoe R 25 E R 26 E to 01 F- EXHIBIT "A" CPSP- 2010 -2 HENDRY COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP RIVERS AND FLOODPLAINS �.` Collier County Florlda D�p ^ IMMOKALEE (lvf\ LAKE LEGEND TRAFFORD 1. COCOHATCHEE RIVER 11. PUMPKIN RIVER 2. ROCK CREEK 12. LITTLE WOOD RIVER C.R. 846 3. GORDON RIVER 13, WOOD RIVER 4. HALDEMAN CREEK 14. FAKAHATCHEE RIVER 5. HENDERSON CREEK 15. EAST RIVER 6. JOHN STEVENS CREEK 16. PARADISE RIVER 7. BIG MARCO RIVER 17. FERGUSON RIVER 8. ROYAL PALM HAMMOCK CREEK 18. BARRON RIVER _ LEE COUNTY 9. BLACK WATER RIVER 19. HALFWAY CREEK 10. WHITNEY RIVER 20, TURNER RIVER COL IE COUNTY .. "100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN 1 C.R. 846 GULF OF MEXICO s' ( 10 n - 1 -75 S.R. 64 CITY OF —� NAPLES 4 Q N t,x K vi GULF OF MEXICO SCALE 0 51411, 10MI. 6 10 11 13 'ADOPTED — JANUARY 25, 2007 / G 12 14 15 QQQ (Ord. No. 2007 -18) CITY li 0 Q 18 AMENDED — OCTOBER 14, 2008 OF i7 18 _ (Ord. No. 2008 -59) MARCO ISLAND Q D O 20 q EVERGLADES CITY U•S• 41 19 p Q o CHOKOLOSKEE COMOLLIWER ER COUNTY PREPARED BY: CIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION / PLANNING AND REGULATION COUNTY DATE: 11/2010 FILE: LU- 91- 2010.DWG DRj 1 GULF OF MEXICO 2 3 Cm OF ffCOL IERCOVNIY C.R. 846 S.R. 64 LAKE TRAFFORD C.R. 846 5 8 � GULF OF MEXICO S A� 7 9 CITY 11 OF MAR 0 14 15 ISLA�D 18 SCALE 17 D SMI. tOMI. 1 I) O O 18 20 ADOPTED — JANUARY 25, 2007 U Ord. No. 2007 -18 13 �Q O 421 . AMENDED — OCTOBER 14, 2008 �7 Ord. No. 2008 -59 U Q U � C �] vQo$b° PREPARED BY: GIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION ^$ .GROWTH MANAGEME�JT DIVISION / PLANNING AND REGULATION DATE: 11/2010 FILE: LU- 92- 20I0.DWG EXHIBIT "A" CPSP- 2010 -2 HENDRY COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY N vi EVERGLADES CITY 23 YA 24 OKOLOSKEE COLLIER COUNTY MONROE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP ESTUARINE BAYS Collier County Florida LEGEND 1. HICKORY BAY 13. GULUVAN BAY 2. CLAM BAY 14. GOODLAND BAY 3. DOCTORS BAY 15. PALM BAY 4. NAPLES BAY 18. BLACKWATER BAY 5. DOLLAR BAY 17. BUTTONWOOD BAY 8. ROOKERY BAY 18, PUMPKIN BAY 7. JOHNSON BAY 19. FAKA UNION BAY 8. TARPON BAY -20, FAKAHATCHEE BAY 9. MCILVANTE SAY 21. FERGUSON BAY 10, UNKNOWN BAY 22. BARRON BAY 11. ADDISON BAY 23. TURNER BAY 12. BARFIELD BAY 24, CROSS BAY U.S. 41 o go S6d z =YWIRiT "A° CPSP- 2010 -2 FUTURE LAND USE MAP O�AF� SOILS Western Collier County, Rorido HENDRY COUNTY .LEGEND � 1D sR jt�, 8 70 6 10 SLS OF M E MANMADE AREAS - p 8 - UDOR11ENTS AS�QmN IS OF THE TMAL AREAS 6 8 N 10 10 eEL - WMFERf - H10 SDN - ANCLOM - PEON ASS=kTIDN 1D 8 D 6 WMOMtALEE A.S OF 7HE SWAMPS. PRARDES ANO FRE4HWAiER MAR316 5`.a" 1 IDPEE - PODBIm t p 1 CR 64 EPA - BOG - MDPELMD ASSDMky" OER - MVEAA - CHMEE ASSOMa" g 10 C 6 LLS OF 1HE FLATWOO SLOUGHS AND HAMMOPCS 6 8 10 10 FLA - BEPw - MUtL6 6 GWFE - BL%1dRR - GAS" ASOClMM DPAW - HMSPIDDt - NWDX E AssoogoM CR 846 5 10 fl1450 - WMM - HDIDPAW As50OR,OM 10 10 LEASE NDIE 711AT LIm"oHO' M m"L 6 lMS YAP A� PREUMEIDR AMft=T D= RE TiEET BEFORE 5 5 8 8 1 8 6 LEE COUNTY 8 5 CR 85B D � g 8 8 1 9 7 8 CR 846 8 g 7 N 7 6 ¢ 8 In 5 1 9 7 g 5 7 7 7 5 5 r------ 9 51 : 75 9 B I 9 7 71 1 9 7 8 I BIG 6 7 1 9 5 I CYPRESS jwfam 7 1 5 7 I SWAMP B I 7 4 1 76 1 I CITY SR 84 NAPLES 9 7 7 5 7 4 5 N a I p � 7 4 I Ln AHa 9 5 I O I r r 5 7 �l 5 2 8 5 F s WA EE 5 p 9 7 7 7 I� . Avazlrr 9 At 9 4 5 -5 I 5 1 C''1 2 3 4 I X u�i 9 5 5 4 4 4J f"1 5 4 0 4 I I 4 1 crtY 1 3 3 OF 1 mv= 3 I &AND 1 2 4_ 4 4 1 © 1 3 � I SCALE 2 r- -- - - -� rU J EVERO I p 5M1. i IcIry . 2 2 ADOPTED — JANUARY 25. 2007 I I Ord. No. 20D7 -18 i —J L, I AMENDED — OCTOBER 14, 2DOB - - -- J Ord. No. 2008 -59 i — 1 SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, JUNE 1888 MORE THAN ONE KINDOOF SOIL M THE OMAP IS THUS PREPARED BY: CIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION MEANT FDR GENERAL PLANNING RATHER THAN A BASIS GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION / PLANNING AND REGULATION - FOR DECISIONS ON THE USE OF SPECIFIC TRACTS. DATE 11/2010 FILE: LU- 94- 2010.DWG � \1 J a W �--I�-, 0 I'u U U Y C K W O J W O S Ln Q m z 0 LLI W Z F:za=1 W Li Z a- Q �w a W J~ M f0 r.:.6 c6 vj :D �z � O tz Q Z Q Q U L) w OQ Ury L- .2 D U O v Ll- Z W Wo (/) J X LLJ �--I�-, 0 I'u U U Y C K W O J W O S Ln ` m z 0 LLI W Z F:za=1 W 010 Lj IE ZZpOLI < Z J. J Q W V W O N o • f0 r.:.6 c6 vj D tz Q � o �- ca z a vi � 1- a En Ln Z W 0 In w to to U W . oazwa Wo J U 0� N m J -fWn Q W IL_j tV 1M <111 t- O Z s BROWARD COUNTY - DADE COUNTY COWER COUNTY COWER COUNTY sa 'a*s o • C) IY • co Q • c wz m N LD ¢ • n • • o rn • r d G� co U I W C' a o z W O J h ` z z 0 U U � W W C J 2 U � W W W Y N O J yyO O W V D Qon o. ° aQ� o° 0� Q o f>o Jc2 z 0 a J W d K z z Z Z Z CD O Ld En IL C,7 \N 00 -pK6 O O Z IL0rn U L N N < V) I ZE 5zJ N m e a D O U W ..I W m 00 m W w Q LL'I a 0 7 tV O N li O U Ln z 0 Z OZ c3 w rQ0 1 I m ¢ N pp, W W _ d L-L O Q < W O Mm< ac,0 175 SSA 6 EXHIBIT'A' PFTMC)N rccc_�rt� COLLIER COUNTY WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS, PROPOSED WELLFIELDS AND ASRs F� ID p LI VI NGSTON ROAD ASR (IRRIGATION QUALITY) CITY OF NAPLES ASR (4 WELL PERMITS) MARCO ISLAND UTILITIE MARCO LAKES SCALE 0 5MI. AMENDED — SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 Ord No. 2003 -44 AMENDED.— JANUARY 25, 2007 Ord. No. 2DO7 -18 AMENDED — DECEMBER 4, 2007 Ord. No. 2007 -82 \ FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY GOLDEN v GATE CITY WELLFIELD SOUTH HAWTHORN WELLFIELD EXTENSION S MARCO ISLAND UTILITIES ASR (9 WELL PERMITS) � GS �7 m MANATEE ROAD ASR Q N oi U� PREPARED BY. GIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION GRD% -H MANAGEMENT DIVISION / PLANNING AND REGULATION SOURCE COWER COUNTY POLLUTION CONTROL AND PREVENTION DEPT. DATF- 1/2011 FILE- WFPZR12- 2DIo- A.Dvr. IMMOKALEE WELLFIELD 8 CR 846 J AVE MARIA WELLFIELD CR 858 POTENTIAL FUTURE COWER COUNTY VFELLFIELD AREA v N \ CITY OF NAPLES EAST GOLDEN GATE V) WELLFIELD { -75 J DO In w 0 Q Of Li Ld PORT OF THE ISLANDS WELLFIELD US 47 r PLANNED WATER SUPPLY WELLS ASR = AOUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY SITE POTENTIAL FUTURE WELLFIELD AREA ® WELLFIELD AREA CITY OF - R NAPLES COASTAL (ems RIDGE • WELLFIELD CITY OF NAPLES ASR (4 WELL PERMITS) MARCO ISLAND UTILITIE MARCO LAKES SCALE 0 5MI. AMENDED — SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 Ord No. 2003 -44 AMENDED.— JANUARY 25, 2007 Ord. No. 2DO7 -18 AMENDED — DECEMBER 4, 2007 Ord. No. 2007 -82 \ FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY GOLDEN v GATE CITY WELLFIELD SOUTH HAWTHORN WELLFIELD EXTENSION S MARCO ISLAND UTILITIES ASR (9 WELL PERMITS) � GS �7 m MANATEE ROAD ASR Q N oi U� PREPARED BY. GIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION GRD% -H MANAGEMENT DIVISION / PLANNING AND REGULATION SOURCE COWER COUNTY POLLUTION CONTROL AND PREVENTION DEPT. DATF- 1/2011 FILE- WFPZR12- 2DIo- A.Dvr. IMMOKALEE WELLFIELD 8 CR 846 J AVE MARIA WELLFIELD CR 858 POTENTIAL FUTURE COWER COUNTY VFELLFIELD AREA v N \ CITY OF NAPLES EAST GOLDEN GATE V) WELLFIELD { -75 J DO In w 0 Q Of Li Ld PORT OF THE ISLANDS WELLFIELD US 47 EVERGLADES CITY WELLFIELD LEGEND PLANNED WATER SUPPLY WELLS ASR = AOUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY SITE POTENTIAL FUTURE WELLFIELD AREA ® WELLFIELD AREA EVERGLADES CITY WELLFIELD Collier County Comprehensive Plan Amendments - DCA 11 -1 CPSP - 2010 -5 R 25 R 26 E R 27 E R 28 E R 28 E 2006 — 2016 FUTURE LAND USE MAPa Collier County Florida DETAILS OF THE RLSA OVERLAY AREA ARE SHOWN ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TITLED: ~ "COLLIER COUNTY RURAL E AGRICULTURAL - im AREA ASSESSMENT STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP" s M' n � _aSAR \411 LEE CWNTY 1`�ill � x RAe°#To � rAgepi ` L IrM.I `I CLAM BAY NRPA 401 ci i ��y NmL'�n E) mmM PENEa aBD� mET ■ �� e3 €wRp m. gsmlcr ■ PUNL smusRmu wsmmi O PESIEENDAL EFNSfiY BANGS AYE PIRxa1Mtt Mnxrr ttNRR aysdsmrcT ® ESTATES DESIGNATION ® uCRNNUgW /RPRLM RS 61Rwmi h PUSwf3f PMP AIBw3TMCT A li * enr. ' c:1 ANO Rdw0.0EY PARR 9u3w31PI0T �yy N uNi oRmn F- rn O acAlx F PREfMm Dn w3 /CM APPBIO SCCRON CDED.NNNY DESER.EPIRMI AND w�lPONNCHTAL 3wNttS DIRRON EATL I/E011 ERL CPM•- BO•.o- BO.OPC R 25 E R 29 E t • � 5 rT A r it CPSP- 2010 -05 E R R 31 E R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E--7— a URBAN DESIGNATION nxED UB! DIBTRNR OELO -IAL W111111.1 IIMAL sElnxNwT MEA UrsmICT E) mmM PENEa aBD� mET ■ �� e3 €wRp m. gsmlcr ■ PUNL smusRmu wsmmi O PESIEENDAL EFNSfiY BANGS AYE PIRxa1Mtt Mnxrr ttNRR aysdsmrcT ® ESTATES DESIGNATION ® uCRNNUgW /RPRLM RS 61Rwmi ® UPBM nenAt rmxq: sNBasTRmT PUSwf3f PMP AIBw3TMCT ❑ CONSERVATION DESIGNATION ®RESEMCN UMM REmwnu MweE smmsmmr ANO Rdw0.0EY PARR 9u3w31PI0T OVERLAYS AND ®Emuasrax REM / TaTExxooE LVIE couuwaa INFV. susasmlcr SPECIAL FEATURES elmxESS PMN Susonmmr DEntt AxD 11ER1 c wBgsrnwr PRW gIBOPHO�OO —I, vAUEE aNRV SUBOISnntT ❑ �.oiEnauRmA°mL SusDlswlcT CONHMCIAL 41Rm u3E SUB. —T � wmmoaArm ARw �� dIASTAL Mai NAEME AAf.L U E NEgmpRHOCU SvxOISRmCT ■ p USFLASRCi ROM/�YC nzIEN/l. BLw. ... nIAeTIC CENq:5ng1 BgwOARY P NEI ® cou—.. A�IBUIS�ICi BLw. ❑ OCWW�Aq.LL MII� lU�BBISnllci a uvncAL srArz EENEwN EuLmAr ■ HENS SEN dIE[N SE SUBU SRmm —E ftdµM �N i/ Tmcr =.T Go35ROM3 ® w APIPAT NOISE AREA 04ERfAY NPAL PE9EURtt PIESEMCH AW Raw0.EOY PMN SUBa3w Cr FLORIDA PANTHER' PRERCiIa! MEA (NRPA) DM y ® EugOEr NREE u3E —I-- _ AGRICULTURAL / RURAL ■ BASSNER�ARwAY Tm- DESIGNATION REUEtTL ENT Ewlur COVUwaAL VII® VSE SUmaUUCr O AmI1CULTVML/MMAL RPAM UNE BMTRICT 9 P MFw EHRLAY ® CWMagx�tR10AFMILL /SINOISiPIECTM RNIAL CgMRdAt sIBdP11UC1 URBM -PUPAL m a ® ■ ERIJIBE UBOMIWE CONUMDICIAL RVB013@Mi ® C aRB IRI,WO NEIG4RdM000 CONARRgAL BImDIBINIm TNMSInW 20xE OWIIAY 11, rApUTY A9om091R T RYiq o W Dm1EApT xOPM BELw NGUE oRgCAr RmUBTMAL OI.-T � p[ttNw0 I1NOS RWESE1Ad1 AEMIO R—LMNNOLWYT PMN SIIBESTRICT ■ 6EtREME UNE9 Ron , ® IIwmAL IANES ..i _ fi�t)) Tro NM cM Nvr BE nmPRERn RI1HO0f lxF WAIx aBACnKJ Aw PEIAFI a wf cows gUxrt E SLAM. (O nE mm�E um usE uA• sEMES gaWE9 xuuwm uM3 N MBmw m Rws eeux�reme rDnnR wm u�u uAgN� MDSE uws ME Lgnn RNE LECRRE Ar we exE v ra WAM Aweicr wexs slum rumxe LwB uss ELgmR ro susc 10 mlmry ilaNCws=12 rs Pm Alm lur wuE amMqu ('.� Raw F M NROw DAR APU MAlIw PLM ANU TR xUMIta1Q APG MALIFII PUSI Rql mUIIM LVM USE NAM p IIRN[ WGPEPpp. 1 HLNVKT UWNIT - LE FLORIDA PANTHER' _. 3 O NATIONAL WILDLIFE .. . m ktFUCE - EnEPEwx -.o. FAKAHATCHFE. STRAND R PRESERVE p .-- . - SIO CYPRESS NATIONAL A . .. pAESERVE - A A V N m N A H -.I -i EEI N H u+ N y N c T 48 8 T 47 8 1 T 48 S T 48 8 1 T 60 S T 61 3 T 52 S I T 69 3 C 0 0 a C N 6 '6.2:, W C O V N U C m R C 3 cow 3 U R0Cc •• Fp m:3 �0 E>�m OC O rnLL RCM 0= 0, `a momm °a "j- M LL -tZIT co0$ cLm aa`m- �, -0 m Sc o +a+ Od: oat m 0a v COD g,o 00 R 1n �•� m «aZ O s m ctlo'o'.� C Lac yr jM c Ec�Cc V a mm �cm of p6m rv/ /1 m N� C- O m� m- 3 p; cUm n W -pm15i W Ln�°- E �mm •o�m1°f0 W y j¢2 g -5 E op �o m Qi Do)sz O @ QU2 m -c 0o oc 0 .� ° R am O V C7 - 'Y0C 0C UNm mam0 ; wooO4) E�3 o�M4) W w0 F o o f -0 c Ea c RLL•� oxm¢ - $ 2wLoSmc �°jmc yc a J I LL�O ri n- °.p0LO� o; a$v E a.�m ZCU °6R �'pp y0 m :--1 co °�L"'(%RmL(nN �°.` cRRC1 EO � mr ' o L � 2Cz O co m co -0 -co p E, C O oL mm N = I E N+ ooq — E-o 00C.- c Z5 -4o> ER�0 M o o C'mC 3 L� gc T-p -d Cc CR -> R; 0 %a 3 mJL np m� .Om 01 C'Nwa m - Nr $ °a Lm cNnm aC-0 Rm - N Ol li no mm o c$c a-E4 0=0 � °F'c � O �mmm a Rmm°mUE E00 yo'Em ¢ > urm m m O-m (aN - C?Rzos SLE C CRm LU ° mo Q «ca a o -= cn Rm L*Z- «m h� °'n Ea ¢ 'o-2 m 0) \ nm.A .l9 W OTd -U c,= 'C'jr.m, w Q m--mv {• a m Rn�> X m-c« 3p m z m t:s UCc e R ° O cLL R `m m R Tm 0 � `p.�-!n O U W s °1 m« «a L -50-c i � O' 9aCpm c vo omr� m �aa,. R mpmRmmm Room Rzo cn ° B °� pa > m m EU'pF m O1� R v o R �¢p<z, inENV5a 3 �8�. @ cnz°'mm0 nc m R7mm �¢�C:0 m�'S g S �{ m_m :L EL" m�E0 Lomm opm� 0.Ypc Y of RRO =ia `o_ p Rp _ >oEd J¢U s m 3 o 3 °o m-- x �� Tya �B mL m of m m v p M-'w0 zr -3- -� yn�oV - e 4 Qmm'mTY 'UmRm �c°imcy Oz-�¢o ammi - Q a aENm�cO �mmQ a°E`om UOpma I O .s E _mmoE�mm a�R Ry�m,cc LL O co occa �eyiao O�� 2YV3'o Nmmt dRmmN OQU�m o� °E of �€ d3Z boo mayL RmomE ma'LU LI 0 :a 0= Gvd f c o m 6 a m a'm c w, « a C7 mRUm° �° co cmo o - -c E ¢Jw- QENEU =0 «3 mmE «U m0cr 5 mm Nm0 RC0 0 C mOON"' m...p CU O�E =am Q`3Rm c00 mm :`_cam jO m•mZ ~c cmR 2 OCR omo�o 2 J aEiommomw x Ww a¢r cpr pro N R m 6ZO(D& « R c- or OO�Q} 0 2 ow R Rm �n:2� cC7 mo¢ 2 D�H> > Jp `R ¢¢ O oo >.m m ¢I- F- R w« oN RQ pw CczCc Cc m 0 WZQ m m CL aCL 0LLZ R c papC�LLOa' im m �Z Oa¢ >mz - '- U. �B '-mo �mw¢w� °x o.: o mmw0�f- o m Q...«. m ¢aLLOa 3 m� $p [[ }ZwZF .c 1i o'�- }¢Fw�O m m amt (7 20z Cc L m E m mo¢ C7 }O-1 m C7MLu 7 v o mC7 m F -Omm7Z 'OL m }¢w0¢a :pro mt m ¢ w> m �a }¢�OFO O U mac z -Qa00w pn. p� c OJxp� o« Rp E" , Z -Cc F O-1 a ` o c c 00�¢wwF m 3 o Z¢wm� O (7 aaO oa o zo_h �Z c, nc z¢JIC7a nm R._ ¢ ai `o R �OwO ao m 3m 0 z�0 R c 3 p¢ 20WmZ0 i R- mC� OLLWOCCt-0 m'm"�pZ�' OJ(nmUU Cc 10 >U olw2F- m..0 U o R U O ° p. ULL 22Z_ Y 0 r- 0 m m 00� m E �'a c O1JiwQZ- pU -O ¢ Qzw w ccmm� o� ocoamv J ¢O nc w� ¢ ¢ ¢ F- > a ¢ C7 R r[ Q 0 Eat W OZH V m x'02 p CUfo zo `° E °- wLL�p[a E p � o ¢ }=OHO _ o m 7zwo- w a -o m- z wz m� E^ L Ha m m .93:0 wFpu' D LL a hF J�Q¢�2 W m cw °o -moU �Z5o20 �Q E E E c JF} -w(70 w >' m JZZ��OOZ 4 3a m R m 00o2crFLL c C7 00 <20W .` m �.X o o OzunZU y mt4.Y..`. Op5 UW E2- UU W =¢LL a-E 61C`'>Z UUw OwF rn U O-- x r ui cL R Ra W ¢Zoo - <w ao R opc w mOp.LL¢ m c E R E o~ wOOO� OLL m R m OOw �LLl- �F-� pmc xw0�¢WZ LNu ¢ 2ccz OO Ey10 ncoi 20 QZwZ �c�pam &£m =¢jOCwO¢p V iQ C¢ m F JJO�O¢ �U/C7 7 mW I- JOU�F -> O o:Fut FW52o J C m °'..>'. F-w Pcr w I MO omm wOOZ ¢¢ 06 OJLL¢wZ- U5am�4c O- tow E- zi-t5zo O mLO ORm 05000 Cc z wOwWmWF > >6=c I WJwOwF m- R o LL w- E o R OOW Z -LL mLOO OU m0 U a� 000R ¢ ¢ yF=Egy w0 �gF oRO1 a0c ZLL wQmC7 in IN)> 2 ��w omaim°1ma ZpOWLLO >>. °ca OUwmw FU L« RCR W x2 O w F ZLLF-F- LL O7mL mom- U. O LLR003 ZLLxF- mw U R m OF JZ ooma w0 J¢¢LL t «p «YCCc w¢ w m w F -2 LL 1 O m mat 2 O ~LL mL" Co g C7mw¢w o E- a gLL0 F> m 3= m O F ¢LL LL �- 0 .L..-L ¢�C7 F-U O «« ¢Z 2a BS ._.p .- , OLLwz- -c2'E x c C7Z¢aw i N c cCry wmO RLL2> m co, Q u¢i¢0wFw7d «tc-& m R c ¢Qw¢WU t°- c °c 5 ¢52wOOZ O o p E E= o N u¢i0wZ�0a « ami m m,' �' N ¢¢wzLLQ¢ Y m E E c mca N ¢mF��1LLi m m m 'a cov ¢¢ZOOOac i 0 h o o « C7 O 9W.,.E M o o� m o° O ow < >0Ow oa•O E R p oa O oOZw¢w i-02- 1riOwWapcOLL _q -E v M= � w o°oQQaa[�ZZ ° o �`N z 67Q¢wzOO o ai c°i2^" mV Z rnwpF- E >.t dY Oz a�F<ir W E E 3 m o U ¢�w�w¢ m'J R m� w °DaCJ�QJZ cpc m o- cQ w maZfro a RO i R w m OULLO £ o y 00 Fn: } o U J U) m c rn c U ¢w0 m cm o ��F - Z a 00 M E 0 0 Q Z&<W W OF -- EE mY c�+1 ZaQZwwj E � m_cp �J C� z ZO�apO E 4) E ZU pOJ F =o O c m gw m z UO °gZwm m m 3 a z WOpO- -ZOF -x m m-� man' p Z ww }Opc� RL.. --a (aa M Z W¢Uw- b E m nm Q ZZU¢Ug¢ E -Er m rn O zOopz a Em o 8g o., O UOJZpz rn>.o m R 01i¢OO¢ R n ¢- w Qm R m `.p ¢ F- -O o a z JQJ- c ` c OU wmF- -I pU m R R 0 ZZW¢ w c p ¢Za¢¢F -O Ra m m R m ¢ ¢ZQ wO m owa° R ac Z¢ -W�U)Fo P 0 w Z -W 61 Ea m m Ozm�wz< R-mo T c R 3 0 0 0 pZLL -Lux0 m m� 0 W11.1Z VwL O ¢ R o p m[C= w o Ea R Zzaa Oa .� Ca D_W wa -(n C 01 0" L.- O CC F-CC 0'.. R� ma p7U¢U)2¢ O R c 021 =F-aF c c op p ¢wH�Uw} c c so"7) a p ¢ p oo g `mm c R Z¢ a¢ coo 02Z 2F- R cR� OwwwOa � «ac �� 2wF OO> M o m p n (7Fw0000 m o'cm« F wF ¢O� N >2 E -°'a m is Mo- O c "-Oo OxZO zF Rap a 0 R a M Z¢� MOLL 4) R p m m o g0O m m == o -m o CDF -Nn, o'er I -wZOwJ m mZ °2 �OOwO¢C7 a m N« R ZmCl Q� 0 «•�- R «r+ ¢ ¢ Z «Z) R pd Z w LL m w Rw O LL Q R ma'o- R Z H¢ ' ->>,3 mU Z¢2¢>C2m z mom_ m z ZOOWZ 1n U, �LLzWt -g¢ m o•� m R �a c �Ovi�z} mJ.«O �- OOa -Qg Y c.0 mmmm WZWJW2- C m n Z W OQw mE mE Z11-Z WF nLLa�O¢ OLLZQ�z� oO0 �g�OFF -� o RO m m wz�Q¢ �j o wa`�i ma a WZZQwO�.7_W ° m °» Wzw�Op> cZ i LRO -amc wazwt~i>O� mcmmo�m ¢aZp��m 'mo ='oc00 Q- j2O¢Zpp atD -S=o <W¢-W mN tJ� UZ¢�wJa a ovC7pc c OF -Qmma0 p- m 10o N o —5 U� -w¢"'¢ c�i�,o °: 03 waz7�o¢ >riE m Z ¢ . Z..w LL r 0 �w 00003, R OF¢OZOp a R m d <Iccom y °oU`ot R Zw¢xO0 o y« mz ZZ �Q> ° m aac z ¢QLL z�0 F-ft_- p mm5a ¢ mOCg mroodm w� w �i as> <W6E >,m >j wLL? �Z `rn� =°- zWOF -J¢z oYro0wE¢ Z2¢wzw N�m'opRR QUO mWU1 ou. 2? E mali Cc: (DDW -Cn� N .-_ m[n C OC7 w¢Wd �.�`O"N R m Uw ow p[�Q) CC a a n-o0 ZWI.ISymlz O m d0) m c C OzZJ¢ZF- d O 0,1;m U �¢ZZ -:r Na «LN N2 CCQO F-O w ww R N L ¢OCSOC�LL� 0 LPL O m ¢OZLL1¢OC (1 m ~� C ZZ al a OY «°� 2T Rp ozC zoC V2J2 m R Qz�zp> N y aCV o.,-.a mpc0 E m o a• ¢O W LL O E La -m m ZO OZ -F-O O mfm m nac `m ••� >_UF a e m ya ¢�>U�Oa c o E m o�F ¢�?5¢? c �LL o m c Z¢O5paQ r c E m m = mY ca - 0 mo oa co Z5'2 ¢� >WUF a 4i o0m LmRO 0 wvpioHQ m �mm°ompO .o o0�U zaU Fwi_ aam2d- < a�Ea z CCPC 2010 CYCLE ADOPTION ADVERTISEMENT NAPLES DAILY NEWS Published Daily> { s Naples. FL 341 10 Affidavit of publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee AMOP Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Kim Pokarney, who on oath says that she serves as the Accounting Manager of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising; being a was published in said newspaper on July 1, 2011 Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication ofthe attached copy of advertisement; and afftant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the syd newspaper. ( Signature of affiant) Sworn to and subscribed before me This 6th day of July, 2011 vs, (I =( E �Cm" (Signature of notary public) ,q2jv aql 3uole soozoj uotl7oD pt a-4g2u SE of SZ puu=oo of pasn .Mari 01u1 to lspled aroq panotu ogAS'uef auojY ut ,illlrgeis of swanp lsa;92lq a seq `urggrj atp pur uppa -jr gloq nuau taubbEH pasaq- tmspfed aqL szaxoMlle aura a1q7 L aldoad 0z `E •szadoirr laq O LYi`t dq pa;srsse azam bgm1sa3zoj A3unoas auol -sznoq ue 2urza32r4'Aupsanj, alel; E pagounel szagtIIOq aptoms autK plus uop7oo atp °azi=o-ld st olM I jo zapzEO to asiszre atp ui pa>p szalq,5tj J�S!ueg2jFi apisat iapUO=oo mbbEH atp 'aE f pemsl •aTzlszlu uomaazd u 'allpl sEm la3oq luluaupaoD-zaluj aql aglol'2tnur j4pueszaltl2tj'saoduam iapleozd 2ut&rq jo paloiadsns )lzomiau )eal E palrodaz osle uopgEOO all b mEZpgltn^. .noas alpuuq of sa :xoj ueg3jv jo 14! p pasrez 1Egl ;lnusse uE _ lnquX rrt uE dlpeap E zoj szaatlBtj ut gzT.L g1VA au palE.W -Eplu -le = paun lq )Lup a%L — unsltmEgdjv `7 qVX ploquo! mubbUH, mud Pe4VPO=VAvPsettpqM i4,njq = Aq pepelle sera q m4e lelotl= tennol 1112m szatplos nptrem 03 aetlBIV for. such purpose he may need to ensure A made, which record includes the testi- �is to be based. s any accommodation ir'order to participate Eieg�,, to you, to the provision of certain assis- cilities Management Department, located at L 34112 -5356, (239) 262 -6380; at least two 13230 Tapvices for the hearing -impaired are available in Txdirck a nniie iiimimerMPI¢ July 1,_2011 ' NAPLES DAILY NEWS Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 Affidavit of Publicati '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:,-.. The purpose of the hearing is to consider recommendation to the Board of County.Commis- sioners to transmit to the Florlda Department :of'Community Affairs the Actoption.of- Gi6wth Management Plan amendments to the Future Land Use and Future Land Use.Map'and Map . . Series, and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Goiden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series. The ordinance titles are as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 2011- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89- 05; -AS AMENDED; THE, COL LIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED' AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING FOR: AN AMENDMENT, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN, INCLUD- ING THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, TO CREATE THE ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT; AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORDIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Petition C12- 2006 -1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to create the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 190,000 square feet of commer- ciai uses of the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts, with exceptions, and some uses of the 0-4 and C -5 zoning districts with a requirement to construct a grocery store, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard extending from Wilson Blvd. west to 3rd Street Northwest, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of ±40.62 acres, ADOPTION. HEARING [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] ORDINANCE NO. 2011- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89 -05, AS AMENDED, THE COL- LIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING FOR: AN AMENDMENT, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO CHANGE THE SQUARE FOOT LIMITATION IN THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT FOR CERTAIN USES, AND FURTHERMORE REC- OMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Petition CP- 2010 -1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan, to modify the. language of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neigh- borhood Commercial Subdistrict to allow a grocery/supermarket, physical fitness facility, craft/hobby store, home furniture /furnishing store and department store use to exceed the 20,000 square feet limitation for a single commercial use, up to a maximum of 50,000 square feet, for Parcel 1 (9.2+ acres, zoned Bradford Square MPUD) only, and with the overall maxi- mum development limitation of 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses on Parcel 1 to remain; the subject portion of the Subdistrict is located at the northeast corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road in "Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. ADOP- TION HEARINGICoordinatoc Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] ORDINANCE NO. 2011- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89 -05, AS AMENDED, THE COL- LIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING FOR: AMENDMENTS, SPE- CIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANS- MITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Petition CPSP - 2010 -2, staff petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Ele- ment and Future Land Use Map -and Map Series (FLUE/FLUM), to: modify the Bayshore/ Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B /GTRO); modify FLUE Policy 5.1; modify appii- cability of the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict: update the Wellhead Protection Map; update the FLUM and Map Series to reflect annexations, etc.; make FLUM boundary correc- tions in rural areas; and, add clarity, correct date errors, and make other non - substantive text reJisiohs:."ADOPTION HEARING [Coordinator. David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager] ORDINANCE NO. 2011- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89 -05, AS AMENDED, THE COL - I State of Florida LIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: AN AMENDMENT, Counties Of Collier and Lee SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE .LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, TO REMOVE IN IT'S ENTIRETY, THE DAVIS Before the undersigned they serve as the auth BOULEVARD /COUNTY BARN ROAD MIXED -USE SUBDISTRICT, AND FURTHER - `MORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION'AMENDMENT TO appeared Kim Pokarney. who on oath says 1 NAPLES DAILY NEWS Published Daily i Naples, FL 34110 Affidavit of P'ublicati. State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the auth appeared Kim Pokarney; who on oath says t the Accounting Manager of the Naples Daily newspaper published at Naples. in Collier( distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Flog attached copy of the advertising, being a PUBLIC NOTICE I� I in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE was published in said newspaper I time in' on July 1, 2011 i Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News i published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, an newspaper has heretofore been continuously published County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties each day and has been entered as second class mail mat office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a year next preceding the first publication ofthe attac advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neitl promised any person, firm or corporation any disco commission or refund for the purpose of securing this a4 . publication in the s410 newspaper. I ( Signature of affiant, Sworn to and subscribed before me This 6th day of July, 2011 (Signature of notary public) Ki;ROL E Y,At,1GA5 .4;.ti. Notary public - State Of Florida My C omm. Expires Jul 29, 9 ,113 ; Commissian n DD 912237 AtitA Ut'tiULu=m LAJUN IT, t-LUNW-k o T r-MV vHJpvto CIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANS- MITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE Petition CPSP- 20100.2, staff petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Gie- ment and Future Land Use Map and Map Series UE/FLU . to: modify the Bayshorel Gateway Triangle'Redevelopment Overlay (B /GIRO); modify FLUE Policy 5.1; modify appfi- cabil'tty of the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict; update the Wellhead Protection Map; update the FLUM and Map Series-to reflect annexations, etc.; make FW M boundary correc- tions in rural areas; and, add ciarity,.correct date errors, and make other non- substantive text . revi`sions.. ADOPTION HEARING [Coordinator- David Weeks, A)CP, GMP Manager, ORDINANCE No. 2011- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COL- LIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING FOR: AN AMENDMENT, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, TO REMOVE IN IT'S ENTIRETY, THE DAVIS BOULEVARD /COUNTY BARN ROAD MIXED -USE SUBDISTRICT, AND FURTHER - MORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, PROVIDING FOR SEV- ERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Petition CPSP - 2010 -5, Staff petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use El- ement and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to modify the Davis Boulevard /County Barn Road Mixed Use Subdistrict by deleting. the subdistrict in its entirety; the subdistrict is located at the southeast comer of Davis Blvd. (SR 84) and County Barn Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Ravage 26 east, containing + 22.83 acres. ADOPTION HEARING .[Coordinator. Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Plannerl Collier County a Florida a I" n _ - �t. =ter -:. An rnreresteo parties are invited to appear and -be heard. Copies of the proposed Growth N/lanagement Plan Amendment will be made available for inspection at the Land Develop- ment Services Dept, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday, through Friday. Furthermore the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's 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 documents should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to `the-Board`s Office firipr 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 Comimilssion 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 testi- mony,and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. If you are a person with• a disability who needs any accommodation iii order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assis- tance_ 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 4o the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Mark P. Strain, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission I No. 678170859 ' July 1 2011 PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice S 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 FI=, County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples. The purpose of the hearing's to consider recommendation to the Board of County Commis- sioners to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs the Adoption of Growth Management Plan amentlmants to the Future Lard Use and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series. The ordinance titles are as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 2011- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COL- LIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING FOR: AN AMENDMENT, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN, INCLUD- ING THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, TO CREATE THE ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORDIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIUTY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE Penton CP- 2006 -1, Pethion requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Aree Master PI r, d - GIP a s+ � P =n F u antl Man �.^cs, to create the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 190,000 square feet of commer- cial uses of the C-1 through C -3 inning districts, with exceptions, and some uses of the C-4 and C-5 zoning districts with a requirement to construct a grocery store, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard extending from Wilson Blvd. west to 3rd Street Northwest, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of x40.62 acres. ADOPTION HEARING [Coordinator. Michele Moses, AICP, Principal Planned ORDINANCE NO. 2011- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8405, AS AMENDED, THE COL - UER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO CHANGE THE SQUARE FOOT LIMITATION IN THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT FOR CERTAIN USES, AND FURTHERMORE REC. OMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Petition CP- 2010 -1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future lard Use Element of [he Grrwdh Management Plan to modify the language of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neigh- borhood Commercial Subdistrict to allow a grocery/supermarket, physical fitness facility, 'raft/hobby store, home fumiture/fumishing store and department more use to exceed the 20,000 square feet limitation for a single commercial use, up to a maximum of 50,000 square feet, for Parcel 1 (92+ acres, zoned Bradford Square MPUD) only, and with the overall rtazi- mum development li=!on of 100,000 square feet of commercial lard uses on Parcel 1 to remain; the subject portion of the Subdistrict is located at the northeast comer of Vanderbilt Beech Road and Livingston Road in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 Fast. ADOP- TION HEARING [Coordim a .. Michele Moses, AICP, Principal Planner] ORDINANCE NO. 2011 -_ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COL- LIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS, SPE- CIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIFS, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANS- MITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILTfY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Petition CPSP- 2010 -2, staff petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Ele- meM ctl F n L d U =e Man c� d Mao des M ¢ FI_L iL, I Imo. to: modify the Bayshore/ Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO); modify FLUE Policy 5.1; modify appli- cability of the Office and Info Commercial Subdistrict; update the Wellhead Protection Map; update the FLUM and Map Series to reflect annexations, etc.; make FLUM boundary correc- tions in coral areas; and, add clarity, correct date enors, and make other non - substantive text revisions. ADOPTION HEARING [Coordinator. David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager] ORDINANCE NO. 2011- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COL - UER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, TO REMOVE IN ITS ENTIRETY, THE DAVE BOULEVARD/COUNTY BARN ROAD MIXED -USE SUBDISTRICT, AND FURTHER- MORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, PROVIDING FOR BEV- ERABILIT' AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Petition CPSP- 20145, Staff petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use El- ement and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to modify the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed Use Subdistrict by deleting the subdistrict in its entirety; the subdiel ict is located at the southeast comer of Davis Blvd. (SR 84) and County Bain Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 east, containing +22.83 acres. ADOPTION HEARING [Coordinator. Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] ! Cola— comty ! Florida 1 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 Develop- ment Services Dept., Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 AM. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthemwre the materials will be trade available for inspection at the Collier County Clark'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 documents should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section. Written commems filed with the Clerk to the Board's Once 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 testi- mony 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 assis- I . Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tsmiami 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, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission No 6781708M .why 1.201 t CPSP- 2010 -2 ADOPTION (BCC /CCPC /EAC) PROPOSED WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS MAP ADVERTISING CE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 in the Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, Third Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a recommendation on an amendment to the Future Land Use Ele- ment Future Land Use Map Series of the Growth Management Plan. The Ordinance title is as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 2011- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89 -05, AS AMENDED, THE COL- LIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING FOR: AMENDMENTS, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPART- MENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CPSP - 2010 -2, Petition requesting various amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land ADOPTION HEARING [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP COWER WELLHEAD _. TEC11ON AREAS, PROPOSED WELUREUDS AND ASRS jj �j 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 Develop- ment Services Dept., Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL. between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore the mate- rials will be made available for inspec- tion at the Collier County Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor, Suite 401, Collier County Government Center, East Naples, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the docu- ments should be directed to the Com- prehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to Tuesday, Sep- tember 13, 2011, will be read and con- sidered at the public hearing. If a person decides to appeal any deci- sion made by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners with re- spect 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 testi- mony 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 Com- missioners' Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: Teresa Polaski Deputy Clerk (SEAL) No. 231182578 August24 2011 NAPLES DAILY NEWS Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Kim PoLney, who on oath says that she serves as the Accounting Manager of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida: that the attached copy of the advertising, being a PUBLIC NOTICE in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE was published in said newspaper 1 time in the issue on July 1, 2011 Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida., each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of I year neat preceding the first publication ofthe attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said-aewspaper. - ( Signature of affiant) Sworn to and subscribed before me This 6th day of July, 2011 - )� a arl r V_� 0_0�w (Signature of notary public) MEETING ommission will hold a public meet- nf County Commissioner's Chamber, ram! Trait Naples, FL 34112, to con- Adoption amendment to the Collier . b rice at 9:00 A.M. i on an amendment to the Future Management Plan. The Ordinance AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER UNINCORPORATED AREA OF AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE ES FOR THE WELLHEAD PRO - JJFER STORAGE AND.,RECOV- I.a13 .. ".�'r.Sf1�iIJ7Vr1 r tlSL- SY;r ^'7l�IL � .. o1=:coMMtDNIT�s EFFECTAVE DATE:..; .. hursday at the Collier Countys to the Future Land Use Element section with--a shooting that map titled Collier County Wellhead mey SvmR'Stalf 'oordinator. David Weeks, AIGIR, :ement arrested him 24 more - n on 49 charges that includ6sted parties are invited to appear: n, trespassing and robbery heard. Copies of the. proposed occurred four days after Management Plan Amendfn4ht.Vkd lue in court to face charge. a available for inspection at the L anti onment, battery and chilypment Services Dept., Comprek1i^ g from an incident in Aprilanning Section, 2800 N. •HorsESiipe urphy revoked the bond vples, between the hows;bf 6�0 ,A.M. tursday. DO P.M., Monday thrD6gh'Friday: Ariy_' ation into this case is sans pertaining to the documents 7es believe at least two ad be directed to the Comprehensive were with Bienaime at thng Section. Written comments filed oting. ie Clerk to the Board's Office prior:to lay, July 21, 2011, will be—read—and mnation about the tared at the public hearing. aD the Collier County ajor Qimes Bureau at r to remain anonymous and :ward call Crime Stoppers at rson decides to appeal any decision by the Collier County Planning Com- S.Com n with respect to any matter con- xgries in the case d at such meeting or hearing, he.will t record of that proceeding, and for �y y f L ihore purpose he may need to ensure that latim record of the proceedings is ��,4�Y KAROL E KANGAS 4 D c' ^: - e - ", ��% R 1.> _ Notary Public -State of Fioritla c =y }. -- My Comm. Expires Jul 23. 210': lace from nesting birds. ,� to fly. which record includes the testimony Iidence upon which the appeal is to :ed. Commission w DO 5 12237 Isted areas. . :ashes or on aboat. nodation in order to participate in this . orks near an active nesting wision.of certain assistance. Please ment, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail j ar behind. it least two days prior to the meeting. ailable in the Board of County Com- Say National Estuarine .rn nests left to hatch — anc s. Leitholf counted abou skimmers and 19 chicks, July 1, 2011 NAPLES DAILY NEWS Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 Affidavit of Publican State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the air appeared Kim Pokarney, who on oath says the Accounting Manager of the Naples Dail newspaper published at Naples, in Collier distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Fl attached copy of the advertising, being a PUBLIC NOTICE in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE was published in said newspaper 1 time i on Julv 1, 2011 Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, al newspaper has heretofore been continuously publishcc County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee countie each day and has been entered as second class mail rr office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for year next preceding the first publication of the atta advertisement; and afiiant further says that he has nei promised any person, firm or corporation any disc commission or refund for the purpose of securing this r publication in the,4d newspaper. ( Signature of affiant Sworn to and subscribed before me This 6th day of July, 2011 (Signature of notary public) KARDL E KANGAS Notary Public - 31a1e of Florida My Comm. Expires Jul 29, 2013 COMMISSIOn # DD 912237 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meet- ing on Thursday, July 21, 2011, at 9:00 R.M. in the Board of County Commissioner's Chamber,. Third Floor, Collier County Government Canter, 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL. 34112, to con- sider the Transmittal of the following County Ordinance for an Adoption amendment.io the Collier County Growth Management -Plan, The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a recommendation on an amendment to 'the Future Land Use Element Future Land Use Map Series of the Growth Management Plan. The Ordinance We is as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 11 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89 -05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF, COLLIER COUNT); FLORIDA BY PROVIDING FOR: AN AME NDMENT TO THE FUTURE -LAND USE ELEMENT'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES FOR THE WELLHEAD PRD- TECTION AREAS, PROPOSED WELLFIELDS AND AQUIFER STORAGE AfFYD RECOV- ERY (ASR'S) MAP; AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING . tRANS- MITTALOF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF GOMMlJNIT'1'4FFAIRS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE- • CPSP- 2010 -2, Petition requesting various amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Mao series, including the map titled Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Mar). [Coordinator. David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager] COLLIER COUNTY WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS, PROPOSED WELLF ELDS AND ASF. ID 1 L j i 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., Comprehen- sive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:D0 P.M., Monday through Friday. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Cleric 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 Com- mission with respect to any matter con- sidered 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 cpst 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 Com- missioners Office. Mark P. Strain, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission No.678170861 V U BLIU N UT10E P U BL1C NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meet- ing on Thursday, July 21, 2011, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioner's Chamber, Third Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL. 34112, to con- sider the Transmittal of the following County Ordinance for an Adoption amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a recommendation on an amendment to the Future Land Use Element Future Land Use Map Series of the Growth Management Plan. The Ordinance title is as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 11- 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: AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES FOR THE WELLHEAD PRO- TECTION AREAS, PROPOSED WELLFIELDS AND AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOV- ERY (ASR'S) MAP; AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. • CPSP- 2010 -2, Petition requesting various amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map series including the map titled Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager] COWER COUNTY WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS, PROPOSED WELLFIELDS AND ASN QR� e� RIDGE �,s s .m g 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., Comprehen- sive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Any questions pertaining to the documents 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 Com- mission with respect to any matter con- sidered 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 Com- missioners Office. Mark P. Strain, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission No. 678170861 July 1 2011 NAPLES DAILY NEWS Published Daily Naples.. FL 341 10 Affidavit of Pubtiic tiol State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authori appeared MaryLvnn Roeller, who on oath saes as the Advertising Accounting Manager of the l` a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Co Florida, distributed in Collier and Lee counties the attached copy of the advertising, being a PUBLIC NOTICE j i I in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE ! was published in said newspaper I time in th on June 16, 2011 Affiani further says that the said Naples Daily News is a r published. at Naples. in said Collier Count),, Florida and th newspaper has heretofore been continuously published to s: Counry, Florida: distributed in Collier and Lee counties of each day and has been entered as second class mail ntaner office in Naples, in saicl Collier County. Florida for a pe year next preceding the first publication of the attached advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither promised any person, firm or corporation anv discount commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adve( publication in thesaid newspaper. ( Slaturerof affiant) Sworn to and subscribed before me This l7th day of June. 201 1 (Signature of notary public) NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Notice is hereby giver. that the Environmental Advisory Council will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, July 06, 2011, at.9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber. Third Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL. 34112, to consider the Transmittal of the following County Ordinance for an Adoption amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a recommendation on an amendment to the Future Land Use Element Future.L.and Use Map Series of the Growth Management Plan. The Ordinance title is as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 11- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89 -05, AS AMENDED, THE COL- LIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING FOR: AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES FOR THE WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS, PROPOSED WELLcIELDS AND AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY (ASR'S) MAP; AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMEND- ING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPART- MENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVID- ING FOR AN EFFECTIVE.DATE. CPSP- 2010 -2, Petition requesting various amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Mao series, including the map titled Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas. Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Mao. [Coordinator. David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager] i `' •.; ce my j »u r Ml s ; wrc � i 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, 2600 N. Horseshoe Dr.. Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section. Writ- ten comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to Wednesday, July 06, 2011, will be read and considered at the public hearing. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Environmental Advisory 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 testi- mony 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 Com- missioners Office. Judith Hushon, Chairman Collier County Environmental Advisory Council No. 678170$47_ _.._ __ June 16, 2011 KAROL E KA h'GAS g ?•< %� Notary Public - State ct Florida My Comm. Expires JItI 29, 20-, 1 F�l; °O Commission # OD 912237 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Notice is hereby giver. that the Environmental Advisory Council will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, July 06, 2011, at.9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber. Third Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL. 34112, to consider the Transmittal of the following County Ordinance for an Adoption amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a recommendation on an amendment to the Future Land Use Element Future.L.and Use Map Series of the Growth Management Plan. The Ordinance title is as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 11- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89 -05, AS AMENDED, THE COL- LIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING FOR: AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES FOR THE WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS, PROPOSED WELLcIELDS AND AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY (ASR'S) MAP; AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMEND- ING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPART- MENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVID- ING FOR AN EFFECTIVE.DATE. CPSP- 2010 -2, Petition requesting various amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Mao series, including the map titled Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas. Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Mao. [Coordinator. David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager] i `' •.; ce my j »u r Ml s ; wrc � i 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, 2600 N. Horseshoe Dr.. Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section. Writ- ten comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to Wednesday, July 06, 2011, will be read and considered at the public hearing. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Environmental Advisory 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 testi- mony 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 Com- missioners Office. Judith Hushon, Chairman Collier County Environmental Advisory Council No. 678170$47_ _.._ __ June 16, 2011 �1�Ja � ��J ►i`C�� C�J NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Advisory Council will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, July 06, 2011, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber, Third Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL. 34112, to consider the Transmittal of the following County Ordinance for an Adoption amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a recommendation on an amendment to the Future Land Use Element Future Land Use Map Series of the Growth Management Plan. The Ordinance title is as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 11- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89 -05, AS AMENDED, THE COL- LIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING FOR: AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES FOR THE WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS, PROPOSED WELLFIELDS AND AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY (ASR'S) MAP; AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMEND- ING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPART- MENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVID- ING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CPSP- 2010 -2, Petition requesting various amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map series, including the map titled Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas, Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager] i esa a! 0+8 /. \voraoa runa4 r� �' an ar x vs cnrz \ un cam+ arz x,usnn 1-]5 84 att v nnco. ,K ,4 PE.M s one n rFU rcxWm � - � n US * •m _ 4amx saA,a 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. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section. Writ- ten comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to Wednesday, July 06, 2011, will be read and considered at the public hearing. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Environmental Advisory 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 testi- mony 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 Com- missioners Office. Judith Hushon, Chairman Collier County Environmental Advisory Council No. 678170847 June 16. 2011 2010 CYCLE ADOPTION ORDINANCE(S) EXHIBIT "A" TEXT AND AND/OR MAP CHANGES 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: AN AMENDMENT, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN, INCLUDING THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES TO CREATE THE ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORDIA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. sea., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans pursuant to Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, and Richard Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. requested an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series to create the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 190,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts, with exceptions, and some uses of the C -4 and C -5 zoning districts with a requirement to construct a grocery store for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard extending from Wilson Boulevard west to 3`d Street Northwest, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 40.62± acres; and Words Am& dwough are deletions; words underlined are additions 1 * * * *indicate page breaks Petition No. CP- 2008 -1 Rev. 8/09/11 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 Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and Map Series to the Growth Management Plan and transmitted its findings in writing to Collier County within the time provided by law; and WHEREAS, Collier County has 60 days from 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 Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series 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 of the Collier County Planning Commission held on July 21, 2011, and August 4, 2411 and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners held on September 13, 2011; and met. WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts these amendments to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series 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. Words true k + wough are deletions; words underlined are additions 2 * * * *indicate page breaks Petition No. CP- 2008 -1 Rev. 8/09/11 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: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency. n PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this day of , 2011. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA I:'. , Deputy Clerk FRED W. COYLE, Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: N- � Heidi Ashton -Cicko S Assistant County Attorney Section Chief, Land Use /Transportation CP \11 -CMP- 00793 \31 Words stfaek Offough are deletions; words underlined are additions 3 * * *indicate page breaks Petition No. CP- 2008 -1 Rev. 8/09/11 CP- 2008 -1 Exhibit A GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN [Page 4] Policy 1.1.2: The ESTATES Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: B. ESTATES — COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 1. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 2. Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict 3. Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 4. Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict 5. Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict 6. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict B. Estates — Commercial District 6. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict — Recognizing the need to provide for n centrally located basic goods and services within a portion Northern Golden Gate Estates, the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict has been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. The Subdistrict is located at the NW corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard westward to 3rd Street NW and extending northward to include the southern 180 feet of Tracts 142 and 106 of Unit 11 and the southern 255 feet of Tract 111 of Unit 11 of Golden Gate Estates totaling approximately 41 acres The Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict is intended to provide convenient shopping, personal services and employment for the central areas of Northern Golden Gate Estates. Commercial development in this Subdistrict will reduce driving distances for many residents, assist in minimizing the road network required and reduce traffic impacts in this area of Collier County. All development in this Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and limitations: a. Allowable Uses shall be limited to the following: 1. Amusement and recreation Groups 7911— Dance studios schools and halls excluding discotheques 7991 — Physical fitness facilities 1 Words underlined are added; words are deleted. Row of asterisks ( * ** * ** * * *) denotes break in text. CP- 2008 -1 7999 —Amusement and recreation services, not elsewhere classified, allowing only day camps gymnastics instruction, iudo /karate instruction sporting goods rental and yoga instruction ADDarel and accessory stores (no adult oriented sales Groups 5611 — Men's and boys' clothing and accessory stores 5621 — Women's clothing stores 5632 — Women's accessory and specialty stores 5641 — Children's and infants' wear stores 5651 — Family clothing stores 5661 — Shoe stores 5699 — Miscellaneous apparel and accessory stores 3. Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations Groups 5531 —Auto and home supply stores 4. Automotive repair, services and parking (No outdoor repair /service. All repairs /services to be performed by authorized automotive technician.) Groups 7514 — Passenger car rental 5. Buildina materials,_ hardware garden supply, and mobile home dealers Groups 5231 — Paint glass and wallpaper stores 5251 — Hardware stores 5261 — Retail nurseries lawn and garden supply stores 6. Business services _Groups 7334 — Photocopying and duplicating services 7335 — Commercial photography 7336 — Commercial art and graphic design 7338 — Secretarial and court reporting services 7342 — Disinfecting and pest control services 7352 — Medical equipment rental and leasing 7359 — Equipment rental and leasing not elsewhere classified, excluding the following uses: airplane rental and leasing; coin operated machine rental and leasing; industrial truck rental and leasing; oil field equipment rental and leasing; oil well drilling equipment rental; leasing; toilets portable — rental and leasing; and vending machines — rental only 7371 — Computer programming services 7372 — Prepackaged software 7373 — Computer integrated systems design 7374 —Computer processing and data preparation and processing services 7375 — Information retrieval services 7376 — Computer facilities management services 7379 — Computer related services not elsewhere classified 7382 — Security systems services 7383 — News syndicates 7384 — Photofinishing laboratories 7389 — Business services, not elsewhere classified Words underlined are added; words StFUGk tough are deleted. Row of asterisks ( * ** * ** * * *) denotes break in text. CP- 2008 -1 7. Communications Groups 4812 — Radiotelephone communications 4841 - Cable and other pay television services 8. Construction special trade contractors (office use only, no on -site materials or equipment storage) Groups 1711 — Plumbing heating and air - conditioning 1721 — Painting and paper hanging industry 1731 — Electrical work industry 1741 — Masonry, stone setting and other stone work 1742 — Plastering drywall acoustical and insulation work 1743 — Terrazzo, tile, marble and mosaic work industry 1751 — Carpentry work 1752 — Floor laving and other floor work not elsewhere classified industN 1761 — Roofing, siding and sheet metal work industry 1771 — Concrete work industry 1781 —Water well drilling industry 1791 — Structural steel erection 1793 — Glass and glazing work 1794 — Excavation work 1795 — Wrecking and demolition work 1.796 — Installation or erection of building equipment not elsewhere 1799 — Special trade contractors not elsewhere classified 9. Depository institutions Groups 6021 — National commercial banks 6022 — State commercial banks 6029 — Commercial banks, not elsewhere classified 6035 — Savings institutions federally chartered 6036 — Savings Institutions, not federally chartered 6061 — Credit unions, federally chartered 6062 — Credit unions, not federally chartered 6091 — Non - deposit trust facilities 6099 — Functions related to depository banking not elsewhere classified 10. Eating and drinking places (Group 5812 including only liquor service accessory to the restaurant use, no outdoor music or televisions and no windows or walls open to the outside except as required by code) 11. Engineering, accounting research management and related services Groups 8711 — Engineering services 8712 — Architectural services 8713 — Surveying services 8721 — Accounting, auditing and bookkeeping services 8741 — Management services 8742 — Management consulting services 8743 — Public relations services 8748— Business consulting services not elsewhere classified Words underlined are added; words °*'uGk th'-ough are deleted. Row of asterisks ( * ** * ** * * *) denotes break in text. CP- 2008 -1 12. Executive, leaislative, and general government except finance Groups 9111 — Executive offices 9121 — Legislative bodies 9131 — Executive and leaislative offices combined 9199 — General government not elsewhere classified 13. Food stores Groups 5411 — Grocery stores (minimum 27,000 square feet) 5421 — Meat and fish (seafood) markets, including freezer provisioners 5431 — Fruit and vegetable markets 5441 — Candy, nut, and confectionery stores 5451 — Dairy products stores 5461 — Retail bakeries 5499 — Miscellaneous food stores including convenience stores with fuel pumps and carwash 14. General merchandise stores Groups 5311 — Department stores 5331 — Variety stores 5399 — Miscellaneous general merchandise stores 15. Home furniture, furnishings, and equipment stores Groups 5712 — Furniture stores 5713 — Floor covering stores 5714 — Drapery, curtain, and upholstery stores 5719 — Miscellaneous home furnishings stores 5722 — Household appliance stores 5731 — Radio television, and consumer electronics stores 5734 — Computer and computer software stores 5735 — Record and prerecorded tape stores (no adult oriented sales) 5736 — Musical instrument store 16. Insurance carriers Groups 6311 — Life insurance 6321 — Accident and health insurance 6324 — Hospital and medical service plans 6331 — Fire, marine, and casualty insurance 6351 — Surety insurance 6361 — Title insurance 6371 — Pension, health and welfare funds 6399 — Insurance carriers, not elsewhere classified 6411 — Insurance agents 17. Justice, public order and safety Groups 9221 — Police protection 9222 — Legal counsel and prosecution 9229 — Public order and safety, not elsewhere classified Words underlined are added; words stFuGk 4hreuo are deleted. Row of asterisks ( * ** * ** * * *) denotes break in text. CP- 2008 -1 18. Meeting and banquet rooms 19. Miscellaneous retail (no adult oriented sales Groups 5912 — Drug stores and proprietary stores 5921 — Liquor stores (accessory to grocery or pharmacy only) 5932 — Used merchandise stores 5941 — Sporting _goods stores and bicycle shops 5942 — Book stores 5943 — Stationery stores 5944 — Jewelry stores including repair 5945 — Hobby, toy, and game shops 5946 — Camera and photographic supply stores 5947 — Gift, novelty, and souvenir shops 5948 — Luggage and leather goods stores 5949 — Sewing, needlework, and piece goods stores 5992 — Florists 5993 — Tobacco stores and stands 5994 — News dealers and newsstands 5995 — Optical goods stores 5999— Miscellaneous retail stores, not elsewhere classified (excluding- gravestone, tombstones, auction rooms, monuments swimming pools, and sales barns) 20. Non - depository credit institutions n Groups 6111 — Federal and federally- sponsored credit agencies 6141 — Personal credit institutions 6153 — Short-term business credit institutions except agricultural 6159 — Miscellaneous business credit institutions 6162 — Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents 6163 — Loan brokers 21. Offices and clinics of dentist (Group 8021) 22. Personal services Groups 7212 — Garment pressing and agents for laundries and drycleaners 7221 — Photographic studios, portrait 7231 — Beauty shops 7241 — Barber shops 7251 — Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors 7291 — Tax return preparation services 7299 — Miscellaneous personal services not elsewhere classified excluding massage parlors, Turkish baths and escort services 23. Public finance, taxation, and monetary policy (Group 9311) 24. Real Estate Groups 6512 — Operators of nonresidential buildings 6513 — Operators of apartment buildings Words underlined are added; words struGk through are deleted. Row of asterisks * ** * ** * ** ( )denotes break in text. CP- 2008 -1 6514 — Operators of dwellings other than apartment buildings /0—N 6515 — Operators of residential mobile home sites 6517 — Lessors of railroad property 6519 — Lessors of real property, not elsewhere classified 6531 — Real estate agents and managers 6541 — Title abstract offices 6552 — Land subdividers and developers, except cemeteries 25 Schools and educational services not elsewhere classified (Group 8299) 26. Securitv and commoditv brokers dealers, exchanges, and services Groups 6211 — Security brokers dealers, and flotation companies 6221 — Commodity contracts brokers and dealers 6231 — Security and commodity exchanges 6282 — Investment advice 6289 — Services allied with the exchange of securities or commodities, not elsewhere classified 27. Social services Groups 8322 — Individual and family social services (adult day care centers only) 8351 — Child day care services 28. Travel agencies (Group 4724) n 29 Veterinary services for animal specialties (Group 0742, excluding outside kenneling) 30 Video tape rental (Group 7841 excluding_ adult oriented sales and rentals) 31 United states postal service (Group 4311 excluding major distribution centers) 32 Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ( "BZA ") by the process outlined in the LDC. b. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: a Utility buildings (including water and wastewater plants) which shall be enclosed b. Essential service facilities c. Gazebos statuary and other architectural features d Utilities water and wastewater facilities and /or plants (all processing plants must be enclosed) e Alcohol service for outdoor dining shall only be accessory to food service Words underlined are added; words °*r�UGk through are deleted. Row of asterisks ( * ** * ** * * *) denotes break in text. CP- 2008 -1 c. Operational Standards 1. Outdoor music is prohibited d. The following uses shall be prohibited: 1. Amusement and recreation services, not elsewhere classified (Group 7999 except those uses expressly listed above in a.1 are permitted) 2. Air and water resource and solid waste management (Group 9511) 3. Business Services Groups 7313 — Radio television and publishers' advertising representatives 7331 — Direct mail advertising services 4. Correctional Anstitutions (Group 9223) 5. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) (Group 5813) 6. Educational services Groups 8211 — Elementary and secondary schools 8221 — Colleges, universities, and professional schools 8222 — Junior colleges and technical institutes 8231 — Libraries 7. Health services Groups 8062 — General medical and surgical hospitals 8063 — Psychiatric hospitals 8069 — Specialty hospitals, except psychiatric 8. Miscellaneous Retail Groups 5921 — Liquor stores 5961 — Catalog and mail -order houses 5962 — Automatic merchandising machine operators 9. Personal services Groups 7211 — Power Laundries, family and commercial 7261 — Funeral service and crematories 10. Social services Groups 8322 — Individual and family social services excluding adult day care centers 8361— Residential care, including soup kitchens and homeless shelters Words underlined are added; words GtFUGk through are deleted. Row of asterisks ( * ** * ** * * *) denotes break in text. CP- 2008 -1 e Development intensity shall be limited to 190,000 square feet of gross leasable floor ^ area. f No commercial use shall exceed fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, except for a single grocery store use between twenty -seven thousand (27,000) and sixty thousand (60,000) square feet in size a single commercial use of up to thirty thousand (30,000) square feet in size and a single commercial use of up to twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in size. q No building may exceed 30,000 square feet in size except for the grocery anchored building with inline stores. h Development within this Subdistrict shall be phased and the following commitments related to area roadway improvements shall be completed within the specified timeframes: 1 Right -of -Way for Golden Gate Boulevard Expansion and Right -of -Way for the Wilson Boulevard Expansion will be donated to the County at no cost within 120 days of a written request from the County. 2 The owner will pay its fair share for the intersection improvements at Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard within 90 days of County request for reimbursement. 3 Until the intersection improvements at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard are complete the County shall not issue a Certificate(s) of Occupancy (CO) for more than 100,000 square feet of development The applicant must obtain a C.O. for a grocery store as part of this 100,000 square feet and the grocery store must be the first C.O. obtained. L Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and the rezone ordinance must contain development standards to ensure that all commercial land uses will be compatible with neighboring residential uses. This subdistrict includes a conceptual plan which identifies the location of the permitted development area and required preserve area for this subdistrict. The preserve area depicted on the conceptual plan shall satisfy all comprehensive plan requirements for retained native vegetation including but not limited to the requirements of Policy 6.1.1 of the CCME A more detailed development plan must be developed and utilized for the required PUD rezoning. j Development standards including permitted uses and setbacks for principal buildings shall be established at the time of PUD rezoning Any future PUD rezone shall include at a minimum: • 1't/3 Id Streets- Minimum 30' wide enhanced buffer • Wilson Boulevard- Minimum 25' wide enhanced buffer • Golden Gate Boulevard- Minimum 50' wide enhanced buffer Words underlined are added; words StFUGk threy are deleted. Row of asterisks ( * ** * ** * * *) denotes break in text. CP- 2008 -1 (2) Except for the utility building no commercial building may be constructed within 125 feet of the northern property boundary and within 300' of the 3rd Street NW boundary of this subdistrict. (3) Any portion of the Proiect directly abutting residential property (property zoned E Estates and without an approved conditional use) shall provide at a minimum a seventy -five (75) feet wide buffer, except the westernmost 330' of Tract 106 which shall provide a minimum 20' wide buffer in which no parking uses are permitted Twenty -five (25) feet of the width of the buffer alona the developed area shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of fifty (50) feet of the buffer width shall consist of retained or re planted native vegetation and must be consistent with subsection 3.05.07.H of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) The native vegetation retention area may consist of a perimeter berm and be used for water management detention Any newly constructed berm shall be revegetated to meet subsection 3.05.07.1-1 of the LDC (native vegetation replanting requirements) Additionally in order to be considered for approval, use of the native vegetation retention area for water management purposes shall meet the following criteria: a. There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro - period unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the existing vegetation. b. Jf the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management District the project shall provide a letter or official document from the District indicating that the native vegetation within the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water management requirements If the District cannot or will not supply such a letter, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for water management. c. If the proiect is reviewed by Collier County the developer's engineer shall provide evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to facilitate the necessary storage of water in the water management area * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** A. Estates Mixed Use District * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** [Page 27] 2) Neighborhood Center Subdistrict — Recognizing the need to provide basic goods, services and amenities to Estates residents, Neighborhood Centers have been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. The Neighborhood Center designation does not guarantee that commercial zoning will be granted. The designation only provides the opportunity to request commercial zoning. a) The Collier County Land Development Code shall be amended to provide rural design criteria to regulate all new commercial development within Neighborhood Centers. b) Locations Neighborhood Centers are located along major roadways and are distributed within Golden Gate Estates according to commercial demand estimates, (See Map 9). The centers are designed to concentrate all new commercial zoning, and conditional uses, as allowed in the Estates Zoning District, in locations where traffic impacts can be readily Words underlined are added; words ctYUGk t r egg are deleted. Row of asterisks ( * ** * ** * * *) denotes break in text. CP- 2008 -1 accommodated and to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial and conditional use development. Four Neighborhood Centers are established as follows: Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center. This center consists of all fou three quadrants at the intersection of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards (See Map 16)—.—The' 0). The NE and SE quadrants of the Center consist of Tract 1 and 2, Unit 14, Tract 17, Unit 13 and the western half of Tract 18, Unit 13 Golden Gate Estates. The NE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is approximately 8.45 acres. The parcels within the NE quadrant shall be interconnected and share access to Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard to minimize connections to these two major roadways. The SE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is 7.15 acres, allows 5.00 acres of commercial development, and allocates 2.15 acres to project buffering and right -of -way for Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. oonGi + of Tr Gt 14 it I Rit 11 of reeler Gate Estates The SW quadrant of the Center is approximately 4.86 acres in size and consists of Tract 125, Unit 12 of Golden Gate Estates. FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Areas Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict Mission Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Conceptual Plan 10 Words underlined are added; words �r�h are deleted. Row of asterisks ( * ** * ** * * *) denotes break in text. I� F LEGEND URSAN DESIGNATION ESTATES DESIGNATION AGRICMLTVlMLlkA,A DE8IGNATWN ',. � ®qRU SEmEMdr MFw oemcr . ❑ uRwR Re�wnAL ❑A OVERLAYS AMI nia'monwl 1 uMS e�nzl oorNro9n aOma n9RCrcAU 9RUSmn ❑ MMrOCMCm mtfR Nms1NC1 SPECIAL FEATIIREB ®RtEOi tt eR01FiRd wEA owaAY AMNDEO - OCTOBER 21. 1997 AMENDED - APRL 14. 1990 ■ � 9�,� � ❑ M®9„ eMMnMn � ,~RAM �' R� 0 9RR.A MrARR mMMR� °-� ❑ AMENDED - eT&MMY T3. 1899 ■9�RRL9N�,�� 1 �, mum mMCVAm rn.mn,4 smrsme. ❑ ^< rac Roe9 MN9 use M�mciwe. ® RAxwu 9MRavAm mel9mu NMRa1NC] AMENDED - SEPTE 10, 2003 ORD. N0. 2003 -44 44 ® mu "` enAres MENDED - OCTOBER T8. 2004 ORO. N0. 200h71 AIMEImEO - JAwMY 2& zoos ORD. N0. 2005 -3 ❑ mRm suNxsmcl wa: TRAP 9D Nros�ERO rnMJl 1Re mMs 99rc1 0. PMnrs uo uJM u9; 9rsMMnoR DESMwno. ua MM.. M4911R evx AMENDED - JMUMY 2& 200] ORD. NO. 200]-19 P4 Do > hoo i4 IMMOKALEE ROAD �qp{ 5 ci SUBJECT ,'3 SITE vANDERBH.T w CP- 2008 -01 BEACH ROAD G W GOLDEN GATE Z a a ti PINE RIDGE RD. WHITE BLVD. E z > ` a w w G.G. PKWY. ' z J-# 0 a _a a a� INTERSTgTE -76 4 F Z a DAVIS BOULEVARD 1p S.R. 84 C a Efl a m M o �P 04 ti 1n r� Rif 9rL GOLDEN GATE FUTURE 1. AND IMP MAD F ADOPTED - EENNMY. 1991 AMENDED - DECEMBER 4. 2110] M. N0. 2901 -71 - AMENDED - MAY 19, 1991 AMENDED _ OCYOBFR 1h ZOOS 0110. N0. 2000 -59 AMENDED - JULY 29. 2010 mO ND. 2010 -31 - AMENDED - MAY 2& 1991 MINDED - JULY 27, 1993 AMENDED - ANK 12, 1994. AMENDED - JLLY 2& 1010 aPD. NO 2010 -32 MENDED - MARDI 14, 1998 AMNDEO - OCTOBER 21. 1997 AMENDED - APRL 14. 1990 AMEIDm - SEPIDIBER & 1998 AMENDED - eT&MMY T3. 1899 AMENCW - MAY k 2000 AMENDED - MARtl1 m 2001 AMENDED - MAY 14, 2102 AMENDED - SEPTE 10, 2003 ORD. N0. 2003 -44 44 MENDED - OCTOBER T8. 2004 ORO. N0. 200h71 AIMEImEO - JAwMY 2& zoos ORD. N0. 2005 -3 AMENDED - JMUMY 2& 200] ORD. NO. 200]-19 R26E rt I I I Ivry Lr- wzs -u I DR pF� GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP BOULEVARD S.R. 84 O E SCALE 0 1 MI. 2 MI. 3 MI, 4 MI. 5 MI. PREPARED BY: QS/CAD MAPPING S CMM ,OWM MANAGEMENT DIMUON / PLANMNG A REGULATM DAIS: 2/2011 n- CP- 2008- 1 -ADAG R27E IMMOKALEE ROAD OIL WELL ROAD RANDALL ROULEVARD Q O W m ] 0 A 0 0 0 rs m kl W 4 w A a a 0 I� a v w -- w CL .J R28E EXHIBIT A PETITION CP- 2008 -01 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS Collier County, Florida 000 IMMOKALEE ROAD 1 MI 2 MI PREPARED BY: GIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION FILE: GGMP- 47- 2008 -2.DWG DATE: 9/2009 AMENDED — (Ord. OCTOBER 26, 2004 No. 2004 -71) AMENDED — (Ord. JANUARY 25, 2007 No. 2007 -19) AMENDED (Ord. — OCTOBER 14, 2008 No. 2008 -59) GOLDEN GATE ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS LEGEND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS EXHIBITA PETITION CP- 2008 -01 WILSON BOULEVARD /GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD CENTER Collier County, Florida �R pF� v z / z IMMOKALEE D A O O G A V ADOPTED — SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 (Ord. No. 2003 -44) AMENDED — JANUARY 25, 2007 LEGEND (Ord. No. 2007 -19) AMENDED — DECEMBER 4, 2007 (Ord. No. 2007 -76) GOLDEN GATE SETTLEMENT AMENDED — OCTOBER 14, 2008 ESTATES AREA (Ord. No. 2008 -59) 0 NEIGHBORHOOD 0 1/2 MI. 1 MI. CENTER PREPARED BY: GIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION FILE: GGMP -43- 2008 -5.DWG DATE: 9/2009 EXHIBIT PETITION CP- 2008 -01A ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Collier County, Florida MFA7/// OR pF� IMMOKALEE D A Q O O a 0 8 y A V LEGEND GOLDEN GATE SETTLEMENT ESTATES AREA ESTATES SHOPPING 0 1/2 MI. 1 MI. CENTER SUBDISTRICT PREPARED BY: GIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION FILE: GGMP -43- 2008 -6.DWG DATE: 9/2009 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT CONCEPTUAL PLAN DD% ACCESS POINTS SHOWN ARE CONCEPTUAL. THE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS TO THE PROJECT WILL BE ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME OF PLO APPROVAL, W� 0 too 1. 200 R. GOLD N GA PREPARED BY: GIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION - PLANNING AND REGULATION DATE. 7/2011 FlLE: ESCSCP -t.DWG 2010 CYCLE ADOPTION ORDINANCE(S) EXHIBIT "A" TEXT AND AND /OR MAP CHANGES CP- 2010 -1 n 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: AN AMENDMENT, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO CHANGE THE SQUARE FOOT LIMITATION IN THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT FOR CERTAIN USES AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. sea., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier n County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and n 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, D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan, to modify the language of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict to allow for a grocery /supermarket, physical fitness facility, craft/hobby store, home furniture /furnishing store and department store use to exceed the 20,000 square feet limitation for a single commercial use, up to a maximum of 50,000 square feet, for Parcel 1 (9.2t acres, zoned Bradford Square MPUD) only, and with the overall maximum development limitation of 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses on Parcel 1 to remain; the subject portion of the Subdistrict portion of the Words sti-dek thfough are deletions; words underlined are additions, * * * * indicate page breaks* Petition No. CP- 2010 -1 Rev. 8/09/11 Subdistrict is located at the northeast corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road, in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; 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 to the Growth Management Plan and transmitted its findings in writing to Collier County within the time provided by law; and WHEREAS, Collier County has 60 days from 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 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 of the 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 met. WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts the amendment to the Future Land Use 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. Words struek dffet gh are deletions; words underlined are additions, 2 * * * * indicate page breaks* Petition No. CP- 2010 -1 Rev. 8/09/11 SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY. n 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: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this day of , 2011. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 130-M , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: \-o�c' C-A Heidi Ashton -Cicko Assistant County Attorney Section Chief, Land Use /Transportation FRED W. COYLE, Chairman CP \10 -CMP- 00782\26 Words stfuEIF through are deletions; words underlined are additions, 3 * * * * indicate page breaks* Petition No. CP- 2010 -1 Rev. 8/09/11 Exhibit A CP- 2010 -1 I. URBAN DESIGNATION [Page 44] A. Urban Mixed Use District 16. Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide primarily for neighborhood commercial development at a scale not typically found in the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. The intent is to provide commercial uses to serve the emerging residential development in close proximity to this Subdistrict, and to provide employment opportunities for residents in the surrounding area. Allowable uses shall be a variety of commercial uses as more particularly described below, and mixed use (commercial and residential). Prohibited uses shall be gas stations and convenience stores with gas pumps, and certain types of fast food restaurants. This Subdistrict consists of two parcels comprising approximately 17 acres, located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and east of Livingston Road, as shown on the Subdistrict Map. For mixed -use development, residential density shall be limited to sixteen dwelling units per acre. Residential density shall be calculated based upon the n gross acreage of the Subdistrict parcel on which it is located (Parcel 1 or Parcel 2). Rezoning of the parcels comprising this Subdistrict is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD, Planned Unit Development. At the time of rezoning, the applicant must include architectural and landscape standards for each parcel. a. Parcel 1 This parcel is located at the intersection of Livingston Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. A maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial uses may be allowed. Allowable uses shall be the following, except as prohibited above: retail, personal service, restaurant, office, and all other uses as allowed, whether by right or by conditional use, in the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04 -41, as amended, in effect as of the date of adoption of this Subdistrict (Ordinance No. 2005 -25 adopted on June 7, 2005); other comparable and /or compatible land uses not found specifically in the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts, limited to: general and medical offices, government offices, financial institutions, personal and business services, limited indoor recreational uses, and limited retail uses; mixed -use development (residential and commercial uses). The maximum floor area for any single commercial user shall be 20,000 square feet, except for a grocery /supermarket physical fitness facility, craft/hobbv store home furniture /furnishing store, or department store use which shall not exceed a maximum of 50,000 square feet. n (Words underlined are added, words StFUGk through are deleted) n b. Parcel 2 This parcel is located approximately % mile east of Livingston Road and is adjacent to multifamily residential uses. A maximum of 80,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial uses may be allowed. Allowable uses shall be the following, except as prohibited above: General and medical offices, community facilities, and business and personal services, all as allowed, whether by right or by conditional use, in the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended, in effect as of the date of adoption of this Subdistrict (Ordinance No. 2005 -25 adopted on June 7, 2005). The maximum floor area for any single commercial user shall be 20,000 square feet. At the time of rezoning of Parcel 2, the developer shall provide restrictions and standards to insure that uses and hours of operation are compatible with surrounding land uses. Permitted uses such as assisted living facilities, independent living facilities for persons over the age of 55, continuing care retirement communities, and nursing homes, shall be restricted to a maximum of 200 units and a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.6. The developer of Parcel 2 shall provide a landscape buffer along the eastern property line, abutting the Wilshire Lakes PUD, at a minimum width of thirty (30) feet. At the time of rezoning, the developer shall incorporate a detailed landscape plan for that portion of the property fronting Vanderbilt Beach Road as well as that portion along the eastern property line, abutting the Wilshire Lakes PUD. In addition to the prohibited uses applicable to both parcels the following list of uses shall also be prohibited on Parcel 1. 0742 Veterinary services for Animal Specialties — Horses are prohibited, other animals are allowed 0752 Animal specialty services except Veterinary (dog grooming is allowed) 5261 — Retail nurseries lawn and garden supply stores 5499 — Poultry dealers — retail and egg dealers — retail 5531 Auto and home supply store except automobile accessory and parts dealers — retail (no on -site installation) 5813 — Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) 5921 - Liquor stores exceeding 5,000 square feet 5932 — Uses merchandise stores 5962 — Automatic merchandising machine operators 7211 — Power laundries family and commercial 7215 — Coin - operated laundries and drycleaning 7216 — Drycleaning plants except rug cleaning 7299 — Miscellaneous personal services not elsewhere classified Coin operated service machine operations Comfort station operation Escort service Locker rental Massage parlors (except those employing licensed therapists) Rest room operation Tattoo parlors Turkish baths Wedding chapels privately operated are deleted (Words underlined are added, words st�slF -tl e� ) 7389 — Business services, not elsewhere classified, except Appraisers 7623 — Refrigeration and air - conditioning service and repair shops 7629 — Electrical and electronic repair shops not elsewhere classified 7641 — Re- upholstery and furniture repair 7692 — Welding repair 7694 — Armature rewinding shops 7699 — Repair shops and related services not elsewhere classified 7841 — Adult oriented video tape rental 7993 — Coin operated amusement devices 8641 — Civic, social and fraternal associations CCPC Recommendation: Not part of the Subdistrict Text As a condition of approval, and prior to the adoption of this Growth Management Plan amendment, the owner shall record in the official land records restrictive covenants for the benefit of surrounding property owners, including the Orchards, Village Walk, Tiburon at Pelican Marsh and Wilshire Lakes, that will prohibit the prohibited uses contained within the Subdistrict. (Words underlined are added, words struskt#reug# are deleted) 2010 CYCLE ADOPTION ORDINANCE(S) EXHIBIT "A" TEXT AND AND /OR MAP CHANGES CPSP - 2010 -2 R 25 E R 26 E R 27 E ©ED RURAL SETTEMENT AREA DISTFBCT 2006 - 2016 _ FUTURE LAND USE MAP y Collier County Florida m DETAILS OF THE RLSA OVERLAY AREA ARE SHOWN ® CUO�iA OsTON /IN ILL RI E TRT ® COASTAL FNINO weNSTRUCT ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TITLED: CONSERVATION DESIGNATION ~ RESEARCH AND MY PARK weCSTRICT "COLLIER COUNTY RURAL & AGRICULTURAL ® Mau.— ... / EATDNAMD LANE L III EMENER ICT AREA ASSESSMENT STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP" OFflCE AND INFILL COM_=0TAL SUBDISTRICT PUD NEIGHBORHDID NLLACE CENTER SUBDIRTRICT FE90ENTH& MINED USE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDISTRICT -N.— ROAD CDMMERCIAL NFILL SUBDISTWCT COMMERCIAL MINED USE SUBDSTRICT INCORPORATED AREAS COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA y a ®R A SA r CH -1V NHPv NDEEXLETTE O COMMERCIAL /INFlLL SUBdSTRCT CROSSROA05 ® „`(i � Ili MINED S B SIIRKT 0 CT MU.... SUBp15TRICtOU PAOTEAIION P'EA (NRPA) OVERLAY �E BUCK D UBDaTRCT�STR ,..,,,. AGRICULTURAL / RURAL ' ® BA— D /.ATEWAY Tt AN"S DESIGNATION REDE—DPMENT AY DOMMERCAL MkED USE SUEDSTRICT ®DAVFS BOULEVARD /COUNT' BARN ROAD AIikED USE SUBD6 K" AOPICULTURAL/RUBAL MIXED USE DISTRICT Bed LAxDs S TEW DSMP M A OWSLAY UNNGSTON .— /RADIO ROPD COMMERCIAL W.U. wBDSTRMT UIUNNLTOOU RURAL DEAS ENCAL SUBDISTRICT ■ CORKSCREW —AD NEFGHBORHDOD DEN. IK SUREDEUR T AAp K. FRINGE ® TRANSITION LONE OVERLAY aD wxeD YBRNDIeTRItT REDE11AG LANDS ,E NORM BELIE MGD[ O AY {:} INifRCHANGE IHpUBTR1AL DISTRICT SHR PARK INESS SUOUg xOLOCY SENDwG UNDS RESEARCH AND TE PARK BUBDS,NIM ® NEUTRAL LPNps ITAI A.0 T Pux. U) THERE TUTHE LARD usE uAP. BAIFNT TLxT, (a) M (A) THE MNA MERIAMN 11 (s) REFER eiEL AAU MASTER PLAN Fan EImmL LAX uNl MAPS a THOSE CWNAITES. CLAM BAY NRPA - a •yl to t i � 1b lU . it �:.:�1 -1 R 28 E EXF ! "A" PETITIOI P- 2010 -2 R 29 E n 3U E R 31 E R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E FLORIDA PANTHER NORTH I I NATIONAL WILDLIFE I YyIL 1/ H LLE _�/ IJ ALE REFUGE Icln Lq BEL_F MEEADE ~ I t � Ul � u 4y6 NRPA, 0 ,1 \ \\ Pop RDOkmY BAY FA.KAHATCHEE STRAND y � NATIPVµ ERNARNF � - SCAiW.j EEM STA c� • r, PRESERVE ------------------------ I \�� y COLLIER \ S 5 M O E GT '. OPCAxD ANa _ �»'_.*' ✓`` / I. .. ,� `tea CAPE R0MAN0 - TEN( TiWSAND''19CAND5', - AQUATIC PR 5 RY ' •: ' •� PJMTATpf LGi SCALE H 4 60b D:E3\NATIONAL IPAW \. ED"A""' El DI CSU MAPPWG EEEDTU1 D NSION / D REwunov 1 DATSS: eLF PLUE-zmo-LOwc AN ,. J R 25 E R 26 E R 27 E j R 28 E R 29 E R 30 E URBAN DESIGNATION CONIAERCIAL MBTRICT ©ED RURAL SETTEMENT AREA DISTFBCT MIX USE EIBTRICT URBPN RESIOENnAL weDIRIRICT gCTTNtt ¢LATER SUBDISTRICT RURAL INWSTWAL DISTRICT ORFS!DENi1A1 DENSItt BPNM AiE° '^� ZE ADT CENTER SMDSTRICT ESTATES DESIGNATION ® CUO�iA OsTON /IN ILL RI E TRT ® COASTAL FNINO weNSTRUCT SUMSTRUBAN BUSMfSS PARK C CONSERVATION DESIGNATION URBAN RERIDENHAL !RINSE SMISSnUCT RESEARCH AND MY PARK weCSTRICT OVERLAYS AND ® Mau.— ... / EATDNAMD LANE L III EMENER ICT SPECIAL FEATURES OFflCE AND INFILL COM_=0TAL SUBDISTRICT PUD NEIGHBORHDID NLLACE CENTER SUBDIRTRICT FE90ENTH& MINED USE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDISTRICT -N.— ROAD CDMMERCIAL NFILL SUBDISTWCT COMMERCIAL MINED USE SUBDSTRICT INCORPORATED AREAS COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA MIxEDDUSEESUBO STRKT ® UOU ROAD / VETERANS MEMORIAL BLND. CAL INRLL SUBDI=ST " "" FFIC CONGESTION BOUNDARY AREA OF CS Rn STATE CONCERN OVERLAv ® COMM PCU AL 5 SD /RCTT" BLw RNX NDEEXLETTE O COMMERCIAL /INFlLL SUBdSTRCT CROSSROA05 ® © NRPORT NCFSE ARFA OVERLAY Ili MINED S B SIIRKT 0 CT MU.... SUBp15TRICtOU PAOTEAIION P'EA (NRPA) OVERLAY �E BUCK D UBDaTRCT�STR ,..,,,. AGRICULTURAL / RURAL ' ® BA— D /.ATEWAY Tt AN"S DESIGNATION REDE—DPMENT AY DOMMERCAL MkED USE SUEDSTRICT ®DAVFS BOULEVARD /COUNT' BARN ROAD AIikED USE SUBD6 K" AOPICULTURAL/RUBAL MIXED USE DISTRICT Bed LAxDs S TEW DSMP M A OWSLAY UNNGSTON .— /RADIO ROPD COMMERCIAL W.U. wBDSTRMT UIUNNLTOOU RURAL DEAS ENCAL SUBDISTRICT ■ CORKSCREW —AD NEFGHBORHDOD DEN. IK SUREDEUR T AAp K. FRINGE ® TRANSITION LONE OVERLAY GOUDMROAD mICT NFµI C"LAP FACUtt wBDIBTNCTCOMMUNItt RD wxeD YBRNDIeTRItT REDE11AG LANDS ,E NORM BELIE MGD[ O AY {:} INifRCHANGE IHpUBTR1AL DISTRICT SHR PARK INESS SUOUg xOLOCY SENDwG UNDS RESEARCH AND TE PARK BUBDS,NIM ® NEUTRAL LPNps T Pux. U) THERE TUTHE LARD usE uAP. BAIFNT TLxT, (a) M (A) THE MNA MERIAMN 11 (s) REFER eiEL AAU MASTER PLAN Fan EImmL LAX uNl MAPS a THOSE CWNAITES. �I BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE R 31 E R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E A N A tp 1 W H N tit H 1 TA N N tA1 CA EXHIBIT "A" CPSP - 2010 -2 R 25 E R 26 E F� LEE CO 20 Ln 17 GR. BB8 ' 'y 7 ° a t8 11 12 14 18 17 1° 15 1 n 14 1J Ln m � m 4 124 19 28 11 ZZ 3 /2S 24 i /( !/ C.R. 846 C.R. 846 ~ m 21 5 n u 3o m z6 n m m 11 GR. 862 f/ C.R. 862 Y 1 _ h J z S 4 3. � � U 2 M I U 1 ° 3 4 12 13 10 2 7 - C.R. 896 C.R. 896 14 13 17 18 15 ,4 18 1J tn m O 7z---o�'o z rJ23 z4 m 15 z, zz a z4 � U 1 i 8 F u 26 0 G.R. 886 29 22 26 28 27 23 �7 1 �i1 3J ]; h u ]8 31 32 33 38 ~� C.R. 856 1 -75 O�f\ S.R. 84 4 1 6 n O 1 S.R. 84 X18 7 ° 6 8 10 „ ,2 N 41 /1716 17 t8 15 t} N C.R. 864 -�� 0 F z1 zz u 24 a m 21 a2 z3 z* F MIXED USE S INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER \15 m INDEX MAP 27 26 n J6 m 27 O m a u O35 0 1 MI, 2 W. 31.11. JB J8 31 32 � x JB SCALE 18 ] - AMENDED JANUARY 25, 2005 2 8 5 J 2 (Ord. No. 2005 -03) AMENDED - JUNE 7, 2005 w (Ord. No. 2005 -25) to 7 ° to n LS x AMENDED - OCTOBER 14, 2008 u 0 4� Ord. No. 2008 -59 N d F f3 18 fN 16 IS 14 13 F PREPARED BY: GIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION / PLANNING AND REGULATION DATE: 12/2010 FILE: ACCESS - INDEX- 2010.DWG R 25 E R 26 E Li ACTIVITY CENTER #1 manu un. wn � � IMTIOXALB6 ROAD IC.R48ax81CeYn AIRPORT PULLING RCAD IC.R, eD K !u. rgNx O O O RMF•to o TMtao or��o �O N o D D RMF•72 a � O � � RSF 3 �` 0 n Co .ar n v 6 FA PIPER BM RSF -3 CANLL PUD �u: tm�at o� a a � 3 o ,t z M EB �r12 t4 u t PUD J LEGEND ��roxm ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -3 EXISTING ZONING / \ Q DEVELOPED LAND USEi — ��'. I PPUD EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES �xr •Per 5 �� B, uu-.�w RSF -3 /�'} a RSF -2 cAUVC 4arvL? -� CARRINGTO s E wnT oC RSF•2 ,.•,... ... . -.. .... «. 0w Pi. m�wRED BY: as/ MA➢Flxo s[c'ww womx wwacaHR1 -HZZ / ttANxwu uIO R[auanoN :z/zwo ACTIVITY CENTER #2 TAM" TRAIL. (U.S. 41) - IMMOKALES ROAD IC.R. 8481 LEGEND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -3 EXISTING ZONING / \ DEVELOPED LAND USE I I 4 EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES/ scan n zoo• n. 40D' n. as/can Mwn m % $wrnimwc +.m mcuanav u/+mo MPUD N, BASO. I mEE Eutu ad aZ) A A MPUD RU D H BAT o matt[ II O [ i m[cr r mK . PUD m rD HEIUrUCE ear J i PUD '�C(j / //� _ ,� '(�,r RPUD —11— �Mz ACTIVITY CENTER #3 IMMORAL ROAD IC.R. 8461 - C.A. 961 LEGEND llll� ACTMTY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF 3 EXISTING ZONING 0 DEVELOPED LAND USE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES p Wd IT. Stl.E: ApY3pfpDXG D � 12 /Mi �G AW !¢WIAIION 1 ) ) I ••^• xPUnn v. I PUD tt I miUDiva 1' PUD I a PUD.,�. �PUD 1APUD PUD p�UO A CPUD pl„ vurly n.mu PUD yn. ,.,... E A A w �... . A P M..PUw E I j A ACTIVITY CENTER #4 1MMORALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) - INTERSTATE 7b LEGEND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -3 EXISTING ZONING / DEVELOPED LAND USEI EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES scar GIOWRI MM OPIGEMENi' WN9 `PLPNNINO Ou:O RED(QFiiDN FlIE. - O.DYA DAIS: 12/1010 1�' Tii i�`NFt t I�vly a3 time! u1 W B Irk PUD Niue MPS, �D e~C PB�NI�N RSF -1 To PUD ,: N I y O 5 ACTIVITY CENTER #5 VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD N.R. 9621 - TAM- TRAIL N.B. 41) LEGEND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY !SF-3 EXISTING ZONING / \ DEVELOPED LAND USE f K I INO EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES/ a zm n. aDV E,. REPABED Bv: q0 /CM NRaP:NC AC1pN AC}201 DROWA MPNADE DINBN)N / PLANNDlG PND REWL1110N 1E: 0.. 00G DAIS 12/2010 RPUD .=FPUD I I I �m E _C:FUD_ A RPUD RPUD MPUD ACTIVITY CENTER #6 DAM BOULEVARD (�SR. 8�) • BANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD I_ ... -.. LerieND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF•3 EXISTING ZONING DEVELOPED LAND USE F. YJSTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES PUD CPUD 2 C-3 �m E _C:FUD_ A RPUD RPUD MPUD ACTIVITY CENTER #6 DAM BOULEVARD (�SR. 8�) • BANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD I_ ... -.. LerieND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF•3 EXISTING ZONING DEVELOPED LAND USE F. YJSTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ACTIVITY CENTER #7 AATMESNAKA HAMMOCK ROAD IC.R. 8841 - C.R. Bbl -- carry, M,ld. AMENDED — SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 Ord. No. 2003 -44 LEGEND ACTMTY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -3 EXISTING ZONING / \ Q DEVELOPED LAND USE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES A - MPMUD C -3 r — multi -- it MWA - A w.ne,ax ours .� � .► MPUD MPUD fur I,________________I 4 E I � I aA�ln >a I I I 1 I I I � ewPrxUeDD 1s ACTIVITY CENTER #8 AIRPOAT.PULLDiO ROAD ICA ell - OOLDAN DATA PAREWAY RnA 9881 �, TwA IA A 1lAATF.R PLANNED AM—Y CANTER ACCORDINGLY, THB CDAPIOUAATION AND ACEAAOE NOTA ALLOCATION VARPA F—I OTHER AOITYITY CENTRRR LEGEND EE— AC7MTY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -3 EXISTING ZONING r 1 0 DEVELOPED LAND USE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES scA E 0 DGD' PI. PREPARED AY: C5 /CID NAPPING SECTON GRO'NM NMAGEGMT DINSION / PLANNING MD REGOI.ARDN E1LE: ACe- 20IO.DM9 DAIS: W /2— ACTIVITY CENTER #9 C.R. 961 - INTERSTATE 76 cem.P c...tu. Flan. LEGEND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF-3 EXISTING ZONING DEVELOPED LAND USE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES m o sar Ri. loon n. PREPARm BY: CIS/CA0 MAPPOlC uCipN MANAGEMENT OIp90N NN ANO ftECW.iION FltE AC9- 2010DWC ff: 2/2010 ACTIVITY CENTER #10 PINE RIDGE ROAD (O.R. 696) - INTERSTATE - 76 LEGEND FF- ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RBF -3 EXISTING ZONING / Q DEVELOPED LAND USE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES m SM FT. as�cw � % Psuw+�ixa u+o 6Ewwwx me ano- zmo.oxc onn- u/zmo ACTIVITY CENTER #11 vnnmepeaT epncH -A. ..K, e„1- aAPOpT- POLLtxo poA. laa au A MA,TEp PLANNED ACT-- CHNTE0. OT& ACGUEDMOLY. TEE DON —.A— AND ALA- N ALLOCATION YpE169 EpOM O'1,18E AW,vITY O&!'1•®8. ♦�� ,N� �P/ (/ Y i �M1 mPLr A CT o TppREFINO EAST CLUB HW6E PUD PELICAN MARSH 1^ACrLL =r m —.1 � PUD DR[ PELICAN MARSH rEN�i rn ® DRI raacr aM � TaAm mi -,' Cr 0 LAKE DRIVE tt 9 -E' GALLERIA DRIVE / _ ev s DRIVE MUIRFlELD o LCAI h1ARSH a� 3 BOLERO AT TIBURON m�cr Y 1FAtt A -[ PUD _ PELCAN MARSH CAI o YENIURA WAY I I TaACi cn -[ 3 B VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (C.R. 662) VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (C.R. 662) IpUttT 'C' ` PUG °TMr. WALCREEN'S = r ra6cr PUD PUD MARKER - PLAZA PUD C O LAKE o w M E u VILLAS a _> VINEYARDS u� ,aAtt, CF Q 1Y .utiT <, ARK 3 , LEGEND 3 rpACr ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF•9 EXISTING ZONING / \ Ta.cr, vDP9 DEVELOPED LAND USE I� I D / � EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES I1(/' PUD_ x PUD Ii EMERPSD _kRs I m NNETAROS I pum s ' Ii I _ ON s PUD BRIGHTON GARDENS 0 V tt ORCHID BAY DRIVE PREPARED BY: = /CAD MAPPING SECT. DROWDi MANAGEMENT DMMON / PLANNING AND REGULATION FAE: AC11- 2010.— DAIS: 12/2010 I /111 =1111111111111■1 ■■■■■■ MEMO! ■ i■ WIN soon C 11� 11111 T 111 p 111 .', I ■ =1�111�1 INIII�1 NI � a RSF4 �PU RMF -8 gym] GC ACTIVITY CENTER #12 TAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. 411 - PINE RIDGE ROAD (C.R. 8881 401e Umy, Neu LEGEND � ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -3 EXISTING ZONING / \ DEVELOPED LAND USE 1 1 EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES m 0 800' R. PREPARED - GIS /GAD MAPPING SEG?IDN GROWiH MANAGEMENT OINAON / PL MD REGUUTON FlLE: AC1T- 20IODWG DAIS: 12/2MO A r o U A RMF -8 gym] GC ACTIVITY CENTER #12 TAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. 411 - PINE RIDGE ROAD (C.R. 8881 401e Umy, Neu LEGEND � ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -3 EXISTING ZONING / \ DEVELOPED LAND USE 1 1 EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES m 0 800' R. PREPARED - GIS /GAD MAPPING SEG?IDN GROWiH MANAGEMENT OINAON / PL MD REGUUTON FlLE: AC1T- 20IODWG DAIS: 12/2MO l■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■.. ■r. ■II ■��MEN 11N�� ©111 ■11�■ 1011: �::■■■■■■■��■■■■■��•■■■■� IN ON �mm . Im.. �. t ■1111■■ � Q li ■��,�1■ p �„■ � ,. � •II IIp ■ � ■111 ■ � ■ � � __ -� I r - � ��1111111111 C a ACTIVITY CENTER #13 AIILPDRT- PULLL`ND ROAD (OR. eD - PINS RMB HOAR (D.R 8861 a�..�..�.Na AMENDED — DECEMBER 11. 2007 Ord. No. 2007 -86 LEGEND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF.3 EXISTING ZONING r l DEVELOPED LAND USE (� l EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCNRES £AEPAPD) 6Y: 46/GD APPWO SEC"e0N OBOY(M MANAOFMENi DIN8IQV / PIANAYNG AND BECULAT,ON FRE: ACfY4010DFC .13/401 ACTIVITY CENTER #14 OOODLHTTH- PRAM[ ROAD ICA 86ll - OOLD6N OAT& PARRNAY ICB. BBeI LEGEND ACTIIATY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -3 EXISTING ZONING DEVELOPED LAND USE �� ) EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES PRCPA�H1 ` ws /— uAP - Hccnax ao¢u¢x. oimwR } AaD Rcwunox FR£: ACID— ROIODNL WLE: 3 /3010 0 poll milli [o] RSF -3 ImD ©wt Mall A) N\ L ... PUD 1 ACTIVITY CENTER #15 GOLDEN DAM PAREWAY IGR. 8861 - CORONADO PARE 1 AMENDED — JANUARY 25, 2005 Ord. No. 2005 -3 LEGEND 8� ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -3 EXISTING ZONING / \ Q DEVELOPED LAND USE 1 i Nino EXISTING BUILDINGS AND\\\ STRUCTURES/ PPEPAPED BY: 015 /CAD MAPaMG SEC1gN _ M MANAGEMENT DIYNSION / PLANMNG AND PECULATION ITLE: A015- 3D10.DNC DATE: 12/2M0 - M . M -- MM .- MM . . ..:........ M MM MM M [o] RSF -3 ImD ©wt Mall A) N\ L ... PUD 1 ACTIVITY CENTER #15 GOLDEN DAM PAREWAY IGR. 8861 - CORONADO PARE 1 AMENDED — JANUARY 25, 2005 Ord. No. 2005 -3 LEGEND 8� ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -3 EXISTING ZONING / \ Q DEVELOPED LAND USE 1 i Nino EXISTING BUILDINGS AND\\\ STRUCTURES/ PPEPAPED BY: 015 /CAD MAPaMG SEC1gN _ M MANAGEMENT DIYNSION / PLANMNG AND PECULATION ITLE: A015- 3D10.DNC DATE: 12/2M0 a ACTIVITY CENTER #I6 TAMIAMI TRAIL (US. 411 - A PORT- PULLING ROAD IC.R. 811 ..H. caunyl. "... AMENDED SEPT. 9, 2003 ORD. NO. 2003 -43 LEGEND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -3 EXISTING ZONING / \ DEVELOPED LAND USE i I EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES/ swc 0 200• M. aoo• n. EPPRED Y. GIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION GROWiH MANAGEMENT DI- N / PUNNING MD RE- - AGIG -2010— OATS: 12/2010 E ACTIVITY CENTER #17 TABOIAMI TAAIL N.& dU - BATTLBBNA%8 HANNOCI( 8OAD ICA. 8801 filOn burry AOrIN LEGEND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -3 EXISTING ZONING [� DEVELOPED LAND USE tl L EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES scut o zoo• rr. aoa n. ACTIVITY CENTER #18 remuaa aana rue. w - cou,�a nounavaan ,an eeu � wn nn AMENDED — APRIL 22, 2008 Ord. No. 2008 -21 LEGEND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -3 EXISTING ZONING \ DEVELOPED LAND USE( // Bm I EXISTING BUILDINGS AN\\D STRUCTURES/ ACTIVITY CENTER #20 WIGGINS PASS RD. (C.R. 8881 - TAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. 411 LEGEND EE- ACTIVTY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF -3 EXISTING ZONING / DEVELOPED LAND USEI ) EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES uuE m o eov n. PREPARED 9 G6 /CAD MAPPMG SECMIN GRUWIR MANAGEMENT DIMS10N / PLANNING AND REGULATION FlLE: AC20- 2010.0NG OATS: 12/2010 EXHIRIT "A" R 25 E R 26 E c MAP FLUE -10 DQ p[� EXISTING ZONING CONSISTENT WITH FLUE BY POLICY 5.9, S.10, 5.11, 5.12 `,,� COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TOWNSHIP 49, RANGE 25 & 26 A w Ln scut LEGEND. we.meo swxxrc ® awmcw uran cxviceu au / nv awwia+ rxaxm Ai GL 0 u� R 25 E R 26 6 N Q1 H "�7� GULF OF MEXICO CITY OF - NAPLES GULF OF MEXICO SCALE 0 5MI. 10M1. ADOPTED - JANUARY 25, 2007 (Ord. No. 2007 -18) AMENDED - OCTOBER 14, 2008 (Ord. No. 2008 -59) C.R. 846 7 CITY OF MARCO ISLAND PREPARED BY: GIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION / PLANNING AND REGULATION DATE: 11/2010 FILE: LU- 91- 2010.DWG — LAKE TRAFFORD C.R. 846 S.R. 84 EXHIBIT "A" CPSP -2010 HENDRY COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY 01 N K VI FUTURE LAND USE MAP RIVERS AND FLOODPLAINS Collier County Florida LEGEND 1. COCOHATCHEE RIVER 11. PUMPKIN RIVER 2. ROCK CREEK 12. LITTLE WOOD RIVER 3. GORDON RIVER 13. WOOD RIVER 4. HALDEMAN CREEK 14. FAKAHATCHEE RIVER 5. HENDERSON CREEK 15. EAST RIVER 6. JOHN STEVENS CREEK 16. PARADISE RIVER 7. BIG MARCO RIVER 17. FERGUSON RIVER 8. ROYAL PALM HAMMOCK CREEK 18. BARRON RIVER 9. BLACK WATER RIVER 19. HALFWAY CREEK 10. WHITNEY RIVER 20. TURNER RIVER .............. 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN I -75 a9 ,.u,,,.,.,., 10 11 13 G 12 14 15 00 16 17 18 p� n� CIVEROLADES 20 CHOKOLOSKEE COLLIER COUNTY MONROE COUNTY U.S. 41 0 0 F o A m z o c � m � o A O C Zy U.S. 41 0 0 F o A m z o c DRj LAKE FFORD C.R. 846 C.R. 846 GULF OF MEXICO c EXHIBIT "A" CPSP -201 HENDRY COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY 2 n I 3 I - 75 CIT OF Y S.R. 84 N 5 G GULF OF MEXICO I `S S A� 7 8 9 /10 O CITY 1 OF 1 MARCO 14 15 ISLAND 16 SCALE �� 17 0 5MI. 10MI. 12 / )�17O 18 19 20 ADOPTED — JANUARY 25, 2007 Ord. No. 2007 -18 13 Q 021 AMENDED — OCTOBER 14, 2008 D q EVERGLADES Ord. No. 2008 -59 `l U Q r7 CITY u oQo�Tb° V PREPARED BY: GIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION v D OKOI GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION / PLANNING AND REGULATION DATE: 11/2010 FILE: LU- 92- 2010.DWG 24 KEE COLLIER COUNTY MONROE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP ESTUARINE BAYS Collier County Florida LEGEND 1. HICKORY BAY 13. GULLIVAN BAY 2. CLAM BAY 14. GOODLAND BAY 3. DOCTORS BAY 15. PALM BAY 4. NAPLES BAY 16. BLACKWATER BAY 5. DOLLAR BAY 17. BUTTONWOOD BAY 6. ROOKERY BAY 18. PUMPKIN BAY 7. JOHNSON BAY 19. FAKA UNION BAY 8. TARPON BAY 20. FAKAHATCHEE BAY 9. McILVANTE BAY 21. FERGUSON BAY 10. UNKNOWN BAY 22. BARRON BAY 11. ADDISON BAY 23. TURNER BAY 12. BARFIELD BAY CROSS BAY U'S. 41 o % mE g 9 A O 0 oC n Z C 0 E° 0 n m z Z 4 �t EXHIBIT "A" FUTURE LAND USE MAP O�pF SOILS Western Collier County, Florida C PS P- 2010 -2 HENDRY COUNTY SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, JUNE 1988 EACH AREA OUTLINED ON THIS MAP CONSISTS OF PREPARED BY: GIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION MORE THAN ONE KIND OF SOIL. THE MAP IS THUS GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION / PLANNING AND REGULATION MEANT FOR GENERAL PLANNING RATHER THAN A BASIS DATE: 11/2010 FILE: LU- 94- 2010.DWG FOR DECISIONS ON THE USE OF SPECIFIC TRACTS. of C.R. 846 GULF OF MEXICO CITY OF — NAPLES •8 •9 610 GULF OF MEXICO \\ CITY OF OF MARCO ISLAND SCALE 0 5ML IOMI. ADOPTED — JANUARY 25, 2007 Ord. No. 2007 -18 AMENDED — OCTOBER 14, 2008 Ord. No. 2008 -59 PREPARED BY. GIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION / PLANNING AND REGULATION DATE: 11/2010 FILE: LU- 93- 2010.DWG 0 1 LAKE (_ J TRAFFORD �J C.R. 846 • 2 • 3 05 0 4 0 6 S.R. 84 EXr ,T "A" IC HENDRY COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP EXISTING COMMERCIAL MINERAL EXTRACTION SITES AMOKALEE Collier County Florida N (N LEGEND 0 EXTRACTION SITES 1. STEWART 6. ORANGE TREE 2. BIG ISLAND EXCAVATING/ 7. SUNNILAND LONGAN LAKES 8. GOLDEN GATE 3. SR846 LAND TRUST 9. WILLOW RUN 4, WINCHESTER 10.SEA —CON 5. AVE MARIA NOTE: EXCLUDES SITES <_ 10 ACRES. I -75 nn EVERGLADES ITY p o DQ� b c- o VIV p v CHOKOLOSKEE COLLIER COUNTY MONROE COUNTY U.S. 41 0 m A O O z 0 0 0 E g � m 0 p 0 C aR RF�- PETITION CPSP - 2010 -2 COLLIER COUNTY RURAL & AGRICULTURAL AREA ASSESSMENT STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP legend ANEI:a[C - JANUAFT 2r, 2101 a.e. Na. 2oo� -ta 0 open 5 ftReslrxa — Zm ANENPEp - OGt08ER 9 2009 0rtl. No. 2008 -5A Walar Reenbo A aMRA) Rig Cypress National Forest Fja y Stevrardehlp Area (FSA) Area of Critical SWte Concern Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA) Stexrerdship Receixing Area (SRA) —o 91 05 /CAP NAP... 9ECTaN Area Rto.1. NARLGENENt —S1. / PL.— -D RE—K. ne1ai ® StpwardshiP Sanding (SSA) D-1 ID /2010 !'ILL CLRAAA50M- 2110- 2.Ox'� `-1 r� EXHI BIT "A" COLLIER COUNTY WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS, PROPOSED WELLFIELDS AND ASRs LI VI N GSTON ROAD ASR (IRRIGATION QUALITY) CITY OF NAPLES ASR (4 WELL PERMITS) 0 SCALE 0 5M I. AMENDED — Ord. SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 No. 2003 -44 AMENDED Ord. — JANUARY 25, 2007 No. 2007 -18 AMENDED Ord. — DECEMBER 4, 2007 No. 2007 -82 I CITY • I• NAPLES COASTAL RI• �( • �� WELLFIELD CITY OF NAPLES ASR (4 WELL PERMITS) 0 SCALE 0 5M I. AMENDED — Ord. SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 No. 2003 -44 AMENDED Ord. — JANUARY 25, 2007 No. 2007 -18 AMENDED Ord. — DECEMBER 4, 2007 No. 2007 -82 0) FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL Of UTILITY AUTHORITY GOLDEN U � GATE CITY WELLFIELD SOUTH HAWTHORN WELLFIELD EXTENSION DO 1n w A:JARCO ISLAND Q TILITIES ASR 9 WELL PERMITS) w (js w PORT OF THE ISLANDS WELLFIELD MANATEE ROAD AS LEGEND PETITION CPSP -2010- IMMOKALEE WELLFIELD CR 846 AVE MARIA WELLFIELD CR 858 POTENTIAL FUTURE COLLIER COUNTY WELLFIELD AREA 1 -75 CITY OF NAPLES EAST GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD ONi U� �J PLANNED WATER SUPPLY WELLS �. ASR = AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY SITE POTENTIAL FUTURE WELLFIELD AREA PREPARED BY: GIS /CAD MAPPING SECTION w WELLFIELD AREA GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION / PLANNING AND REGULATION "NOTE: ALL WELLS AND WELLFIELDS PERTAIN TO SOURCE: COLLIER COUNTY POLLUTION CONTROL AND PREVENTION DEPT. THE SURFICIAL AND INTERMEDIATE AQUIFERS. DATE: 7/2011 FILE: WFPZR12- 2010 -B.DWG EVERGLADES CITY WELLFIELD 846 rn N Of In 2010 CYCLE ADOPTION ORDINANCE(S) EXHIBIT "A" TEXT AND AND /OR MAP CHANGES CPSP - 2010 -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: AN AMENDMENT, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, TO REMOVE IN ITS ENTIRETY, THE DAVIS BOULEVARD /COUNTY BARN ROAD MIXED -USE SUBDISTRICT AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans pursuant to Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, Collier County Staff requested amendment to the Future Land Use Map and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to modify the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed Use Subdistrict by deleting the Subdistrict in its entirety; the Subdistict is located at the southeast corner of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and County Barn Road in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, containing 22.83± 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 Map and Map series, to the Growth Management Words stfuek thfo g are deletions; words underlined are additions * * * * indicate page breaks* Petition No. CPSP- 2010 -5 Rev. 8/09/11 Plan and transmitted its findings in writing to Collier County within the time provided by law; and WHEREAS, Collier County has 60 days from 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 Future Land Use Map and Map Series 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 of the 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 met. WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts these amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series 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. Words tT-tie k through- are deletions; words underlined are additions 2 * * * * indicate page breaks* Petition No. CPSP - 2010 -5 Rev. 8/09/11 SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. n The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this day of , 2011. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS n DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA , Deputy Clerk FRED W. COYLE, Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Heidi Ashton -Cicko g i Assistant County Attorney Section Chief, Land Use /Transportation CP \11 -CMP- 00792\37 Words st-fusk thr-ougk- are deletions; words underlined are additions 3 * * * * indicate page breaks* Petition No. CPSP- 2010 -5 Rev. 8/09/11 CPSP- 2010 -5 n EXHIBIT "A" FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES GOAL: TO GUIDE LAND USE DECISION - MAKING SO AS TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN A HIGH QUALITY NATURAL AND HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WITH A WELL PLANNED MIX OF COMPATIBLE LAND USES WHICH PROMOTE THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS AND LOCAL DESIRES. OBJECTIVE 1: Unless otherwise permitted in this Growth Management Plan, new or revised uses of land shall be consistent with designations outlined on the Future Land Use Map. The Future Land Use Map and companion Future Land Use Designations, Districts and Sub - districts shall be binding on all Development Orders effective with the adoption of this Growth Management Plan. Standards and permitted uses for each Future Land Use District and Subdistrict are identified in the Designation Description Section. Through the magnitude, location and configuration of its components, the Future Land Use Map is designed to coordinate land use with the natural environment including topography, soil and other resources; promote a sound economy; coordinate coastal population densities with the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan; and n discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl. Policy 1.1: The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: A. URBAN - MIXED USE DISTRICT 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict 3. Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict 4. Business Park Subdistrict 5. Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict 6. PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict 7. Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict 8. Orange Blossom Mixed -Use Subdistrict 9. Vanderbilt Beach /Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 10. Henderson Creek Mixed -Use Subdistrict 11. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict 12. Buckley Mixed -Use Subdistrict 13. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict 4,4-. -Davis -RoulevardlCounty Barn Road- Mixed Use 9wbdi&t4Gt 4-5-. 14. Livingston /Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict 445-. 15. Vanderbilt Bach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict 16. Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** I. URBAN DESIGNATION CPSP- 2010 -5 Urban designated areas on the Future Land Use Map include two general portions of Collier County: areas with the greatest residential densities, and areas in close proximity, which have or are projected to receive future urban support facilities and services. It is intended that Urban designated areas accommodate the majority of population growth and that new intensive land uses be located within them. Accordingly, the Urban area will accommodate residential uses and a variety of non - residential uses. The Urban designated area, which includes Immokalee, Copeland, Plantation Island, Chokoloskee, Port of the Islands, and Goodland, in addition to the greater Naples area, represents less than 10% of Collier County's land area. The boundaries of the Urban designated areas have been established based on several factors, including: patterns of existing development; patterns of approved, but unbuilt, development; natural resources; water management; hurricane risk; existing and proposed public facilities; population projections and the land needed to accommodate the projected population growth. Urban designated areas will accommodate the following uses: a. Residential uses including single family, multi - family, duplex, and mobile home. The maximum densities allowed are identified in the Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays that follow, except as allowed by certain policies under Objective 5. b. Non - residential uses including: 12. Commercial uses subject to criteria identified in the Urban - Mixed Use District, PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict, Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict, Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict, Orange Blossom Mixed -Use Subdistrict, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach /Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, Davos 139ulevardiGeURty Barn Read Mixed Use SubdiGtFiGt, Livingston /Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict; and, in the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, Livingston /Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road /Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Goodlette /Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict; Orange Blossom /Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict, in the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay; and, as allowed by certain FLUE policies. * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** A. Urban Mixed Use District 2 CPSP- 2010 -5 10-*N > ... .... OF ■- . ■. - I - - ._ CPSP- 2010 -5 * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** 445, 14. Livingston /Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** 44&-. 15.Vanderbilt Bach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** 4-7-. 16.Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Future Land Use Map Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Center Maps Properties Consistent by Policy (5.9, 5.10, 5.11) Maps Collier County Wetlands Map Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map Future Land Use Map Rivers and Floodplains Future Land Use Map Estuarine Bays shall be limited, as deemed apffgpf4te 6. The Rumbe and type of aGGess PGiRt6 traffiG flOW 9R Davis BaFR Read. RatiRg System's base density few dwe"*Rg URitS aGre, applied te- the DeRGity of peF allowed - DeRsity RatiRg System -.• the h9usehold - fGF GollieF - of rnediaR 0' be aftFdable weFkfGFGe - * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** 445, 14. Livingston /Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** 44&-. 15.Vanderbilt Bach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** 4-7-. 16.Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Future Land Use Map Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Center Maps Properties Consistent by Policy (5.9, 5.10, 5.11) Maps Collier County Wetlands Map Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map Future Land Use Map Rivers and Floodplains Future Land Use Map Estuarine Bays CPSP- 2010 -5 n Future Land Use Map Soils Existing Commercial Mineral Extraction Sites Map Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map Stewardship Overlay Map Rural Lands Study Area Natural Resource Index Maps North Belle Meade Overlay Map Existing Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map Future Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map Plantation Island Urban Area Map Copeland Urban Area Map Railhead Scrub Preserve — Conservation Designation Map Lely Mitigation Park — Conservation Designation Map Margood Park Conservation Designation Map Urban Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay Map Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach /Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map Davis l3oulevaFd/Gounty Barn Read Mixed Use Subdirdr-ir-t Map Goodlette /Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Henderson Creek Mixed -Use Subdistrict Map Buckley Mixed -Use Subdistrict Map Livingston /Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Livingston Road /Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Orange Blossom /Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict n Livingston Road/Veteran's Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict Map Exhibit A text alt. 2 DRAFT G:ICDES Planning Services\ComprehensivelCOMP PLANNING GMP DATA1Comp Plan Amendments12009 -2010 Combined Cycles petbons12010 Cycle PetitionslCPSP- 2010 -5, Revamp Davis Blvd. -Co. Barn Rd. MU Sub dw/1 -10 -11 5 E... ,.dIT A PETITION U )2010-05 v f a H R 25 I R 26 E R 27 E 2006 - 2016 FUTURE LAND USE MAP Collier County Florida DETAILS OF THE RLSA OVERLAY AREA ARE SHOWN ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TITLED: "COLLIER COUNTY RURAL 8 AGRICULTURAL AREA ASSESSMENT STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP" CORKSCREW SWAMP ID 1 71 SANCTUARY CREW NRPA. m a6EP1 er CLAM BAY Y NRPA y mnTr i 8 �J ( IMF R 28 E NORTH BELLE NRPANRPP ir 1T1 R 29 E R 119 ALEE tAb __�_ I FLORIDA PANTHER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE i GOLD GA FAKAHATCHEE STRAND STATE PRESERVE `- SCA(£ PREPARED BT GGG/CAD NAPPMO SEC'nON CDNNLWTY DEtE"O%ffNT AN'D2ENMAIX+DEENNTA SERHCES V.11 FBI DAR 25 E sP 011 R 26 E R 27 E R 26 E R 29 E PF'"' N CPSP- 2010 -05 CITY ING R 31 E R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E URBAN DESIGNATION )BTRIDT MIX® MDE .- ❑ RURAL SETTEMENT AREA EGGTBR T URBAN NMDE _ .BOISIAICT ■ AM-141E.- wBgsTRK'i . - INDUSTRAL DISTRICT ADOPTED - JANUARY, I— CD ORCHANOE ACDNTY CENTER w9DISTRICT NMDExngL -- BAR- wTE ■ ESTATES DESIGNATION -1 y L "' AM - FEBRUARY, 1991 CONSERVATION DESIGNATION uxBAN cOASUL PAIxcE wsmsmlcT SINE SS BU PMK . BDISfRN:T y p NARLT `m y & ® uReax RESroErvnA mlucE uDlsmwT RESARCH AND TEDRNO PARK WEEB,MR T y cGz ROAD / EATON_ LANE SPECIAL FEATURES I♦ CON I, - - SUBDSTRICT AMENDED - APR¢, III AMEHDEO - R, tpp] p UUUT R M AMENDED - JAxuART. 1p9B AAIDIDFD - fEBAUART 1988 AMENDED FEBRUAAT � BEI.I h MEADS 2ODD AMENCED - MAT. 2000 m ED EJ rcaM11pELtEwau s�'Jm�ISmcpwER eLw. ❑ c�CD00MERCIU /IN�u weD°EDImncT AIRPORT NOISE AREA ONERUr ET t y MMED USE SUUMB17RICT ■ G.-AL .1$� �ORT CR059NPD5 NRPA RESEARGi q!ro TECHNOLOGY PARK w TRCT >POTEECCTONN AREA (NRPA) OVERLAY (Ord No. 2002 -29) wLmEr N x usE weDlsTmn :.. AGRICULTURAL / RURAL ORE /CATEWAr IRANOM P DESIGNATION AcsivnoPNENT mmur AMENDED - OCTOBER 22 2002 \ \\ AA"1 y MCGIdIdN ERCIARINFILL wNDBDSTRII, N.. COMMERCJAL EGBDSnUCT URBAN-RU_ HVIK£ ® AMENEREG FEBRUARY I- Na 2GGB_7) tt. 2003 'AN" HOR OW COMMER�OIA SUB TRICT ■ CoLI CIRRMBEW I5 =NDfdIBORN00D TRANSRbN ZONE OV£RIAr iRFT ■ FAGUTYBWLEVARD CWMUNItt xORTH BEUF MEADE OVERLAY su9MSmICT KEO u9e mTRIOT FMDlMtT- WBTRIOT O BE—— I- RBUEBIARIN AND lE BC .y PARK SUBDISTRICT y NA'WN EsTUARPA \ BESEARns RE MB E ■ %NMNC uluos NEUTRAL LAws e. N, 2=4) 11 BE IN— 11WT TNE m (2) Tls TuTURE uAO u.2: ExT PLAN. USE 1DPE wro ELEIUxT rzK T. y (J) L BEB To (A) RErER _ AxD TN IMNOKAUE .wEA MASTER Pun FOR TuTGwE — USE MAPS w THOSE aMMUNnES y AMENMD - JUNE ] 2005 (pe. Nw 2WJ -2J) AMENDED - _Y 2s, zwT A x00 ` l ' a a�1 ( Nj EZ,-N.. MT COWER - SEMINOLE CCT(FER t9. 20oe (.1TIG 2oro-s] R1 1 N STATE s PMx J y CITY MARCO ISLAND _ .. r " CAFE ROMANO TEN THWSANIF Y'. AQUATIC PRESERV]I ') y 1T1 R 29 E R 119 ALEE tAb __�_ I FLORIDA PANTHER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE i GOLD GA FAKAHATCHEE STRAND STATE PRESERVE `- SCA(£ PREPARED BT GGG/CAD NAPPMO SEC'nON CDNNLWTY DEtE"O%ffNT AN'D2ENMAIX+DEENNTA SERHCES V.11 FBI DAR 25 E sP 011 R 26 E R 27 E R 26 E R 29 E PF'"' N CPSP- 2010 -05 , R 31 E R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E URBAN DESIGNATION )BTRIDT MIX® MDE .- ❑ RURAL SETTEMENT AREA EGGTBR T URBAN NMDE _ .BOISIAICT ■ AM-141E.- wBgsTRK'i . - INDUSTRAL DISTRICT ADOPTED - JANUARY, I— CD ORCHANOE ACDNTY CENTER w9DISTRICT NMDExngL -- BAR- wTE ■ ESTATES DESIGNATION -1 y L "' AM - FEBRUARY, 1991 CONSERVATION DESIGNATION uxBAN cOASUL PAIxcE wsmsmlcT SINE SS BU PMK . BDISfRN:T eJ ® uReax RESroErvnA mlucE uDlsmwT RESARCH AND TEDRNO PARK WEEB,MR T y cGz ROAD / EATON_ LANE SPECIAL FEATURES I♦ CON I, - - SUBDSTRICT AMENDED - APR¢, III AMEHDEO - R, tpp] OFFYCE AND WEILSUBWUM£RCIAL SUBDISTRICT tM GSTON ROAD IxCORPgUTED AREAS D NEWN90M100D NLLAGE CENTER wBDisTRMT CONM[RgA INTTLL wBOTRICT E] RESIDE N A Y%ED U NE ICROMOOD BISTRCT C MC - USE wBmSTRICT NIGH HA AREA AMENDED - JAxuART. 1p9B AAIDIDFD - fEBAUART 1988 AMENDED FEBRUAAT � I♦ ORANGE BLDSSMd tINNGSION ROAD (KIERAN'S MEMORIAL BLw. TRAEPR -1-0x BANG -r HIKED USE wep5lRlCi CONNERCJA INPKL w�DI ET �- AREA OP ACA STATE CONCQA9 OVERLAY 2ODD AMENCED - MAT. 2000 m ED EJ rcaM11pELtEwau s�'Jm�ISmcpwER eLw. ❑ c�CD00MERCIU /IN�u weD°EDImncT AIRPORT NOISE AREA ONERUr ET AMENDED DECEMBER 2000 AffNpEO MARCH. 2C0f y MMED USE SUUMB17RICT ■ G.-AL .1$� �ORT CR059NPD5 ~ RESEARGi q!ro TECHNOLOGY PARK w TRCT >POTEECCTONN AREA (NRPA) OVERLAY (Ord No. 2002 -29) wLmEr N x usE weDlsTmn :.. AGRICULTURAL / RURAL ORE /CATEWAr IRANOM P DESIGNATION AcsivnoPNENT mmur AMENDED - OCTOBER 22 2002 wMMERaAL waD usE wporsmwT ADRNJULTEMULAAURAL MIXED GOB DIETAICT 5 MUDS AREA OVERLAY y MCGIdIdN ERCIARINFILL wNDBDSTRII, N.. COMMERCJAL EGBDSnUCT URBAN-RU_ HVIK£ ® AMENEREG FEBRUARY I- Na 2GGB_7) tt. 2003 'AN" HOR OW COMMER�OIA SUB TRICT ■ CoLI CIRRMBEW I5 =NDfdIBORN00D TRANSRbN ZONE OV£RIAr iRFT ■ FAGUTYBWLEVARD CWMUNItt xORTH BEUF MEADE OVERLAY su9MSmICT KEO u9e mTRIOT FMDlMtT- WBTRIOT O BE—— I- RBUEBIARIN AND lE BC .y PARK SUBDISTRICT �( iw 2WJ w ■ %NMNC uluos NEUTRAL LAws e. N, 2=4) 11 BE IN— 11WT TNE m (2) Tls TuTURE uAO u.2: ExT PLAN. USE 1DPE wro ELEIUxT rzK T. y (J) L BEB To (A) RErER _ AxD TN IMNOKAUE .wEA MASTER Pun FOR TuTGwE — USE MAPS w THOSE aMMUNnES y BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE R 30 E R 31 E R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E EEE y z U RUTlWB LAIR YEE MAR ADOPTED - JANUARY, I— CD AMENDED - JANUARY. 11. y \ AM - FEBRUARY, 1991 M��D Al. M 19p2 AMENDED MAT. I99J AMENDED - APR¢, III AMEHDEO - R, tpp] AMENDED - JAxuART. 1p9B AAIDIDFD - fEBAUART 1988 AMENDED FEBRUAAT � 2ODD AMENCED - MAT. 2000 m ED AMENDED DECEMBER 2000 AffNpEO MARCH. 2C0f y AMENDED MA t9 2002 (Ord No. 2002 -29) ANENDFD - JUNE tp 2008 (MN. NO. 2°02 32) AMENDED - OCTOBER 22 2002 (Ord. Na 2002 -59) AMENEREG FEBRUARY I- Na 2GGB_7) tt. 2003 �( iw 2WJ w e. N, 2=4) AMEN D DECELIBER 11, i0W (aa Na zw.T -pT) µ� Ra AMENMD - JUNE ] 2005 (pe. Nw 2WJ -2J) AMENDED - _Y 2s, zwT A x00 ( Nj EZ,-N.. MT CCT(FER t9. 20oe (.1TIG 2oro-s] R1 1 N R 30 E R 31 E R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E EEE y BCC 2010 CYCLE ADOPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the 2010 Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments, including one 2008 Cycle Petition. (Adoption Hearing) OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners to review the 2010 cycle of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) and consider approving (adopting) said amendments for their transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CONSIDERATIONS: Note: Because the support materials are so voluminous, and some exhibits are oversized, the Agenda Central system does not contain all of the related documents pertaining to these GMP amendment petitions. The entire Executive Summary package, including all support materials, is included in the binders provided separately to the BCC specifically for the 2010 cycle of GMP amendment petitions. The complete binder is available for review in the Comprehensive Planning Section office at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, as well as in the Clerk of Courts /Minutes and Records office at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 401. • Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government's adopted Growth Management Plan. • Resolution 97 -431, as amended, provides for a public petition process to amend the Collier County GMP. • For this Adoption hearing, the 2010 cycle of GMP amendments now consist of four petitions - two private sector petitions and two County- initiated petitions. • The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) held its transmittal hearing, for the Wellhead Protection Areas Map portion of petition CPSP- 2010 -2 only, on December 1, 2010. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), sitting as the "local planning agency" under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held its transmittal hearings on December 16, 2010 and January 20, 2011 (petitions CP- 2010 -1 and CPSP- 2010 -2), February 17, 2011 (petition CPSP - 2010 -5), and October 19 and 20, 2009 (petition CP- 2008 -1). The BCC held its transmittal hearings on March 22, 2011 (petitions CP- 2010 -1, CPSP- 2010 -2 and CPSP- 2010 -5), and January 19, 2010 and March 22, 2011 (petition CP- 2008 -1). The respective transmittal hearings recommendations /actions are contained in the CCPC adoption hearing Staff Reports. • The EAC held its adoption hearing, for the Wellhead Protection Areas Map portion of petition CPSP- 2010 -2 only, on July 6, 2011. The CCPC held its adoption hearing on July 21, 2011. The respective adoption hearing recommendations are presented further below, following each petition number and title. • The Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), dated June 3, 2011, contained no Objections, Recommendations or Comments; one other state agency had a Comment specific to private sector petition CP- 2008 -1. The ORC Report is contained in the back -up materials. • This adoption hearing considers amendments to the following Elements of the Plan: n 0 Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map and Map Series; and 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Future Land Use Map and Map Series. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Executive Summary and GMP amendment ordinances have been reviewed by the County Attorney's office for legal sufficiency. - HFAC FISCAL IMPACT: There is some fiscal impact to Collier County as a result of the County- initiated petition CPSP- 2010-2 as it will require preparation of one or more subsequent Land Development Code amendments, most notably amendments to the wellfield risk management special treatment overlay zone maps in Section 3.06.00. However, that cost is primarily for existing, budgeted staff time. There are no fiscal impacts to Collier County as a result of the two private sector amendments to the Growth Management Plan in that implementation of these amendments will occur through subsequent development orders (rezone or conditional use, site development plan, building permits, etc.) for which review fees are paid by the petitioner. The exception is if the presumed statutory compliance of any petition is challenged [appealed] by DCA (see Growth Management Impact, below). In such an instance, Collier County may incur expenses to engage in settlement negotiations and/or to prepare for and participate in an Administrative Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This is an adoption public hearing for the 2010 cycle of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Based upon statutory changes that occurred during the 2011 Florida Legislative session, these GMP amendments are presumed to be "in compliance" with applicable Florida Statutes. After adoption, the DCA will have 30 days to review the adopted Plan amendments and, should they believe an amendment is not "in compliance," file a challenge [appeal] to the presumed "in compliance" determination with the Florida Division of Administrative hearings. Similarly, any affected party also has 30 days in which to file a challenge. If a timely challenge is not filed by DCA or an affected party within 30 days, then the amendments will become effective. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: One of the private sector amendments to the Growth Management Plan (CP- 2008 -1) would increase allowable development intensity. For that site, no listed plant and/or animal species have been observed or are known to be on the site, and that site does not contain jurisdictional wetlands. As part of the process of obtaining subsequent development orders (e.g. rezone and/or conditional use, site development plan), both private sector petition sites will be subject to all applicable local, state and federal environmental protection regulations, including applicable portions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP, and the Land Development Code. 2 HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Neither of the two proposed private sector amendments to the GMP contain lands identified on the County's Historical /Archeological Probability Maps as being in areas of historical or archaeological probability. The Florida Department of State notes the site of petition CP- 2008 -1 appears to be adjacent to an archaeological high probability area, based upon the County's Probability Maps. During review of subsequent development orders, both of the private sector petition sites will be subject to all applicable local, state and federal historical and archaeological protection regulations. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Staff recommendation follows each individual petition listed below. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAQ RECOMMENDATION: The EAC held its Adoption hearing on July 6, 2011 (Wellhead Protection Areas Map portion of petition CPSP- 2010 -2 only); its recommendation follows that petition listed below. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission held its required Adoption public hearing on July 21, 2011. The CCPC recommendation follows each individual petition listed below. 1. PETITION CP- 2008 -1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Mgp Series, to create the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 190,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts, with exceptions, and some uses of the C -4 and C -5 zoning districts with a requirement to construct a grocery store, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard extending from Wilson Blvd. west to 3rd Street Northwest, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of ±40.62 acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2008 -1 to the BCC with a recommendation to adopt subject to the following: (a) limit the overall size (square feet) to that of a neighborhood shopping center (typically 100,000 square feet or less); (b) limit individual users, except for grocer, to a maximum of 20,000 square feet; (c) replace the detailed list of permitted uses with reference to uses allowed in the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts in the Collier County Land Development Code; and, (d) remove the conceptual site plan. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC adopt petition CP- 2008 -1, subject to the following changes, (vote: 7/1): (a) delete certain principal uses; (b) add accessory uses; (c) modify a prohibited use; (d) increase restrictions pertaining to outdoor music prohibition; (e) add maximum square feet for buildings and individual uses. The CCPC - recommended text is reflected in Ordinance Exhibit A for this petition. n 3 There were fifteen public speakers, six opposed and nine in favor. ^ 2. PETITION CP- 2010 -1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), to modify the language of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict to allow a grocery /supermarket, physical fitness facility, craft/hobby store, home furnishing store and department store use to exceed the 20,000 square feet limitation for a single commercial use, up to a maximum of 50,000 square feet, for Parcel 1 (±9.2 acres, zoned Bradford Square MPUD) only, and with the overall maximum development limitation of 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses on Parcel 1 to remain; the subject portion of the Subdistrct is located at the northeast corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2010 -1 to the BCC with a recommendation to adopt as approved for transmittal by BCC. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC adopt petition CP- 2010 -1 (vote: 7/0) as approved for transmittal by BCC [including the recommendation from transmittal hearing that the petitioner record deed restrictions in the public record, by adoption hearings, listing the same prohibited uses as listed in the proposed amendment]. There were no public speakers. 3. PETITION CPSP- 2010 -2, Staff petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUE/FLUM), to: modify the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B /GTRO); modify FLUE Policy 5.1; modify applicability of the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict; update the Wellhead Protection Map; update the FLUM and Map Series to reflect annexations, etc.; make FLUM boundary corrections in rural areas; and, add clarity, correct date errors, and make other non - substantive text revisions. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CPSP- 2010 -2 to the BCC with a recommendation to adopt with one change to the Wellhead Protection Areas Map: remove the Marco Lakes Reservoir. Both the EAC and CCPC Adoption staff reports provide explanation and rationale for staff's recommendation. EAC Recommendation: [Only applicable to the Wellhead Protection Areas Map] That the BCC adopt that Map subject to the following two changes, and expressed concerns (vote: 5/0): (a) per staff recommendation, remove the label "Marco Island Utilities Marco Lakes" and associated concentric rings around that location; (b) add a note to the Map to identify the aquifers reflected - surficial and intermediate; (c) concern: that the planned Orangetree Wellfield may negatively impact the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed and Corkscrew Swamp; (d) concern: that the Golden Gate Wellfield drawdown may negatively impact private wells in Golden Gate Estates; and, (e) concern/desire: the Water Master Plan updates (Public Utilities Division) are approved by the Board of County Commissioners without benefit of review by the 4 n EAC; the EAC believes the Water Master Plan should be brought before the EAC for review and recommendation as it impacts natural resources under their purview. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC adopt petition CPSP- 2010 -2 per EAC's two recommended map changes, and with the following recommended direction: that staff find a way to protect the Marco Lakes Reservoir (a surface water body that is a source of potable water for Marco Island). There were no public speakers. 4. PETITION CPSP- 2010 -5, Staff Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to delete the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed Use Subdistrict and re- designate the site as Urban Residential Subdistrict for property consisting of approximately 22.83 acres located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) at County Barn Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CPSP- 2010 -5 to the BCC with a recommendation to adopt as approved for transmittal by BCC. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC adopt petition CPSP- 2010 -5 as approved for transmittal by BCC (vote: 7/0). There were no public speakers. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendations for the 2010 cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments, including one 2008 cycle petition, are as reflected above following each petition. CCPC RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission held their required public hearing on July 21, 2011. The CCPC forwarded the 2010 cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments, including one 2008 cycle petition, to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendations as reflected above following each petition. Prepared by: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section, Land Development Services Department, Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation Attachments: 1) CCPC Adoption Staff Report; 2) CP- 2008 -1 Ordinance with Exhibit "A" Text; 3) CP- 2010 -1 Ordinance with Exhibit "A" Text; 4) CPSP- 2010 -2 Ordinance with Exhibit "A" Text; 5) CPSP- 2010 -5 Ordinance with Exhibit "A" Text EX SUM Adoption 2010 cycle GMPAs G:ICDES Planning ServiceslComprehensive=MP PLANNING GMP DATA1Comp Plan Amendments12007 -2008 Combined Cycle Petitions\BCC Adoption dw/8 -15 -11 BCC 2010 CYCLE TRANSMITTAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the 2010 Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments, including one 2008 Cycle Petition, for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review and objections, recommendations and comments (ORC) response. (Transmittal Hearing) OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners to review the 2010 cycle of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan and consider approving said amendments for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CONSIDERATIONS: • Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government's adopted Growth Management Plan. • The (CCPC), sitting as the "local planning agency" under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held their Transmittal hearing for the 2010 cycle petitions on December 16, 2010 and January 20, 2011 (CP- 2010 -1 and CPSP- 2010 -2), and February 17, 2011 (CPSP - 2010 -5), and October 19 and 20, 2009 (CP- 2008 -1). • This Transmittal hearing for the 2010 cycle considers amendments to the following Elements of the Plan: 0 Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map and Map Series; and, 0 Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Future Land Use Map and Map Series. Note: Because the support materials are so voluminous, and some exhibits are oversized, the Agenda Central system does not contain all of the related documents pertaining to these GMP amendment petitions. The entire Executive Summary package, including all support materials, is included in the binders provided separately to the BCC specifically for the 2010 cycle of GMP amendment petitions. The complete binder is available for review in the Comprehensive Planning Section office at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, as well as in the Clerk of Courts/Minutes and Records office at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 401. FISCAL IMPACT: There are fiscal impacts to Collier County as a result of these amendments. Existing staff resources and existing (or budgeted) contracted services were used to prepare and process the two County - initiated petitions, and the existing budget was used to pay for the required special legal advertisements (for the Wellfields Protection Areas map) as well as the separate CCPC legal ad for petition CPSP - 2010 -5 (authorized by BCC on 12/14 /10). The cost to process, review and advertise the private sector petitions is borne by the petitioners via the application fees. Final action is not being taken at this time as these amendments are not being considered for adoption at this hearing. If approved for transmittal, these amendments will subsequently be considered for adoption at n hearings to be held later in 2011. As to the staff request for BCC authorization to initiate Land Development Code (LDC) n amendments necessitated by certain portions of petition CPSP - 2010 -2 — including update of the wellfield risk management special treatment overlay zone maps in the LDC, existing staff resources will be used to prepare and process those amendments. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Executive Summary has been reviewed by the County Attorney's office. These proposed Growth Management Plan amendments are authorized for consideration by local government, and subject to the procedures established, in Chapter 163, Part H, Florida Statutes, The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, and by local Resolution #97 -431, as amended. A majority vote of the Board is necessary for Transmittal to DCA. [HFACJ GROWTH MANAGEMENT EYWACT: Approval of these proposed amendments by the Board of County Commissioners for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs will commence the Department's sixty -day (60) review process and ultimately return these amendments to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for final Adoption hearings to be held later in 2011. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: No listed plant and/or animal species have been observed or are known to be on the site of petition CP- 2008 -1, nor does that site contain jurisdictional wetlands. For the other two site - speck petitions (CP- 2010 -1 and CPSP- 2010 -5), environmental conditions of the sites have not changed since the prior GMP amendment approvals in 2005 that established the existing respective subdistricts, and neither of the present petitions propose an increase in overall use intensity or density. As part of the process of obtaining subsequent development orders (e.g. rezone and/or conditional use, site development plan), the sites will be subject to all applicable local, state and federal environmental protection regulations, including applicable portions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP, and the Land Development Code. HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIPACT: None of the three proposed site - specific GNP amendment petitions contain lands identified on the County's Historical/Archeological Probability Maps as being in areas of historical or archaeological probability. As part of the process of obtaining subsequent development orders, the sites will again be subject to review for historical/archeological probability. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: Most Growth Management Plan amendments are not reviewed by the EAC. However, the EAC did review, on December 1, 2010, that portion of petition CPSP - 2010 -2 regarding update of the 2 Wellfield Protection Areas Map in the Future Land Use Map Series contained in the FLUE. The EAC forwarded that petition with a recommendation to transmit to DCA (vote: 3/0). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation follows each individual petition listed below. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMIVIISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC's recommendation follows each individual petition listed below. Note: Where the CCPC forwarded a recommendation of approval, the text in the Resolution Exhibit A reflects the CCPC recommendation. In the case of CP- 2008 -1, where the CCPC recommendation for approval failed by virtue of a tie vote, the text in the Resolution Exhibit A reflects the petitioner's proposed text — as revised subsequent to the CCPC hearing, BCC hearing in 2010 and referendum in 2010. L PETITION CP- 2008 -1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Ma Series to create the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 190,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-4 zoning district, with exceptions, and some uses of the C -5 zoning district, with requirement to construct a grocery store, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard extending from Wilson Blvd. west to 3rd Street Northwest, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of ±40.62 acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation - October 2009: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2008 -1 to the BCC with a recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: At the CCPC hearing, the petitioner verbally proposed two changes to the amendment: 1) reduce building height from two stories to one story; and, 2) reduce the proposed building area from 225,000 square feet to 210,000 square feet. There was no CCPC recommendation on revised petition CP- 2008 -1 by virtue of a tie vote (4/4). The failed motion to approve was subject to staff alternative text in the Staff Report, but revised to: 1) keep the list of allowable uses #1 -27 as proposed by petitioner, but delete #28 [this requires a re- lettering of paragraphs]; 2) revise paragraph "a.12" to reflect the correct SIC Code term; 3) revise paragraph "a." to add a "catchall" prohibited use #14; 4) revise paragraph "b." to reduce the total allowable building area from 225,000 s.f. to 210,000 s.f., as proposed by the petitioner at the hearing, and to modify the building floor area term; 5) revise paragraph "c." to recognize the potential for more than one grocery use; 6) revise paragraph "e.l." pertaining to the timing of right -of -way donation; and, 6) delete ,paragraph "n." pertaining to common architectural theme. The text that reflects the CCPC's unsuccessful motion is contained in the document titled "CCPC Transmittal Recommendation for CP- 2008 -1." Speakers: There were nine speakers. Two speakers were in favor of the petition, noting there is a need and desire for more commercial and that the petitioner has worked to resolve neighborhood concerns. One of those two rakers represented the First and Third Group, a group of neighbors near the subject site (1St and 3r Streets NW); he presented a specific list of permitted and prohibited uses, with SIC Codes, the Group endorsed. Seven speakers were opposed to the petition, citing these concerns: project will increase traffic; there are adequate shopping opportunities in or near Golden Gate Estates (GGE); negative impacts during project construction; commercial should not be located in the interior of GGE; project will attract undesirable animals (rats, then snakes that eat rats); not consistent with GGAMP allowance for commercial and maintenance of rural character; questions whether there's enough population in GGE to support this amount of commercial; will disrupt the tranquility, quiet, nature and [nighttime] darkness the speakers moved to GGE to enjoy. Post -CCPC Action: Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, the petitioner submitted revised proposed subdistrict text and conceptual map to reduce building area from 225,000 s.f. to 210,000 s.f.; increase landscape buffers; and, increase building setbacks. Also, the petitioner submitted additional data and analysis. BCC Action — January 2010: With the petitioner's concurrence, the BCC continued this petition indefinitely so as to allow the petitioner to place this proposal as a non - binding referendum (straw vote) on the November 2010 ballot. Post- BCC/Post- Referendum Action: Subsequent to the November 2010 General Election, the petitioner submitted a revised petition with updated data and analysis (infrastructure impacts, needs analysis) to reflect a cap of 190,000 s.f. of commercial development. Staff's detailed review and evaluation of the revised petition, and the election results, are contained in the document titled "CP- 2008-1 Supplemental Report for the BCC." STAFF'S CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 10_1�1 Based on the data and analysis submitted, the proposed site would be more appropriate for a neighborhood commercial sized center with the corresponding C -1 through C -3 commercial uses of the Land Development Code, with a limitation of a 20,000 square feet cap for individual users, with the exception that the grocery use may exceed the cap. Additionally, staff recommends eliminating the Conceptual Site Plan within the Master Plan as it is unprecedented to incorporate a site plan into the GMP, and the environmental data provided on the site plan is inadequate to determine compliance with the Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. The discrepancy between the petitioner's request and staff's recommendation was heard by the Board on January 19, 2010 at which time the Board directed staff to seek the community's desire through a straw -poll ballot. While staff continues to support a moderately sized commercial center, the public (via referendum) overwhelmingly supported a 190,000 square feet center. As noted previously herein, the Florida Senate Report provides that if the commercial ratio of 1.25 is exceeded, other factors, such as suitability of property for change, locational criteria, job creation, community desires, etc., may be considered. Accordingly, despite staff's finding that the technical Needs Analysis does not support the petition as proposed within the Comprehensive Plan planning horizon of 2020, the Board of County Commissioners may consider the following factors in reaching a decision to approve this petition. The petition does provide for a reduction in vehicle miles traveled, local job creation and has community support. 4 2. PETITION CP- 2010 -1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), to modify the language of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict to allow a grocery/supermarket, physical fitness facility, craft/hobby store, home furnishing store and department store use to exceed the 20,000 square feet limitation for a single commercial use, up to a maximum of 50,000 square feet, for Parcel 1 (+9.2 acres, zoned Bradford Square MPUD) only, and with the overall maximum development limitation of 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses on Parcel 1 to remain; the subject portion of the Subdistrct is located at the northeast comer of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] The Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict was established in 2005 and comprises two non - contiguous parcels that generally allow commercial uses found in the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts. Each parcel has an overall building square feet cap, and each parcel includes a maximum size for any individual commercial use of 20,000 square feet. This petition, which applies to Parcel 1 only, seeks to increase the individual use cap to 50,000 square feet for certain specified uses. Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2010 -1 to the BCC with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CP- 2010 -1, as submitted by the petitioner and modified at the hearing to add a list of prohibited uses, for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, and to require, by adoption hearings, the recordation of deed n restrictions listing the same prohibited uses (vote: 9/0). Speakers: There was one speaker, representing surrounding neighborhoods; he did not oppose the petition and generally was in support. 3. PETITION CPSP- 2010 -2, Staff petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Man Series (FLUE/FLUM), to: modify the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B /GTRO); modify FLUE Policy 5.1; modify applicability of the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict; update the Wellhead Protection Map; update the FLUM and Map Series to reflect annexations, etc.; make FLUM boundary corrections in rural areas; and, add clarity, correct date errors, and make other non - substantive text revisions. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMT Manager] On September 14, 2010, the BCC authorized County Manager or designee to initiate this petition which proposes various amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map series. Most of the amendments seek only to add clarity, correct errors and omissions, provide updates to map features, and provide harmony and internal consistency. However, exceptions include: 1) changes to Policy 5.1 to allow redistribution of use density and intensity; 2) modification of the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict pertaining to its applicability; 3) changes to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B /GTRO) to delete a development standard, add a use, and add clarity regarding applicability of FLUE Policies; and, 4) update the Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map, based upon most recent hydrologic modeling, as required by Objective 1 of the Natural 5 Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub - Element and subsequent policies, and Objective 3.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element and subsequent policies. Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CPSP - 2010 -2 to the BCC with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. (Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, staff is requesting Board authorization to initiate, immediately, an amendment to the LDC to update the Wellfields risk management zone maps to correlate with the update to the Wellhead Protection Map so that the LDC amendment may be considered concurrent with the Adoption hearing for this cycle of GMT amendment petitions.) CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CPSP - 2010 -2 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 9/0), per County Manager or designee recommendation except subject to modifications to FLUE Policy 5.1 and the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict — both for clarity/brevity /simplicity, and revision to the Wellfields Protection Map to add Marco Island Utilities' Marco Lakes (in northeast quadrant of US-41 East/Colher Blvd. intersection). Speakers: None. 4. PETITION CPSP- 2010 -5, Staff petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to modify the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed -Use Subdistrict by changing it from mixed use to residential and limiting density to a maximum of 5 dwelling units per acre — or possibly repealing the subdistrict in its entirety; the subdistrict is located at the southeast comer of Davis Blvd. (SR 84) and County Barn Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, containing of ±22.83 acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] On December 14, 2010, the BCC held a public hearing to consider rezone petition PUDZ- 2004 -AR- 6829 for the Davis Reserve Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) at the subject site. During that hearing, the applicant withdraw that rezone petition; the BCC directed County Manager or designee to initiate a GMT amendment to the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed -Use Subdistrict to remove the traditional neighborhood development requirement, the commercial component, and the affordable housing requirement — with the applicant stating "no objection" to this direction; and, the applicant committed to request a PUD rezone that eliminates the retail and limits the maximum density to five dwelling units per acre (DU /A), and to pay costs for that rezone. From the BCC direction, staff developed two alternatives: Altemative 1: Modify the Subdistrict to eliminate the commercial component, affordable housing requirement, and all design and development standards, and limit density to a maximum of 5 DU /A; and, Altemative 2: Eliminate the entire Subdistrict and re- designate the site as Urban Residential Subdistrict (the site's designation prior to 2005 when the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed -Use Subdistrict was established). Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CPSP - 2010 -5 to the BCC with a recommendation to approve Alternative 2 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. no CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CPSP- 2010 -5, per County Manager or n designee recommendation, for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 9/0). Speakers: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendations for the 2010 cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments, including one 2008 cycle petition, are as reflected above following each petition. Additionally, County Manager or designee is requesting Board authorization to initiate, immediately, an amendment to the LDC to update the Wellfields risk management zone maps to correlate with the update to the Wellhead Protection Map in the FLUE (part of petition CPSP - 2010 -2) so that the LDC amendment may be considered concurrent with the Adoption hearing for this cycle of GMP amendment petitions. CCPC RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission held their required public hearing on October 19 and 20, 2009 (CP- 2008 -1), and December 16, 2010 and January 20, 2011 (CP- 2010 -1 and CPSP - 2010 -2), and February 17, 2011 (CPSP- 2010 -5, 2010). The CCPC forwarded the 2010 cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments, including one 2008 cycle petition, to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendations as reflected above following each petition. Prepared by: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section, Land Development Services Department, Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation Attachments: 1) CP- 2008 -1 Supplemental Report for the BCC; 2) CP- 2008 -1 Resolution with Exhibit "A" Text; 3) CP- 2010 -1 Resolution with Exhibit "A" Text; 4) CPSP- 2010 -2 Resolution with Exhibit "A" Text; 5) CPSP- 2010 -5 Resolution with Exhibit "A" Text Executive Summary Transmittal 2010 Cycle GMPAs & CP -08 -1 as edited per Judy -Nick G: \CDES Planning Services \Comprehensive \COMP PLANNING GMP DATA \Comp Plan Amendments\2009 -2010 Combined Cycles petitions\2o10 Cycle Petitions\BCC Transmittal dw13 -3-11 7 CP- 2008 -1 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 4 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT for the Board of County Commissioners FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION /PLANNING AND REGULATION, LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION Prepared by: Michele R. Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner HEARING DATE: March 22, 2011 SUBJECT: 2010 CYCLE OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS, PETITION CP- 2008 -1 ONLY (Transmittal Hearing) ELEMENT: GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN (GGAMP) ONLY - for this supplement CCPC TRANSMITTAL RECOMMENDATION and COMMENTS (10/19/09): No recommendation. Motion to Transmit failed by 4/4 vote. Motion was subject to staff alternative text in the Transmittal Staff Report, but revised to: 1) keep the list of allowable uses #1 -27 as proposed by petitioner, but delete #28 [this requires a re- lettering of paragraphs]; 2) revise paragraph "a.12" to reflect the correct SIC Code term; 3) revise paragraph "a." to add a "catchall" prohibited use #14; 4) revise paragraph "b." to reduce the total allowable building area from 225,000 sq. ft. to 210,000 sq. ft., as proposed by the petitioner at the hearing, and to modify the building floor area term; 5) revise paragraph "c." to recognize the potential for more than one grocery use; 6) revise paragraph "e.1." pertaining to the timing of right -of -way donation; and, 6) delete paragraph "n." pertaining to common architectural theme. BCC TRANSMITTAL ACTION and COMMENTS (01119/10): Motion to continue the petition indefinitely so as to allow the petitioner to place the proposal on the November 2, 2010 General Election ballot to determine community support. The following question was posed to voters within Precincts 551, 552, 554, 555, 590 and 591, the geographic area covering almost the entirety of the Estates designation and certain other surrounding areas (refer to attached Straw - ballot Resolution No. 2010 -28 and Precinct Map): Golden Gate Area Master Plan Amendment — Wilson Boulevard /Golden Gate Boulevard Shopping Center Should the Golden Gate Area Master Plan be amended to permit a ±40 acre commercial shopping center, consisting of up to 190,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area in single story buildings located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard, that may include outparcels, inline stores, drive- through shopping services, and whose first occupant must be a minimum 27,000 square foot supermarket? Yes 4.7 NOVEMBER 2, 2010 POLLING RESULTS: A total of 7,038 or 76% of the votes cast were in support of the project and 1,924 or 21 % of the votes casted were against the proposed commercial center. The results from each Precinct are noted below. Precinct 551: 931 (Yes) and 266 (No) Precinct 552: 735 (Yes) and 265 (No) Precinct 554: 1,044 (Yes) and 224 (No) Precinct 555: 1,081 (Yes) and 421 (No) Precinct 590: 1,840 (Yes) and 463 (No) Precinct 591: 1,407 (Yes) and 285 (No) POST BCC TRANSMITTAL HEARING and NOVEMBER 2, 2010 GENERAL ELECTION: Subsequent to the BCC Transmittal Hearing and the General Election, the petitioner submitted a revised Greenhouse Gas Reduction Analysis, Public Facilities Analysis, Commercial Needs Analysis, and revised Subdistrict text. The following are staffs analysis and /or comments concerning those documents. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Analysis: The revised analysis to address 2008 Legislation, HB 697 pertaining to energy conservation and efficiency, reflects the decrease in commercial square feet from 210,000 sq. ft. in the original analysis /submittal to 190,000 sq. ft. in the current submittal. Staff's analysis and conclusions are below. The applicant's analysis, including most assumptions used - with the exception that 100 percent of the employees will reside in the Estates - and the conclusions reached, is found to be reasonable by staff given the limited roadway network and current commercial and employment opportunities within the Estates area. The project will provide alternative retail and office uses, and employment opportunities, proximate to area residents, thereby resulting in the reduction in vehicle miles traveled. Public Facilities Analysis: Revised analysis was provided to reflect the decrease in commercial square feet from 210,000 sq. ft. in the original analysis /submittal to 190,000 sq. ft. in the current submittal. Staffs analysis and conclusions are below. Water and Wastewater: The subject property is not located within the Collier County Water and Sewer District boundary and is not part of any other existing utilities district. Development of the property will require installation of a potable well and private sector package sanitary sewer or septic treatment system, permitted consistent with the applicable provisions of the Growth Management Plan, Land Development Code (LDC) and other jurisdictional agencies including Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water Management District. Additionally, the proposed project site is located within the zone of the Collier County Tamiami Wellfield for the North and South County Regional Water Treatment Plants; compliance with all rules and regulations to protect the wellfield will be required (LDC Section 3.06.00). All well sites and pipeline easements located on and close to this project need to be shown on all future site development plans, Plat and Construction Plans or any other site plan applications. 2 Potable Water Demand — Gallons Per Day (GPD): n Proposed Uses: Office (60,000 sq. ft.) — 9,000 GPD Retail (110,500 sq. ft.) — 11,050 GPD Restaurant (19,500 sq. ft.) — 9,750 GPD Incidental use for irrigation near seating areas: 3,000 GPD Existing Land Use: 17 Residential Units — 4,250 GPD The net difference in demand for potable water is 28,550 GPD increase Sanitary Sewer Demand — Gallons Per Day (GPD): Proposed Uses: Office (60,000 sq. ft.) — 9,000 GPD Retail (110,500 sq. ft.) — .11,050 GPD Restaurant (19,500 sq. ft.) — 9,750 GPD Existing Land Use Designation: 17 Residential Units — 3,400 GPD The net difference in demand for sanitary sewer is 26,400 GPD increase • Solid Waste: The service provider is Collier County Solid Waste Management. The 2010 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) identifies that the County has sufficient landfill n capacity to year 2039 for the required lined cell capacity. The proposed change in land use from a potential of 17 residential units (425 cy /yr) to 60,000 sq. ft. of office (876 cy /yr), 110,500 sq. ft. of retail uses (5,602 cy /yr) and, 19,500 sq. ft. of restaurant uses (1,186 cy /yr) would permit [result in] an increase in generation of 7,239 cy /yr. • Drainage: The subject property is located in Flood Zone D. Future development will be required to comply with the SFWMD and /or Collier County rules and regulations that assure controlled accommodation of storm water events by both on -site and off -site improvements. Arterial and Collector Roads: Transportation Planning staff reviewed the petitioner's December 6, 2010 updated Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the project can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, with a provision of mitigation. Staffs analysis is limited to the significant impacts shown on the initial concurrency links. The latest update of the TIS references 225,000 square feet as originally proposed. Please note that staff has not required revision of this square footage in the study. The square footage reduction of nearly 16% (190,000 square feet) should yield correlating reductions in the directional trips. This reduced trip generation is shown parenthetically throughout staffs analysis below, which has also been updated to reflect the adopted 2010 AUIR. Golden Gate Boulevard Impacts: The first concurrency link that would be impacted by this project is Link 17, Golden Gate Boulevard between CR -951 and Wilson Boulevard. The project would generate up to 130 ( 910 — reduced) PM peak hour, peak direction trips on this link, which represents a 5.53% (4.68% — reduced) impact. This concurrency link reflects a remaining capacity of 564 trips in the 2010 AUIR and is at Level of Service "D." Network improvements and specific dedications have been proposed that will mitigate the significant impacts on this link. The second concurrency link that would be impacted by this project is Link 123, Golden Gate Boulevard between Wilson Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard. The project would generate up to 111 (94 — reduced) PM peak hour, peak direction trips on this link, which represents a 10.99% (9.3% — reduced) impact. This concurrency link reflects a negative remaining capacity of — 73 trips in the 2010 AUIR and is at Level of Service "F." This roadway is currently in the County's 5 year CIE. Developer contributions toward network improvements including specific dedications to increase capacity have been proposed that will mitigate the significant impacts on this link. Wilson Boulevard Impacts: The first concurrency link on Wilson Boulevard that would be impacted by this project is Link 118, Wilson Boulevard between Golden Gate Boulevard and the northerly terminus of Wilson (north of Immokalee Road). The project would generate up to 74 (63 — reduced) PM peak hour, peak direction trips on this link, which represents an 8.04% (6.85% — reduced) impact. This concurrency link reflects a remaining capacity of 569 trips in the 2010 AUIR and is at Level of Service "B ". Network improvements and specific dedications have been proposed which mitigate the significant impacts on this link. Transportation Element Policy 5.1: Specific mitigation isist proposed d below are anticipated rtohaccollmmodate requirements of pace that would llbe 5.1. The conditions list made possible by the approval of this amendment. Conditions required at the time of zoning change approval: 1. Up to four primary project access locations are recognized: One direct connection to Wilson Boulevard, located as far to the north as can be reasonably accommodated on the final SDP. This connection is anticipated to be a full - movement driveway until such time that Wilson Boulevard median improvements are made, which may restrict left -in, left -out, or right -out movements at the discretion of Collier County Transportation Division. a. Access to Golden Gate Blvd via 1St Street NW will remain, and is subject to any median revisions created by Collier County. b. Access to Golden Gate Boulevard between 1St Street NW and 3rd Street NW with a possibility for a median opening. Refer to signalization condition No. 2 below. c. Access to Golden Gate Blvd via 3st Street NW will remain, and is subject to any median revisions created by Collier County. d. No other provisions or restrictions are currently stated for project driveways connecting to 1St Street NW or 3rd Street NW, which shall otherwise be governed by the CCAMP. 2. Signalization: a. A signal is acknowledged as a possible provision at either 3`d Street NW, or the project entrance between 1St and Td. The final conceptual location of this signal, if warranted, and approved, by the Transportation Division, shall be determined at the time of rezoning. If allowed at the project's entrance between 15t and 3rd, then the following conditions must already be in place: i. Closure of the full median opening at 1St Street NW to limit it to a RI /RO only. ii. Directionalization of 3rd Street NW median opening (restricted left turn movements as deemed appropriate by Transportation Division.) b. Any traffic signal serving any of this project's primary access(es) to Golden Gate Boulevard shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors, or assign to 1H install. The Developer, his successors, or assign shall also pay annual operation and maintenance fees for said signal, if installed, for the lifetime of the signal. 3. The developer, his successors, or assign agree to donate to the County any necessary rights -of -way along the Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard to accommodate capacity improvements associated with County Project Number 6004, within 180 days of approval of the first subsequent zoning change. 4. Phasing a. The first Phase of development, inclusive of the required grocery store, not greater than 100,000 sq. ft., shall have a proportionate share responsibility towards intersection improvements at Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards (Project No.60040). b. The remaining 90,000 sq. ft. shall not obtain SDP approval from the Transportation Division until such time that Project Number 60040 has commenced, unless the Developer has elected to construct the complete intersection improvements shown in Project No. 60040 prior to the County's commencement (potential eligibility for impact fee credits). This Phase also shall have proportionate share responsibility towards the intersection of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards. Commercial Needs Analysis: 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." n 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..." In 2009, the Florida Senate issued Interim Report 2010 -07, which provides that commercial projects should be evaluated using a market factor ratio of 1.25 (125% of demand). The Report goes on to provide that when the market ratio is exceeded other factors can be considered, such as suitability of the property for change, locational criteria, community desires, job creation, etc. in order to determine need (see attached staff summary and Senate Report). As part of the post -BCC Transmittal project re- submittal package, the petitioner provided revised data and analysis to address commercial demand within the project's Custom. Trade Area (refer to map on page 51 of the petitioner's Commercial Demand Analysis). The petitioner's commercial demand analysis is generally based on determining the total retail expenditures by commercial type for those households located within the Custom Trade Area, and then allocating retail sales by shopping center type (Neighborhood and Community Centers) to derive the sales per square feet figures and finally the supportable commercial square feet in the Trade Area. The supportable square feet (demand) figures are then compared to the existing and projected commercial supply within the same Trade Area to determine the oversupply or undersupply of commercial square feet. The petitioner's assumptions contained within the data and analysis include: Trade Area estimates and j roected Households b p y year — 4,523 in 2010; 6,719 in 2020; and, 8,181 in 2030 5 Projected commercial Demand (sq. ft.) by year — 148,068 in 2010; 237,253 in 2020; and, 309,462 in 2030 Existing, vacant and potential commercial Supply (sq. ft.), excluding the potential commercial acreage at Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevards, and without the proposed 190,000 sq. ft. project, by year is — 122,139 in 2010; 322,139 in 2020; and, 463,089 in 2030 Existing, vacant and potential commercial Supply (sq. ft.), excluding the potential commercial acreage at Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevards, and with the proposed 190,000 sq. ft. project, by year is — 122,139 in 2010; 512,139 in 2020; and, 653,089 in 2030 The petitioner's commercial demand analysis conclusions: • The commercial allocation ratio (or market factor) of 2.0 (200% of demand) is appropriate for the Custom Trade Area to ensure market flexibility • The allocation ratio (supply /demand) with existing and potential commercial, excluding the potential commercial acreage at Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevards and without the proposed 190,000 sq. ft. project, by year is —.82 in 2010; 1.36 in 2020; and, 1.50 in 2030 • The allocation ratio (supply /demand) with existing and potential commercial, excluding the potential commercial acreage at Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevards and with the proposed 190,000 sq. ft. project, by year is — .82 in 2010; 2.16 in 2020; and, 2.11 in 2030 Staff comments and conclusions: • The commercial allocation ratio of 2.0 exceeds the recommended allocation ratio of 1.25 (125% of demand) as suggested by the Department of Community Affairs • Based on the petitioner's commercial supply and demand calculations, and applying the 1.25 allocation ratio, there is an oversupply of commercial square feet within the Custom Trade Area in years — 2020 (1.36), the Comprehensive Plan planning horizon, and 2030 (1.50), with or without the proposed 190,000 sq. ft. project and without the inclusion of commercial acreage at Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevards In addition to the commercial analysis above, the petitioner also submitted a table to display commercial demand and supply within the Estates Designation; generally, all of the Estates lying 2 -miles east of Collier Blvd. (refer to Appendix 4 of the petitioner's Commercial Needs Analysis Report, and attached Golden Gate Estates Area Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) Map prepared by County GIS staff). This table is based on the commercial square feet demand (source: CIGM) generated by the existing and projected population (source: CIGM) within the defined study area compared to the existing and projected commercial suppi within that same geography to determine the oversupply or undersupply of commercial square feet. Staff prepared the tables below to demonstrate the demand for commercial square feet based on the CIGM parameters for both Community Center commercial and Neighborhood Center commercial. IJ Need for community Center Commercial Square Feet Estates (&-Rural Settlement Area Market Area GMP Planning Hnri�nn is +hrnj. -I, Estates 2 -miles east of 951 Population 2010 33,348 2015 40,297 2020 49,808 2025 58,996 Build -Out 81,847 2020 2025 Build -Out Estates 2 -miles east of 951 Population 33,348 40,297 Community Center Commercial Sq. Ft. Demand 7.48 sq. ft. /Person 249,443 301,422 372,564 441,290 612,216 "Community Center Commercial Sq. Ft. Supply Neighborhood Center Commercial Sq. Ft. Demand X3.45 s . ft. /Person 281,791 340,510 Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Orange Blossom Ranch PUD Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 0 0 0 0 0 0 340,950 200,000 190,000 340,950 200,000 190,000 340,950 200,000 190,000 `Neighborhood Center Commercial Sq. Ft. Supply Total Community Center Commercial Sq. Ft./ Supply 0 0 730,950 730,950 730,950 0 0 0 Orange Blossom Ranch PUD 0 100,000 Surplus /(Deficit) Community Center Commercial Sq. Ft. Supply (249,443) (301,422) 358,386 289,660 118,734 `Neighborhood Commercial (per ULI standards, used in the CIGM): • Neighborhood Centers provide for the sale of convenience goods (food, drugs and sundries) and personal services. A super market is the principal tenant - geographic convenience is the most important factor in the shopper's choice of supermarket. • Center is typically 50,000 sq. ft of gross leasable area - range from 30,000 to 100,000 sq. ft • Center is typically 3 to 10 acres- trade area population is 2,500 - 40,000, within a 6 minute drive. - Community Commercial (per ULI standards, used in the CIGM): • Community Center - 150,000 typical gross leasable area - range from 100,000 to 300,000 sq. ft • Center's major tenant s are variety, discount or junior department stores and grocery • Center is typically 10 - 30 acres, trade area population of 40,000 to 150,000 "'Other Commercial: • The CIGM addresses Neighborhood, Community and Regional Commercial only. The "other" category includes commercial development not located within one of these types of commercial centers, such as office parks; freestanding retail uses (convenience store, pharmacy, gas station, etc.); small commercial centers without a grocery anchor, etc. 10\ Neighborhood Center Commercial Square Feet Estates (& Rural Settlement Area) as Market Area GMP Planning Horizon is through year 2020 2010 2015 2020 2025 Build -Out Estates 2 -miles east of 951 Population 33,348 40,297 49,808 58,996 81,847 Neighborhood Center Commercial Sq. Ft. Demand X3.45 s . ft. /Person 281,791 340,510 420,878 498,516 691,607 `Neighborhood Center Commercial Sq. Ft. Supply Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 0 100,000 0 0 0 Orange Blossom Ranch PUD 0 100,000 0 0 0 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 0 100,000 0 0 0 Total Neighborhood Center Commercial Sq. Ft. 0 300,000 0 0 0 Surplus /(Deficit) Neighborhood Center Commercial Sq. Ft. Supply (281,791) (40,510) (420,878) (498,516) (691,607) `Neighborhood Commercial (per ULI standards, used in the CIGM): • Neighborhood Centers provide for the sale of convenience goods (food, drugs and sundries) and personal services. A super market is the principal tenant - geographic convenience is the most important factor in the shopper's choice of supermarket. • Center is typically 50,000 sq. ft of gross leasable area - range from 30,000 to 100,000 sq. ft • Center is typically 3 to 10 acres- trade area population is 2,500 - 40,000, within a 6 minute drive. - Community Commercial (per ULI standards, used in the CIGM): • Community Center - 150,000 typical gross leasable area - range from 100,000 to 300,000 sq. ft • Center's major tenant s are variety, discount or junior department stores and grocery • Center is typically 10 - 30 acres, trade area population of 40,000 to 150,000 "'Other Commercial: • The CIGM addresses Neighborhood, Community and Regional Commercial only. The "other" category includes commercial development not located within one of these types of commercial centers, such as office parks; freestanding retail uses (convenience store, pharmacy, gas station, etc.); small commercial centers without a grocery anchor, etc. 10\ Staff comments and conclusions: � Based on project development schedules (provided by petitioners), the DCA's recommended market factor of 1.25 (125% of demand), and the DCA's requirement that local governments analyze proposals within the adopted planning time horizon of the comprehensive plan (County's 10 -year planning horizon is through 2020) when planning the amount needed for a particular land use, the following conclusions are made by staff: By year 2015, there will be a projected demand for Neighborhood Center commercial of approximately 340,510 sq. ft. and a projected -supply of 300,000 sq. ft. of Neighborhood Center commercial. [The 100,000 sq. ft. proposed by the GMPA (first project phase) should be categorized as Neighborhood Center commercial since there is a requirement to develop a grocery use; the 100,000 sq. ft. identified in the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD may either be categorized as Neighborhood commercial - if a grocer is included, or "'other" - if no grocery use is included, and, the subject GMPA, Randall Blvd. Commercial Center, and the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD cannot be categorized as Community Center commercial in year 2015 due to the limited square feet proposed. Staff concludes that the Neighborhood suppi in year 2015 is potentially 300,000 sq. ft. with a deficit of approximately 40,5 10 sq. ft.] • By year 2015, there will be a projected demand for Community Center commercial of approximately 301,422 sq. ft. and a projected —suppiv of 0 sq. ft. [The Community Center commercial suPPI is 0 sq. ft., as the three projects listed — the proposed GMPA, the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD and the Randall Blvd. Commercial Subdistrict cannot be categorized as Community Center commercial because these projects do not meet the Community Center commercial sq. ft. thresholds. Staff concludes that the projected supiol of Community Center commercial in year 2015 is 0 sq. ft. with a projected deficit of approximately 301,422 sq. ft.] • By year 2020, there will be a projected demand for Neighborhood Center commercial of 420,878 sq. ft. and a projected supplV of 0 sq. ft. [Staff concludes that the Neighborhood commercial suPPI could be potentially 0 sq. ft. with a projected deficit of approximately 420,878 sq. ft. Based on the uses and square feet allowed within the Randall Blvd. Commercial Subdistrict, Orange Blossom Ranch PUD and the proposed GMPA these centers are expected to transition from Neighborhood Center commercial to Community Center commercial when project build out is reached in year 2020.] • By year 2020, there will be a projected demand for Community Center commercial of 372,564 square feet and a projected supply of Community Center commercial of 730,950 sq. ft. [Staff concludes that by year 2020 there will be a projected oversupply of Community Center commercial sq. ft. of approximately 358,386 sq. ft. (assuming the Randall Blvd. Commercial Subdistrict, the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD and the proposed GMPA are developed as Community Centers).] • The allocation ratios (market factor of 1.25) for proposed commercial projects within the defined Estates market area are noted in the table below by year and Center type. COMMUNITY CENTER COMMERCIAL Estates 2 -miles east of 951 Population 2010 33,348 2015 40,297 2020 49,808 2025 58,996 Build- Build -Out Estates 2 -miles east of 951 Population 33,348 40,297 49,808 58,996 81,847 Community Center Commercial Sq. Ft. Demand 7.48 s . ft. /Person 249,443 301,422 372,564 441,290 612,216 Neighborhood Center Commercial Sq. Ft. Demand 7.48 s , ft. /Person 281,791 340,510 420,878 498,516 691,607 Total Community Center Commercial Sq. Ft./ Supply 0 0 730,950 730,950 730,950 Total Neighborhood Center Commercial S. Ft./ Sup ly 0 300,000 0 0 0 1.25 Factor or 125% of demand (with Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict ) 0 0 1.96 1.66 1.19 1.25 Factor or 125% of demand (withou�0— Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 0 1.45 1.23 .88 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER COMMERCIAL 2010 2015 2020 2025 Build -Out Estates 2 -miles east of 951 Population 33,348 40,297 49,808 58,996 81,847 Neighborhood Center Commercial Sq. Ft. Demand 7.48 s , ft. /Person 281,791 340,510 420,878 498,516 691,607 Total Neighborhood Center Commercial S. Ft./ Sup ly 0 300,000 0 0 0 1.25 Factor or 125% of demand (with Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict ) 88 0 0 0 1.25 Factor or 125% of demand (without Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict ) .59 0 0 0 The data in the above tables indicate that there is a present and future demand for Neighborhood Center commercial beyond the planning horizon of 2020 in the Comprehensive Plan. Conversely, there is no present demand or future demand through the planning horizon year of 2020 for Community Center commercial square feet. Other Factors: As previously noted, the Florida Senate Interim Report 2010 -07, provides that when the market factor ratio of 1.25 (125% of demand) is exceeded other factors can be considered such as, suitability of the property for change, locational criteria, community desires, job creation, etc. Based on the proposed uses and total square feet, staff views the proposal as a Community Center commercial project. Both staff's analysis of the Community Center commercial supply and demand and the petitioner's analysis of all commercial demand, yield that the 1.25 market factor is exceeded within the Plan's planning horizon (2020). Therefore, potentially the evaluation of those other factors could be used as a basis to approve this request. Staff's analysis of those other factors is provided below. • Suitability for Change and Locational Criteria; (1) The subject project includes 5 -acres presently designated Neighborhood Center Subdistrict, which allows C -1 through C -3 uses, and two other Tracts could be approved for conditional uses of the Estates designation, and the balance of the n property could accommodate residential units. The subject property is suitable for development under its existing designation (2) The size of the site, size of the Center and use intensity proposed are out of character with the semi -rural development pattern of the surrounding area 6 (3) The site is located at the intersection of two rural collector roads with relatively high traffic volumes (4) The site is centrally located for a large portion of Golden Gate Estates, east of C.R. 951 (5) The site is only 3.5 road miles from the Randall Blvd. commercial center (approved for 401,950 sq. ft.) and 5.5 road miles from the Orange Blossom Ranch commercial center (approved for 200,000 sq. ft.). Community Desires +76% The results of the referendum dilinditheeres those persons ults of surveysconductedby the petitioner support this project. Additionally, indicate the majority of respondents support the project. Job Creation The petitioner indicates that the project will build out in the year 2020 with the creation of approximately 269 jobs. Subdistrict Text: Text is as presented to the BCC at the Transmittal hearing, except that the square feet cap has been reduced from 210,000 sq. ft. to 190,000 sq. ft. subsequent to the November 2010 General Election. [page 35] 6 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict — Recognizing the need to provide for centrally located basic goods and services within a porti on Northern Golden Gate Estates the Estates Sho in Center Subdistrict has been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map, bouievarg wCaiwai u w V �. --- 180 feet of Tracts 142 and 106 of Unit 11 and the southern 255 feet of Tract 111 of Unit 11 of Golden Gate Estates totaling approximately 41 acres. The Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict is intended to provide convenient sho in ersonal services and em to ment for the central areas of Northern Golden Gate Estates Commercial development in this Subdistrict will reduce driving distances for many residents assist in minimizing the road network required, and reduce traffic impacts in this area of Collier County. All development in this Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and limitations: a Allowable Uses shall be limited to the following: 1. Amusement and recreation Groups 7911 Dance studios schools and halls excluding discotheques 7991 — Physical fitness facilities 7993 — Coin - operated amusement devises 7999 — Amusement and recreation services not elsewhere classified including only day camps gymnastics instruction, Judo /karate instruction sporting goods rental and yoga instruction (excludes NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges Waterslides, etc. 10 n 2. Apparel and accessory stores (no adult oriented sales) Groups 5611 — Men's and boys' clothing and accessory stores 5621 — Women's clothing stores 5632 — Women's accessory and specialty stores 5641 — Children's and infants' wear stores 5651 — Family clothing stores 5661 — Shoe stores 5699 — Miscellaneous apparel and accessory stores 3. Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations Groups 5531 — Auto and home supply stores 5541 — Gasoline service stations without repair 4. Automotive repair, services and parking (No outdoor repair /service All repairs /services to be performed by authorized automotive technician.) Groups 7514 — Passenger car rental 7534 — Tire retreading and repair shops including only tire repair 7539 — Automotive Repair Shops Not Elsewhere Classified including only minor service, lubricating and diagnostic service 7542 — Carwashes, as an accessory to convenience stores only 5. Building materials, hardware garden supply, and mobile home dealers _Groups 5231 — Paint, glass and wallpaper stores 5251 — Hardware stores 5261 — Retail nurseries, lawn and -garden suppiv stores 6. Business services Groups 7334 — Photocopying and duplicating services 7335 — Commercial photography 7336 — Commercial art and graphic design 7338 — Secretarial and court reporting services 7342 — Disinfecting and pest control services 7352 — Medical equipment rental and leasing 7359 — Equipment rental and leasing not elsewhere classified 7371 — Computer programming services 7372 — Prepackaged software 7373 — Computer integrated systems design 7374—Computer processing and data preparation and processing services 7375 — Information retrieval services 7376 — Computer facilities management services 7379 — Computer related services not elsewhere classified 7382 — Security systems services 7383 — News syndicates 7384 — Photofinishing laboratories 7389 — Business services, not elsewhere classified 7. Child day care services (Group 8351) n 8. Communications Groups 4812 — Radiotelephone communications 4841 — Cable and other pay television services 11 9. Construction special trade contractors (office use only, noon -site equipment storms Groups 1711 Plumbing heating and air- conditionmq 1721 Painting and paper hanging industry 1731 — Electrical work industry 1741 Masonry, stone setting and other stone work 1742 Plastering drywall acoustical, and insulation work 1743 Terrazzo the marble and mosaic work industry 1751 — Carpentry work 1752 — Floor laviDg and other floor work not elsewhere classified tqqgiry 1761 Roofing siding and sheet metal work industry 1771 — Concrete work industry 1781 — Water well drilling industry 1791 — Structural steel erection 1793 — Glass and glazing work 1794 — Excavation work 1795 —Wrecking and demolition work 1796 Installation or erection of building equipment, not elsewhere 1799 — Special trade contractors not elsewhere classified 10. Depository institutions Groups 6021 — National commercial banks 6022 — State commercial banks 6029 — Commercial banks not elsewhere classified 6035 Savings institutions federally chartered 6036 Savings Institutions not federally chartered 6061 — Credit unions federally chartered 6062 Credit unions not federally chartered 6091 — Non - deposit trust facilities _6099 Functions related to depository banking, not elsewhere classified 11. Eating and drinking places (Group 5812 including only liquor service accessory to the restaurant use no outdoor amplified music or televisions 12. Enqineerina accounting research management and related services Groups 8711 — Engineering—services 8712 — Architectural services 8713 — Surveying services 8721 Accounting auditing and bookkeeping services 8741 — Management services 8742 — Manaaement consulting services 8743 — Public relations services 8748— Business consulting services not elsewhere classified 13. Executive legislative and general government except finance Groups 9111 — Executive offices 9121 — Legislative bodies 9131 Executive and legislative offices combined 9199 — General government not elsewhere classified 14. Food stores 12 Groups 5411 — Grocery stores (minimum 27,000 square feet) 5421 — Meat and fish (seafood) markets including freezer provisioners 5431 — Fruit and vegetable markets 5441 — Candy, nut, and confectionery stores 5451 — Dairy Products stores 5461 — Retail bakeries 5499 — Miscellaneous food stores including convenience stores with fuel pumps and carwash 15. General merchandise stores Groups 5311 — Department stores 5331 — Variety stores 5399 — Miscellaneous general merchandise stores 16. Home furniture, furnishings and equipment stores Groups 5712 — Furniture stores 5713 — Floor covering stores 5714 — Drapery, curtain and upholstery stores 5719 — Miscellaneous home furnishings stores 5722 — Household appliance stores 5731 — Radio, television, and consumer electronics stores 5734 — Computer and computer software stores 5735 — Record and prerecorded tape stores (no adult oriented sales) 5736 — Musical instrument store n. 17. Insurance carriers Groups 6311 — Life insurance 6321 — Accident and health insurance 6324 — Hospital and medical service plans 6331 — Fire, marine, and casualty insurance 6351 — Surety insurance 6361 — Title insurance 6371 — Pension, health and welfare funds 6399 — Insurance carriers, not elsewhere classified 6411 — Insurance agents 18. Justice, public order and safety Groups 9221 — Police protection 9222 — Legal counsel and prosecution 9229 — Public order and safety, not elsewhere classified 19. Meeting and banquet rooms 20. Miscellaneous retail (no adult oriented sales) Groups 5912 — Drug stores and proprietary stores 5921 — Liquor stores (accessory to grocery or pharmacy onl 5932 — Used merchandise stores 5941 — Sporting -goods stores and bicycle shops n 5942 — Book stores 5943 — Stationery stores 5944 — Jewelry stores including repair 13 5945 Hobby toy and game shops 5946 Camera and photographic supply stores 5947 Gift novelty, and souvenir shops 5948 Luggage and leather goods stores 5949 Sewing needlework and piece goods stores 5992 — Florists 5993 — Tobacco stores and stands 5994 — News dealers and newsstands 5995 — Optical goods stores 5999 Miscellaneous retail stores not elsewhere classified (excluding gravestone, tombstones auction rooms monuments swimming pools and sales barns) 21. Non - depository credit institutions Groups 6111 Federal and federally- sponsored credit agencies 6141 — Personal credit institutions 6153 —Short-term business credit institutions except agricultural 6159 — Miscellaneous business credit institutions 6162 Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents 6163 — Loan brokers 22. Offices and clinics of dentist (Group 8021) 23. Personal services _Groups 7212 Garment pressing and agents for laundries and dry cleaners 7221 — Photographic studios portrait 7231 — Beauty shops 7241 — Barber shops 7251 Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors 7291 — Tax return preparation services 7299 — Miscellaneous personal, services not elsewhere classified excluding massage parlors, Turkish baths and escort services 24. Public finance taxation and monetary policy (Group 93111 25. Real Estate Groups 6512 Operators of nonresidential buildings 6513 — Operators of apartment buildings 6514 Operators of dwellings other than apartment buildings 6515 — Operators of residential mobile home sites 6517 — Lessors of railroad property 6519 Lessors of real property, not elsewhere classified 6531 — Real estate agents and managers 6541 — Title abstract offices 6552 Land subdividers and developers except cemeteries 26. Schools and educational services not elsewhere classified (Group 8299) 27. Security and commodity brokers dealers exchanges, and services Groups 6211 Security brokers dealers and flotation companies 6_221 Commodity contracts brokers and dealers 6231 Security and commodity exchanges 6282 — Investment advice 14 6289 — Services allied with the exchange of securities or commodities not elsewhere classified 28. Social services Groups 8322 — Individual and family social services (adult day care centers only) 8351 — Child day care services 29. Travel agencies (Group 4724) 30. Veterinary services for animal specialties (Group 0742) 31. Video tape rental (Group 7841 excluding adult oriented sales and rental 32. United states postal service (Group 4311 excluding maior distribution centers) 33. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of Permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ( "BZA ") by the process outlined in the LDC. b. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including but not limited to: a. Utility buildings b. Essential service facilities c. Gazebos, statuary and other architectural features c. The following uses shall be prohibited: 1. Amusement and recreation services not elsewhere classified (Group 7999 NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges Waterslides etc.) 2. Air and water resource and solid waste management (Group 9511) 3. Business Services Groups 7313 — Radio, television and publishers' advertising representatives 7331 — Direct mail advertising services 4. Correctional Institutions (Group 9223) 5. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) (Group 5813) 6. _Educational services Groups 8211 — Elementary and secondary schools 8221 — Colleges, universities and professional schools 8222 — Junior colleges and technical institutes 8231 — Libraries 7. Health services Groups 8062 — General medical and surgical hospitals 8063 — Psychiatric hospitals 15 8069 Specialty hospitals except psychiatric 8. Miscellaneous Retail Groups 5921 —Liquor stores 5961 — Catalog and mail -order houses 5962 Automatic merchandising machine operators 9. Personal services Groups 7211 Power Laundries family and commercial 7261 — Funeral service and crematories 10. Social services Groups 8322 Individual and family social services excluding adult day care centers 8361 Residential care including soup kitchens and homeless shelters d Development intensity shall be limited to 190,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. e One grocery use will be a minimum of ?7,000 square feet. With the exception of one grocery use no individual user may exceed 30,000 square feet of build[ area. f Development within this Subdistrict shall be phased and the following commitments related to area roadway improvements shall be completed within the specified timeframes: 1 Right-of-Way for Golden Gate Boulevard Expansion and Right -of -Way for the Wilson Boulevard Expansion will be donated to the County at no cost within 120 days of a written request from the County. 2 The applicant will pay its fair share for the intersection improvements at Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard within 90 days of County request for reimbursement. 3. Until the intersection improvements at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard are complete the County shall not issue a Certificate(s) of Occupancy (CO) for more than 100,000 square feet of development The applicant must obtain a C.O. for a rocery store as part of this 100 000 square feet and the grocery store must be the first C.O. obtained. g Rezoning is encouraaed to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUS and the rezone ordinance must contain development standards to ensure that all commercial land uses will be compatible with neighboring residential uses. A conceptual plan which identifies the location of the permitted development area and required preserve area for this subdistrict is attached The preserve area depicted on the conceptual plan shall satisfy all comprehensive plan requirements for retained native vegetation including but not limited to the requirements of Policy 6.1 1 of the CCME. A more detailed development plan must be developed and utilized for the required PUD rezoning. 16 h. Development standards including permitted uses and setbacks for principal buildings shall be established at the time of PUD rezoning Any future PUD rezone shall include at a minimum: Lanascape nutters adjacent to external rights -of -way shall be • 1St /3`d Streets- Minimum 30' wide enhanced buffer • Wilson Boulevard- Minimum 25' wide enhanced buffer • Golden Gate Boulevard- Minimum 50' wide enhanced buffer (2) Except for the utility building no commercial building may be constructed within 125 feet of the northern property boundary and within 300' of the 3rd Street NW boundary of this subdistrict. (3) Any portion of the Project directly abutting residential property (property zoned E Estates and without an approved conditional use) shall provide at a minimum a seventy -five (75) feet wide buffer, except the westernmost 330' of Tract 106 which shall provide a minimum 20' wide buffer in which no parking uses are permitted Twenty-five (25) feet of the width of the buffer along the developed area shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of fifty (50) feet of the buffer width shall consist of retained or re planted native vegetation and must be consistent with subsection 3.05.07.H of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) The native vegetation retention area may consist of a perimeter berm and be used for water management detention Any newly constructed berm shall be revegetated to meet subsection 3.05.07.1-1 of the LDC (native vegetation replanting requirements) Additionally in order to be considered for approval, use of the native vegetation retention area for water management purposes n shall meet the following criteria: a. _There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro- period unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the existing vegetation. b. If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management District the project shall provide a letter or official document from the District indicating that the native vegetation within the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water management requirements If the District cannot or will not supply such a letter, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for water management. c. If the proiect is reviewed by Collier County, the Countv engineer shall provide evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to facilitate the necessary storage of water in the water management area FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: • No present demand for Community Center commercial within the Comprehensive Plan's planning horizon of 2020 • Presently there is a greater deficit of Neighborhood Center commercial in Golden Gate Estates (no Neighborhood Centers approved; and there are two Community Centers approved for 540,950 sq. ft.) • The first project phase will likely develop as a Neighborhood Center • At build out, the project will be a Community Center but will function as both a n Neighborhood Center and Community Center • The project market area overlaps (13,196 persons in year 2015 — and 14,984 persons in year 2020) with the approved Randall Blvd. Commercial Center market area, which means 17 that households within this project's market area will be served by the Randall Blvd. Center, with the exception of households south and southeast of the proposed project • The data and analysis indicate the project will result in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled • This project, inclusive of transportation mitigation commitments, will not result in a reduction in level of service standard for any Category A public facilities • The proposed project size, and use and intensity are out of character with the surrounding semi -rural development pattern • Approval of this project at a Community sized center and use intensity may diminish the value of existing commercial properties and the need for other commercial in Golden Gate Estates • Project site is located within 3.5 and 5.5 road miles of approved Community Centers • The results of the November 2010 referendum indicate the majority of those persons voting (76 %) support the project STAFF'S CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the data and analysis submitted, the proposed site would be more appropriate for a neighborhood commercial sized center with the corresponding C -1 through C -3 commercial uses of the Land Development Code, with a limitation of a 20,000 square feet cap for individual users, with the exception that the grocery use may exceed the cap. Additionally, staff recommends eliminating the Conceptual Site Plan within the Master Plan as it is unprecedented to incorporate a site plan into the GMP, and the environmental data provided on the site plan is inadequate to determine compliance with the Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. The discrepancy between the petitioner's request and staff's recommendation was heard by the Board on January 19, 2010 at which time the Board directed staff to seek the community's desire through a straw -poll ballot. While staff continues to support a moderately sized commercial center, the public (via referendum) overwhelmingly supported a 190,000 square feet center. As noted previously herein, the Florida Senate Report provides that if the commercial ratio of 1.25 is exceeded, other factors, such as suitability of property for change, locational criteria, job creation, community desires, etc., may be considered. Accordingly, despite staff's finding that the technical Needs Analysis does not support the petition as proposed within the Comprehensive Plan planning horizon of 2020, the Board of County Commissioners may consider the following factors in reaching a decision to approve this petition. The petition does provide for a reduction in vehicle miles traveled, local job creation and has community support. 18 - STRAW BALLOT RESOLUTION AND PRECINCT MAP Agenda Item No. 16K7 February 9, 2010 Page 3 of 7 Susan Usher Management/Budget Analyst, Senior Date Office of Management & Budget Office of Management & Budget 2/1 12010 7:19 PM Approved By Mark Isackson Management/Budget Analyst, Senior Date Office of Management & Budget Office of Management & Budget 21212010 8:46 AM COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number. 16K7 Item Summary: Recommendation to approve a Resolution directing the Supervisor of Elections to place on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot for Precincts 551, 552, 554, 555, 590 and 591 the question of whether the Golden Gate Area Master Plan should be amended to allow for up to a 190,000 square foot commercial development, as requested by comprehensive Plan Amendment 08 -01. Meeting Date: 2/9/2010 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Mike Bosi, AICP Manager - Planning Date Community Development & Environmental Services Comprehensive Planning 1/2912010 4:46:38 PM Approved By Scott R. Teach Deputy County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney 2/1/2010 11:13 AM Approved By Jeff I4latzkow County Attorney Date 2/1/2010 1:04 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/1/2010 3:43 PM Approved By Susan Usher Management/Budget Analyst, Senior Date Office of Management & Budget Office of Management & Budget 2/1 12010 7:19 PM Approved By Mark Isackson Management/Budget Analyst, Senior Date Office of Management & Budget Office of Management & Budget 21212010 8:46 AM Agenda Item No. 16K7 February 9, 2010 Page 4 of 7 RESOLUTION NO. 2010 - A RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COAUVIISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DIRECTING THE COLLIER COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO PLACE A STRAW BALLOT REFERENDUM CONCERNING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN ON THE NOVEMBER 2, 2010, BALLOT FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION. WHEREAS, on January 19, 2010, at a 2007/2008 Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments (including a 2009 Petition) Transmittal Hearing, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners voted to indefinitely continue Petition CP- 2008 -1 and to place that proposed amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, which seeks to create an Estates Shopping Center Sub - district at the intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard, on a straw ballot referendum to be voted upon by the adjacent residents of Golden Gate Estates at the November 2, 2010, general election; and WHEREAS, Section 125.01(1)(y) of the Florida Statutes authorizes County n Commissioners to `place questions or propositions on the ballots at any primary election, general election, or otherwise called special election, when agreed to by a majority vote of the total membership of the legislative and governing body, so as to obtain an expression of elector sentiment with respect to matters of substantial concern within the county;" and WHEREAS, Collier County voter precinct numbers 551, 552, 554, 555, 590 and 591 are located east of Collier Boulevard (CR 95 1) and adjacent to the proposed shopping center location and encompass those residents that would be most directly impacted by the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the ballot language for said straw ballot referendum needs to be adopted and transmitted to the Collier County Supervisor of Elections; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that it is lawful and in the public interest to call for the straw ballot referendum and direct the Collier County Supervisor of Elections to take appropriate action with respect to this Resolution. 1 Agenda Item No. 16K7 February 9, 2010 Page 5 of 7 � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Section 1. The Supervisor of Elections is hereby directed to include within the ballot for the November 2, 2010, general election the following straw ballot referendum language: Golden Gate Area Master Plan Amendment — WRson Boukward/Golden Gate Boulevard Shopping Center Should the Golden. Gate Area Master Plan be amended to permit a ±40 acre commercial shopping center, consisting of up to 190,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area in single story buildings looted at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate. Boulevard, that may include outparcels, inline stores, drive - through shopping services, and whose first occupant must be a minims 27,000 square foot supermarket? Yes No Section 2. The Supervisor of Elections is hereby directed to include the above straw ballot referendum language on the ballots of registered voters for the following precincts: Voter Precinct Numbers: 551, 552, 554, 555, 590 and 591 A copy of the Collier County Precinct Map indicating the locations of those Precincts is attached hereto. Section 3. The Supervisor of Elections shall provide any and all notices required by the Florida Election Code in connection with placing this straw ballot on the November 2, 2010, general election ballot. Section 4. All costs related to placing the straw ballot referendum language on the general ballot including but not limited to the cost of translating the ballot into Spanish shall be bome by the Petitioner in CP -2008- 1. Section 5. The Board of County Commissioners hereby directs the Clerk of Court to deliver, or cause to be delivered, a certified copy of this Resolution to the Supervisor of Elections upon adoption and execution of this Resolution. 2 Agenda Item No. 16K7 February 9, 2010 Page 6 of 7 THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second, and majority vote favoring same, this th day of February, 2010. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk LM Deputy Clerk 11 ` Mciency: 3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Un FRED W. COYLE, Chairman av�n. t ice "50w1 axs�.9wa p 6 as se-, - r, i, o 17 } ° 190 505 a �"�r „• �, a >u�`�,ns -fix g 192, 194 193 195 189 a 41 1E, Q STAFF SUMMARY OF THE FLORIDA SENATE INTERIM REPORT 2010 -107 Staff Summary of the Florida Senate Interim Report 2010 -107, October 2009 Subsequent to preparation of the CCPC Staff Reports for the 2007/2008 combined cycles of Growth Management Plan amendment petitions, Collier County was provided the October 2009 Florida Senate Interim Report 2010 -107 entitled "POPULATION NEED AS A CRITERIA FOR CHANGES TO A LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP." In addition to the Interim Report, a draft rule to amend the Florida Administrative Code was provided. The Interim Report identified a primary issue of a "Needs Assessment" in determining whether a comprehensive plan amendment as submitted by a local government provides more land than is needed to accommodate anticipated population growth. Population growth is utilized in the context of projected population during the 5 and 10 year planning time horizons. The genesis for the Interim Report was a land use decision in Marion County where the Governor and Cabinet upheld a decision of an administrative law judge (AU) that a proposed comprehensive plan amendment would, if adopted, allow more than five times the residential units needed in Marion County's 10 year planning horizon. The finding of the AU was that the applicant's methodology was not professionally acceptable because it did not demonstrate the need within the adopted planning time horizon. The Report identified several proposed comprehensive plan amendments that were found not -in compliance based upon needs criteria, that is, because need was not demonstrated by the applicant. However, the Report also identifies some instances where comprehensive plan amendments were found in compliance despite failing to meet the needs assessment criteria; more about this later in this summary. One amendment highlighted in the Report not meeting the needs assessment involved the re- designation of land for industrial development in Putnam County; another such amendment was for the creation of the Clear Springs Sector Plan that re- designated 17,000+ acres to allow uses that included over 11,000 dwelling units, 6.8 million square feet of Research /Corporate Park /Commercial, and 21.8 million square feet of Industrial uses. The needs analysis is a useful planning tool to ascertain whether a proposed plan amendment will result in a local government's over - allocation of land in a specific land use category. One of the biggest problems identified with the over - allocation of certain land uses is urban sprawl, which causes increased infrastructure costs, a depleted urban core, and the premature development of agricultural lands and natural areas. The needs analysis explained in the Interim Report includes a market factor, planning time horizon, and population projections. As previously noted, the planning horizon for Collier County is presently out to 10 years (2020). The County utilizes medium range population projections as provided annually by the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research. The market factor is a numerical tool used to determine the amount of land use supply needed to accommodate anticipated growth. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) uses a market factor of 1.25, or 25 percent greater than the anticipated need of land use supply necessary for the population projected in the [10 year] planning time horizon. The additional 25% is designed to allow for market flexibility. Market factor is calculated by dividing the supply of land use by the demand for that land use. The supply could be dwelling unit capacity (all built units plus all units allowed based on existing zoning and future land use designation), commercial capacity (all built commercial square feet plus all 1 commercial square feet allowed based on existing zoning and future land use designation [land converted to building square feet)), or industrial capacity (all built industrial square feet plus all industrial square feet allowed based on existing zoning and future land use designation [land converted to building square feet]). The demand could be dwelling unit demand, commercial square feet demand, or industrial square feet demand — all based upon population projections within the 10 -year planning horizon. Below are fictitious examples of commercial market factors for three different GMP amendments within three different geographic areas, all at the 10 -year planning horizon: 1) supply of 1.25 million SF /demand for 1 million SF =market factor of 1.25 (supply= 125% of demand) 2) supply of 950,000 SF /demand for 800,000 SF =market factor of 1.19 (supply= 119% of demand) 3) supply of 1.5 million SF /demand for 1 million SF =market factor of 1.50 (supply= 150% of demand) In the above examples, based on market factor considerations only, there is a demonstrated need for the first two amendments as the market factor is at or below 1.25, but there is no demonstrated need for the third amendment as the market factor exceeds the recommended 1.25. The Interim Report also notes that the numerical needs assessment (market factor), while a significant factor in determining need, is not the only consideration. Case law indicates commercial or industrial land use need may also be demonstrated by other factors such as suitability of the property for change, locational criteria, and community desires. in the Report's Findings and /or Conclusions section, it states: The needs assessment is a fundamental part of land use planning. Specifically, the numerical needs assessment is a useful tool to determine whether the amendment will cause an area to become over - allocated or exacerbate existing over - allocation. It is also a key indicator of urban sprawl. However, the numerical needs assessment is only one factor to consider when conducting a needs assessment. It is also important to consider other policy factors such as job creation potential, urban infill, form of development, or the promotion of development in areas where it is most efficient for the local government to promote growth" When the numerical needs assessment exceeds the 1.25 market factor, the above additional factors should be addressed, with specificity, in the proposed GMP amendment petition as part of the data and analysis. The local government can then consider whether the overall needs assessment for a certain land use supersedes the numerical needs assessment and, if so, would need to cite with specificity the policy factors that were relied upon in making that determination. During the Transmittal stage, DCA would make a determination in its Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report as to whether the policy factors articulated provide the rational nexus to exceed the 1.25 market factor; during the Adoption stage, DCA would do that as part of its determination of compliance with state law. GMPA Needs Assesment for ExSum 07-08 combined cycles ?0-1 WomprehensivACOMP PLANNING GMP aATA\CaT Plan AmendmentsMU -2006 Combined Cycle Petfions rc-mm -dw12- M9 & 1 -7 -10 2 THE FLORIDA SENATE INTERIM REPORT 2010 -107 - a The o� °g �v Interim Report 2010 -107 October 2009 Committee on Community Affairs POPULATION NEED AS A CRITERIA FOR CHANGES TO A LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP Issue `tes�cipion Needs Assessment In the growth management regime, a "needs assessment" is a determination of whether a comprehensive plan amendment submitted by a local government provides more land in a specific land use than is needed to accommodate anticipated population growth. When reviewing comprehensive plan amendments the Department of Community Affairs ( "DCA" or "the Department") reviews all residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional amendments for need, the exceptions are rural, agriculture, and conservation uses. The purpose of this interim report is to outline the current controversy surrounding the needs issue and to explain the potential effects of changing the existing policy. Currently, many of Florida's local governments already have enough growth planned in their future land use maps to last for the next several decades' (this is also known as over - allocation). Because a local government should only allow land use density increases when there is a need for additional density, it can be unclear when and how a local government can amend its comprehensive plan if the plan is already over - allocated Additionally, with the housing market collapse causing thousands of homes to go into foreclosure, many Florida citizens have become concerned that the Department has allowed more development than is needed for future growth Alternatively, those in favor of development, claim that Department has not been consistently applying the needs criteria in their review of comprehensive plan amendments. Finally, the time horizons for some local governments' comprehensive plans are relatively short. This is frequently caused by local governments failing to consistently update their plans. The problem with short term horizons is that it may be detrimental to reject thoughtful long term developments in favor of short - range, short- term projects simply because• the local government has failed to plan far enough in advance. Other local governments have made long term extensions to their planning time horizons. Unfortunately, some attempts at long term planning make projections so far into the future that the data and analysis is no longer accurate enough to be considered professionally acceptable methodology. Adopted by the 1985 Legislature, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Ace- also known as Florida's Growth Management Act - requires all of Florida's 67 counties and 410 municipalities to adopt Local Government Comprehensive Plans that guide future growth and development. Comprehensive plans contain chapters or "elements" that address future land use, housing, transportation, infrastructure, coastal management, conservation, recreation and open space, intergovernmental coordination, and capital improvements. As part of each adopted comprehensive plan each local government must also adopt a Future Land Use Map ("FLUIW� a The FLUM puts each parcel in the jurisdiction into a designated land use category; therefore, when a developer or landowner makes an application to change their designated land use they ' In a survey of nine Florida Counties conducted by the Department, the Department found there was between 27 and 993 years of growth that has been approved beyond the Counties' adopted planning horizons. Z See Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. 3 Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S. Page 6 Population Need as a Criteria for Changes to a Local Government's Future Land Use Map Land Use Amendments Denied Based on the Needs Criteria = _ Residential /Commercial/Industrial: Recently, the Department has found several comprehensive plan amendments "not in compliance" due to a lack of demonstrated need_ Specifically, these amendments have not been able to demonstrate a numerical population need. In some of the cases the communities have failed to update - - the planning time horizons in their comprehensive plans. Because the Department's position is that the need for a plan amendment must be reviewed in conjunction with the planning time horizon adopted in the comprehensive plan, several proposed plan amendments have not been able to demonstrate need. However, because of the time and expense associated with updating comprehensive plans, many local governments have had difficulty keeping their plans up to date. In response, the Department has allowed some communities to adopt longer range planning time horizons and multiple time horizons. z Marion County Case: The highest profile case where a land use amendment was rejected because of the needs issue was the case of Woods & Recio v Marion County & DCA, which was recently considered by the Governor and Cabinet" In this case, a developer wanted to change the land use on 400 acres from Rural Land and Urban Reserve to Residential Medium Density, to build 800 new homes. Although the Department originally found the amendment in compliance, they later determined they failed to conduct a needs assessment on the proposed amendment. Therefore, when the case went before an ALJ, the Department changed its position and argued that the amendment should not be allowed because the methodology used was unprofessional in regards to its demonstration of need. To properly demonstrate need, an applicant must provide data and analysis showing there is a need for more development, in this case residential dwelling units, within the local government's adopted planning horizon. The Department discourages methodologies that plan for growth beyond the adopted planning time horizon in part because of the potential for urban sprawl. Even if Marion County's adopted planning horizon had extended out to 2015,34 the applicant's data and analysis showed that if the amendment was allowed the plan would allow 5 times more residential dwelling units than were needed to accommodate projected population. The ALT sided with the Department, finding the applicant's methodology unprofessional because it did not demonstrate need within the adopted planning time horizon. The Governor and Cabinet upheld the findings of the ALI There are several issues highlighted by this case that are of concern to the development community. First, they argue that the strict needs assessment used in this case and the finding that the methodology was not professionally acceptable was a new non -rule policy, inconsistent with prior DCA policy. Second, the time horizon of the Marion County comprehensive plan was 2010. if population projections are limited by the very short time horizon in the comprehensive plan, planning changes that rely on future population projections will be unable to go forward until the comprehensive plan is updated in its entirety. Third, many jurisdictions are over - allocated, meaning there are currently more dwelling units approved within their adopted planning time horizon than population projections indicate will be needed. As a result, if need alone can defeat a plan amendment, a local government will not be able to approve any land use amendment that increases the number of residential dwelling units until population projections are revised or a new planning time horizon is adopted Charlotte County: The Department found an amendment expanding the Urban Service Area by 214 acres and increasing density and intensity of development in this area not in compliance because the methodology presented was not professionally accepted. Therefore, the Department found there was no demonstrated need for the amendment.36 Washington County: The Department found an amendment changing 876 acres from Agriculture to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development not in compliance because the residential needs analysis was not professionally 3z Sierra Club & Panhandle Citizens v. DCA and Franklin County, DOAH 05- 2731GM (June 12, 2006). 33 Woods & Recio v Marion County & DCA, DOAH 08- 1576GM (Feb. 4, 2009). 34Marion County's adopted planning time horizon was 2010; the submitted methodology used a planning time frame of 44 years. DCA used a six year planning time horizon of 2015 for their analysis; this planning time horizon was purely theoretical and only used for legal argument. Woods & Recio v. Marion Caurdy & DCA, DOAH 08- 1576GM (Feb. 4, 2009). 3s Woods & Reeio v Marion County & DCA, Administration Commission (Sept 4, 2009). 16 Charlotte County Amendment 09 -1 Population Need as a Criteria for Changes to a Local Government's Future Land se Map Page g acceptable. Although there was a need for an additional 1,058 dwelling units for. 2010, the amendment had the potential to create 7,359 new dwelling units. Miami -Dade County: A 2009 amendment expanding the urban service area and changing the land use from Agriculture to Commercial was found not in compliance because the methodology was not professionally accepted and "there is no need for more commercial land in the area of the proposed Lowes site." s The area of the Lowe's site had a projected ratio of 113 acres of commercial per 1000 persons, whale the countywide ratio was projected to be 6.1 acres per 1000 persons. Alternative Planning Modes Because large rural tracts are typically not located in areas where a need can be shown for more residential, commercial, or industrial lands, the Legislature has created programs to allow some development in aural areas. These programs are known as Optional Sector Planning and the Rural Land Stewardship Program Additionally, in 2004, the Legislature created the Ave Maria Stewardship District and the Big Cypress Stewardship District as independent special districts. These districts have independent governing bodies, and have been designed to work in concert with the rural land stewardship program in Collier County. Optional Sector Planning In 1998, the Legislature permitted the creation of five optional sector plans as an alternative to the Development of Regional Impact process." A sector plan process consists of an agreement authorizing the preparation of a sector plan between the county and Department, a conceptual long -term build -out overlay, and a detailed specific area plan. Sector plans emphasize urban form, public participation throughout the process, protection of regional resources and facilities and apply to areas greater than 5,000 acres. A sector plan is adopted as a comprehensive plan amendment and similarly reviewed by the Department for consistency. There are currently three sector plans /.� in existence (West Bay Area Sector Plan, Orange County Sector Plan, Brennan Field Sector Plan), a fourth was recently designated (Clear Springs Sector Plan) and a fifth will likely be officially designated in the near future. Rural Land Stewardship In 2001, the Legislature established the Rural Land Stewardship Area Program ("RLSAP ") as a pilot program.40 This program allowed counties to designate rural land stewardship areas, within areas that are classified on a future land use map as agricultural, rural, open, or a substantively equivalent land use. Within these areas, planning and economic incentives can encourage the implementation of flexible planning and development strategies to increase densities in some locations while permanently preserving land in other areas. After several legislative changes, in 2006 the Department received its first RLSAP amendments from St. Lucie County (Collier County had also adopted a similar rural land stewardship program, however it was not adopted under the RLSAP statute) .41 After initially finding the St. Lucie County amendments in compliance in 2006, the Department undertook a second look at them in 2007 when it drafted its annual RLSAP report for the Legislature. During this review the Department found several shortcomings in the amendments.42 Specifically, the Department found: • The St. Lucie County program was extremely complex. • In Collier County, where development was actually happening, the development was being directed to agricultural areas which the Department contends contravenes the principles of rural sustainability. • The program did not have any requirements that the receiving area be clustered, thus allowing for the possibility of scattered sprawling receiving areas. 37 DCA v. Washington County, DOAH 07- 0609GM (June 26, 2009). . 38 DCA v Miami -Dade Cozzty & David Brown, DOAH 08- 3614GM (May 11, 2009). s9 Section 163.3245, F.S. �\ 40 Section 163.3177 (11)(d), F.S. "Florida Chamber of Commerce, et al v. DCA, DOAH 09- 3488RP (Sept 14,2M9). 42.14 Page S Population Need as a Criteria for Changes to a Local Government's Future Land Use Map Due to these- shortcomings, the Department has placed little, if any, reliance on the St. Lucie County RLSAP amendments as an example of proper planning under the RLSAP statute.43 There is also no evidence that any development has occurred under the St. Lucie program, and its most recent correspondence indicated that none may ever occur 44 Furthermore, Highlands and Osceola Counties which both applied for and were granted authorization by the Department to designate RLSAP's, have since notified the Department that they would no longer pursue them and the authorization was withdrawn by the Department.4S In order to clear up some of the confusion over the program, the Department recently entered into rulemaking for the RLSAP. 46 Although these rules were upheld by an AL7, it remains to be seen whether this program will actually be used. FIhd 0S."" !Con liusifln , Need Assessment is a Factor in Land Use Planning 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. Inconsistent Enforcement Although the needs assessment has been in the statutes for a long time, it has not been consistently enforced. In reviewing case law, it appears the Department took a tougher stance against urban sprawl and the needs factor in the early 1990's during the initial adoption of the comprehensive plans, then relaxed its review of this criterion for • many years when reviewing plan amendments, and has .now once again been applying a tougher standard. The market factor being used in many current needs assessments is 1.25. Some amendments are approved despite an over - allocation of development in a given jurisdiction. However, the reason that these amendments are approved is unclear. Long Term Land Use Planning is Permitted but Must be Carefully Considered In cases such as Woods & Recio v. Marion County & DCA, 47 a one or two -year planning horizon in the comprehensive plan will make a showing of future need for development difficult or impossible to demonstrate. Long term planning can be valuable, but changing an entire comprehensive plan to reflect a 20 or 30 -year planning horizon, while currently allowed under the statutes, may present many difficulties. For instance, because population projections are incorrect, and population projections are required to match the adopted planning time horizon, adopting too long of a planning time horizon can lead to urban sprawl. Therefore, if a local government adopts a longer term planning horizon that allows for more development they are taking a risk that they are allowing development in areas that may never develop. 00.00 n ndfor f ecommondat�orxs Planning for growth where growth is needed has. a number of benefits including the: • discouragement of urban sprawl and the efficient use of infrastructure dollars; • discouragement of premature conversion of agricultural lands; • prevention of fragmentation of the environment, and • promotion of coordination of the plan with the plans of adjacent local governments. 1W 4d 4a 4 id. 45 id. 46 rd 41 Woods &Recio a Mm-ion Cown), &DC✓!, DOAH 08- 1576GM (Feb. 4, 2009). Population Need as a Criteria for Changes to a Local Government's Future Land Use Map Page 9 A numerical needs as using a market factor is one of the tools the state uses to achieve these important policy objectives. It is possible that a development proposal could fad the numerical needs as and stilt achieve the important policy goals that the test was created to protect. Therefore, a clear articulation of how the test relates to the goals may allow interested parties to understand how particularly well planned and beneficial development might take place even in a jurisdiction that is over - allocated. Rulemaking or legislative clarification in this area could promote well planned developments where form, function, and location outweigh the detrimental effects of over - allocation. Either the Legislature by statute or the Department of Community Affairs through rule making could clarify the role of needs assessment in the comprehensive planning process. The Department could, through rulemaking, formalize and elaborate on its current policies and guidelines for analyzing a needs assessment_ More clearly identifying the factors considered in assessing need and the beneficial public policies supported by having a needs assessment should assist planners, developers, and polic}anakers to develop plans that avoid over - allocation and urban sprawl without restricting growth where it would be beneficial. Finally, there are certain types of development that may not need to undergo stringent needs analysis. For example, local governments are often interested in gaining the efficiencies of enhanced urban infill and redevelopment projects. It may be that these projects are needed for public policy reasons and might not need to provide population data that support their proposals. In addition, certain commercial or industrial job creation projects might not require a stringent needs analysis. The Legislature or the Department may choose to exempt or set different criteria for these projects. GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AREA CIGM MAP HOUSING UNITS AND F "ULATION FORECAST FOR GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AREA (2 -MILE EAST OF CR 951) USING CIGM DEMAND FOR COMMERCIAL SQFT - COMMUNITY CENTER Communitv Center 2010 1 2090 ild- Comm'I SQFT Demand 249,443 372,564 612,216 (Source: Collier Interactive Growth Model) HOUSING UNITS & POPULATION PROJECTION Po ulation & Housing 2010 2020 Build -Out Total Housin Units 10 870 16 238 26,731 } Total Population 33,348 49,808 81,847 L (Source: Collier Interactive Growth Model) DEMAND FOR COMMERCIAL SOFT - NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER Neighborhood Center 2010 1 2090 1 Buill -Out 6 Comm'I SQFT Demand 281,791 420,878 1 691,607 (Source: Collier Interactive Growth Model) STRAW BALLOT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 02/09/2010 Agenda Item No. 16K7 February 9, 2010 Page 1 of 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve a Resolution directing the Supervisor of Elections to place on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot for Precincts 551, 552, 554, 555, 590 and 591 the question of whether the Golden Gate Area Master Plan should be amended to allow for up to a 190,000 square foot commercial development, as requested by comprehensive Plan Amendment 08 -01. OBJECTIVE: Staff is requesting that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve the Resolution to direct the Supervisor of Elections to place a straw ballot question regarding CP- 08 -01, a Growth Management Plan Amendment to the Golden Gate request for an up. to 190,000 square foot commercial development within the Rural Golden Gate Estates. CONSIDERATION: } On January 19, 2010, at a 2007/2008 Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments (including a 2009 Petition) Transmittal Hearing, the BCC voted to indefinitely continue Petition CP- 2008 -1 and to place that proposed amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, which seeks to create an Estates Shopping Center Sub - district at the n intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard, on a straw ballot referendum to be voted upon by the adjacent residents of Golden Gate Estates at the November 2, 2010, general election. Section 125.01(1) (y) of the Florida Statutes authorizes County Commissioners to "place questions or propositions on the ballots at any primary election, general election, or otherwise called special election, when agreed to by a majority vote of the total membership of the legislative and governing body, so as to obtain an expression of elector sentiment with respect to matters of substantial concern within the county." The location of the proposed Estates Shopping Center Sub - district, the northeast section of the Wilson/Golden Gate Boulevards intersection is located within Precinct 552. Based upon the expected impact of the Estates Shopping District upon residents beyond Precinct 552, the straw ballot referendum will be applicable to precinct numbers 551, 552, 554, 555, 590 and 591. Each of these precincts is located east of Collier Boulevard (CR951). All costs related to placing the straw ballot referendum language on the general ballot including but not limited to the cost of translating the ballot into Spanish shall be borne by the Petitioner in CP- 2008 -1. The straw ballot language to be adopted and transmitted to the Collier County Supervisor of Elections is depicted below: Agenda Item No. 16K7 February 9, 2010 Page 2 of 7 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Amendment – Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard Shopping Center Should the Golden Gate Area Master Plan be amended to permit a ±40 acre commercial shopping center, consisting of up to 190,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area in single story buildings located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard, that may include outparcels, inline stores, drive - through shopping services, and whose first occupant must be a minimum 27,000 square foot supermarket? Yes No FISCAL IMPACT: The principal costs associated with the Resolution and the corresponding ballot question is being born solely by the applicant for the CP -08 -01 GMP amendment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no direct impact of the straw ballot question on the GMP, but ultimately if the CP -08 -01 is approved the amendment would alter the existing Golden Gate Area Master n Plan (GGAMP) by allowing for Community Commercial development within the Sub - District. Currently the GGAMP only provides for the development of limited Neighborhood Commercial development LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office and is legally sufficient for Board action —SRT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution directing the Supervisor of Elections to place a straw ballot referendum concerning an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan for an up to 190,000 square foot commercial district on the November 2, 2010, ballot for the general election. Prepared by. Mike Bosi, AlCP, Manager, Comprehensive Planning Department TRANSMITTAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1/19/10 FOR 2007 -2008 GMP AMENDMENT COMBINED CYCLES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Public Hearing for the 2007 -2008 Combined Cycles of Growth Management Plan Amendments, including one 2009 Cycle Petition. (Transmittal Hearing) OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners to review the 2007 -2008 combined cycles of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan and consider approving said amendments for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CONSIDERATIONS: e Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government's adopted Growth Management Plan. Y At time of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) hearings, the 2007 -2008 combined cycle of GMP amendments consisted of nine private sector petitions and one County - initiated petition, including one 2009 cycle petition per prior Board direction. However, of the private sector petitions, only six now remain in this cycle as two petitions were withdrawn subsequent to the CCPC hearing and one petition was continued indefinitely by the CCPC at petitioner's request (then added to the amendment cycle with petition CP- 2008 -5, Immokaiee Area Master Plan). The four petitions for sites east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) within Golden Gate Estates are depicted on the attached location map. • The (CCPC), sitting as the "local planning agency" under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held their Transmittal hearing for these petitions on October 19, 20 and 29, 2009, and November 19, n 2009. • This Transmittal hearing for the 2007 -2008 combined cycle considers amendments to the following Elements of the Plan: 0 Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map and Map Series; and, 0 Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Future Land Use Map and Map Series. Note. Because this hearing is for the sole purpose of considering GMP amendment petitions, the number of petitions is large (7 total) and the support materials so voluminous, and some exhibits are oversized, the Novus 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. Needs Analysis Attached to this Executive Summary is 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." Also attached is a summary of that Report prepared by Comprehensive Planning staff (Staff Summary of the Florida Senate Interim Report 2010 -107, October 2009). 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. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts to Collier County as a result of these amendments since final action is not being taken at this time (these amendments are not being considered for adoption at this hearing). If approved for transmittal, these amendments will subsequently be considered for adoption at hearings to be held later in 2010. The cost to process, review and advertise the private sector petitions is bome by the petitioner via the application fee. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Executive Summary has been reviewed by the County Attorney's office. These proposed Growth Management Plan amendments are 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 Resolution #97 -431, as amended. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of these proposed amendments by the Board of County Commissioners for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs will commence the Department's sixty -day (60) review process and ultimately return these amendments to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for final Adoption hearings to be held later in 2010. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: All six private sector amendments to the Growth Management Plan would increase allowable development intensity. For four of those six petitions, no listed plant and/or animal species have been observed or are known to be on the sites, and those sites do not contain jurisdictional wetlands. The other two private sector amendments do contain listed plant and/or animal species and contain jurisdictional wetlands (petitions CP- 2008 -4 and CP- 2009 -1). As part of the process of obtaining subsequent development orders (e.g. rezone and/or conditional use, site development plan), the sites will be subject to all applicable local, state and federal environmental protection regulations, including applicable portions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP, and the Land Development Code. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: None of the six proposed private sector amendments to the GMP contain lands identified on the County's HistoricaVArcheological Probability Maps as being in areas of historical or archaeological probability. As part of the process of obtaining subsequent development orders, the sites will again be subject to review for historical/archeological probability. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: Most Growth Management Plan amendments are not reviewed by the EAC. However, the EAC did review two petitions on September 2, 2009. Petition CP- 2008 -4 (located in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands designation) was forwarded with a recommendation to transmit to DCA (vote: 5/0), and petition CP- 2009 -1 (located in the Conservation designation and within the Big Cypress Area of Critical Sate Concern) was forwarded with a recommendation to transmit to DCA subject to staffs text revisions (vote: 3/2). n COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staffs recommendation follows each individual petition listed below. Note: For most petitions, regardless of staff recommendation, staff prepared text revisions to the petitioner's proposed text so as to provide clarity, proper format, correct grammar, etc., as noted in the CCPC Staff Reports. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC's recommendation follows each individual petition listed below and is contained in the attached document titled "CCPC Transmittal Recommendations for 2007 -2008 Combined Cycles Growth Management Plan Amendments." Note: Where the CCPC forwarded a recommendation of approval, the text in the Resolution Exhibit A reflects the CCPC recommendation. Where the CCPC forwarded a recommendation of denial, and where a recommendation for approval failed by virtue of a tie vote, the text in the Resolution Exhibit A reflects the petitioner's proposed text — including revisions submitted subsequent to the CCPC hearing. 1. PETITION CP- 2007 -1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series to create the Wilson Boulevard Conditional Uses Subdistrict, to allow a maximum of 40,000 square feet of permitted and conditional uses of the Estates zoning district, for property located on the southeast corner of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Wilson Boulevard, in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, consisting of ±5.17 acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2007 -1 to the BCC with a recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. n CCPC Recommendation: At the CCPC hearing, the petition agent verbally proposed one change to the amendment: if the CCPC would not support the commercial petition, then requested they approve the site to be eligible to apply for conditional uses, i.e. be an exception to the locational criteria for conditional uses. The CCPC recommended the BCC not approve the revised petition CP- 2007 -1 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 8/0). Speakers: None. Post -CCPC Action: As submitted to the CCPC, this petition was a request for 40,000 s.f. of commercial uses allowed in the C -1 through C-3 zoning districts. Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, the petitioner submitted new subdistrict text to replace the original text to instead request a maximum of 40,000 square feet of permitted and conditional uses of the E- Estates zoning district; this new subdistrict text is located behind the tab labeled "Post -CCPC Submittal CP- 2007 -1" in the binder containing the original petition as provided to the CCPC and is reflected in the Resolution Exhibit A for this petition. The petitioner submitted no needs analysis or other data and analysis to support this modified petition. The staff recommendation not to approve this petition for Transmittal stands. 2. PETITION CP- 2007 -3, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to create the Mission Subdistrict to allow church and related uses, including schools, adult care and child care, and community outreach, with a maximum of 90,000 square feet of total development, for property located on the south side of Oil Well Road (CR 858), 1/4 mile west of Everglades Boulevard, in Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, consisting of ±21.72 acres. n [Coordinator: Beth Yang, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: rove for transmittal to the Florida DepartmenOt0 a recommendation not to app of Community Affai s. CCPC Recommendation: At the CCPC hearing, the petitioner proposed changes to the amendment to remove reference to commercial uses. After discussion regarding what the term "church - related uses" could encompass, the CCPC recommended the BCC approve the revised petition CP- 2007 -3 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 8/0), subject to staff determination of the appropriate text — as a proposed new Subdistrict OR as a new exception to be listed under the existing Conditional Uses Subdistrict in the GGAMP (for conditional uses (CU) allowed in the E, Estates zoning district). Based upon discussion with Zoning & Land Development Review staff, it could not be clearly determined that the range of proposed uses would fall under the "church" use; therefore, one option would be for the petitioner to submit a Request for Official Interpretation (OI). If the OI process (staff determination or appeal to BOZA) were to yield an affirmative determination, then the CU exception text would be appropriate. However, unless and until that occurs, Comprehensive Planning Department staff believes it best to establish a new Subdistrict to reflect the CCPC recommendation, as set forth in the attached document titled "CCPC Transmittal Recommendations for 2007 -2008 Combined Cycles Growth Management Plan Amendments." Speakers: There was one speaker; the speaker was in favor of this petition. Post -CCPC Action: Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, the petitioner submitted a revised cover letter dated December 1, 2009 that includes revised subdistrict text - which is the same as that recommended by the CCPC (materials are located behind the tab labeled "Post -CCPC Submittal CP- 2007 -3" in the binder containing the original petition as provided to the CCPC). The staff recommendation not to approve this petition for Transmittal stands. 3. PETITION CP- 200 8-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to create the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 210,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C -4 zoning district, with exceptions, and some uses of the C -5 zoning district, with requirement to construct a grocery store, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard extending from Wilson Blvd. west to 3rd Street Northwest, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of ±40.62 acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2008 -1 to the BCC with a recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: At the CCPC hearing, the petitioner verbally proposed two changes to the amendment: 1) reduce building height from two stories to one story; and, 2) reduce the proposed building area from 225,000 square feet to 210,000 square feet There was no CCPC recommendation on revised petition CP- 2008 -1 by virtue of a be vote (4/4). The failed motion to approve was subject to staff alternative text in the Staff Report, but revised to: 1) keep the list of allowable uses #1 -27 as proposed by petitioner, but delete #28 [this requires a re- lettering of paragraphs]; 2) revise paragraph "a.12" to reflect the correct SIC Code term; 3) revise paragraph "a." to add a "catchall" prohibited use #14; 4) revise paragraph "b." to reduce the total allowable building area from 225,000 s.f. to 210,000 s.f., as proposed by the petitioner at the hearing, and to modify the building floor area term; 5) revise paragraph "c." to recognize the potential for more than one grocery use; 6) revise paragraph "e.1 " pertaining to the timing of right -of -way donation; and, 6) 4 delete paragraph "n." pertaining to common architectural theme. The text that reflects the CCPC's unsuccessful motion is contained in the aftached document titled "CCPC Transmittal Recommendations for 2007 -2008 Combined Cycles Growth Management Plan Amendments." Speakers: There were nine speakers. Two speakers were in favor of the petition, noting there is a need and desire for more commercial and that the petitioner has worked to resolve neighborhood concerns. One of those two speakers represented the First and Third Group, a group of neighbors near the subject site (71" and Td Streets NW); he presented a specific list of permitted and prohibited uses, with SIC Codes, the Group endorsed. Seven speakers were opposed to the petition, citing these concerns: project will increase traffic; there are adequate shopping opportunities in or near Golden Gate Estates (GGE); negative impacts during project construction; commercial should not be located in the interior of GGE; project will attract undesirable animals (rats, then snakes that eat rats); not consistent with GGAMP allowance for commercial and maintenance of rural character; questions whether there's enough population in GGE to support this amount of commercial; will disrupt the tranquility, quiet, nature and [nighttime] darkness the speakers moved to GGE to enjoy. Post -CCPC Action: Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, the petitioner submitted revised proposed subdistrict text and conceptual map to reduce building area from 225,000 s.f. to 210,000 s.f.; increase landscape buffers; and, increase building setbacks. Also, the petitioner submitted additional data and analysis. All new /revised materials are located behind the tab labeled "Post - CCPC Submittal CP- 2008 -1" in the binder containing the original petition as provided to the CCPC. Also, this revised subdistrict text and map comprise the Resolution Exhibit A for this petition. In response to The Florida Senate Interim Report 2010 -107, dated October 2009 (previously referenced and attached to this Executive Summary), the applicant submitted data and analysis to n address policy factors to demonstrate the "need" for the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment; and, submitted additional data and analysis to further address 2008 Legislation, HB 697, which pertains to energy conservation and efficiency. As to HB 697, based on the applicant's information provided, staff is able to conclude that the project would likely reduce vehicle trips traveled by providing commercial and employment opportunities proximate to area residents. Regarding the "needs" analysis, the applicant identified "other policy factors," such as jab creation," and, provided "community input/surveys" in support of the proposed development. These additional factors may be considered by the Board of County Commissioners in assessing the "non- numerical" commercial need for the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment. Staff is still reviewing and evaluating the "needs" analysis and will provide additional comments to the Board at the hearing. The staff recommendation not to approve this petition for Transmittal stands. However, attached is the staff altemative to the petitioner's text (Staff Alternative Text for Petition CP- 2008 -1) which reflects revisions for purpose of proper formatting, clarity, conciseness, use of proper ordinance language, etc. 4. PETITION CP- 2008 -2, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series to expand and modify the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict to allow an additional 370,950 square feet of commercial uses of the C-4 zoning district, with exceptions, for property located on the south side of Randall Boulevard, extending from 8th Street Northeast west to the canal on the west side of the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station, in Sections 26 and 27, Township 48 South, 5 Range 27 East, consisting of 156.5 acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal 11-IN, Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2008 -2 to the BCC with a recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: At the CCPC hearing, the petitioner proposed changes to the amendment to: 1) reduce the proposed total allowable building area from 431,950 square feet to 411,950 square feet, 2) increase the proposed building area on the tract containing the Randall Boulevard Center PUD from 21,000 square feet to 31,000 square feet. The petitioner also provided some additional data and analysis at the CCPC hearing. The CCPC recommended the BCC approve revised petition CP- 2008 -2 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 6/2), subject to the staff alternative text in the Staff Report, as revised regarding: 1) allowable square feet figures; 2) the C-4 zoning district reference; and, 3) discontinuance of the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station and Florida Division of Forestry fire tower. The text that reflects the CCPC's recommendation is contained in the attached document titled "CCPC Transmittal Recommendations for 2007 -2008 Combined Cycles Growth Management Plan Amendments." Speakers: There were two speakers. One speaker was in favor of the petition. One speaker expressed concern about the public notice process stating some nearby residents did not receive notice. Post -CCPC Action: Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, the petitioner submitted additional data and analysis (new materials are located behind the tab labeled "Post -CCPC Submittal CP- 2008 -2" in the binder containing the original petition as provided to the CCPC). In response to The Florida Senate Interim Report 2010 -107, dated October 2009 (previously referenced and attached to this n Executive Summary), the applicant submitted data and analysis to address the referenced 1.25 commercial market factor and other policy factors to demonstrate the "need" for the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment; and, submitted additional data and analysis to further address 2008 Legislation, HB 697, which pertains to energy conservation and efficiency. As to H 697, the applicant's analysis and conclusions reached primarily focused on a grocery use as part of the development proposal. However, it should be noted that the Subdistrict text only allows for grocery store use — the text does not require development of a grocery store. Based on the applicant's information provided, staff is able to conclude that the project, with grocery use, would likely reduce vehicle trips traveled by providing commercial and employment opportunities proximate to area residents. Regarding the "needs" analysis, the applicant provided an analysis of the 1.25 commercial market factor. However, the analysis was based on a 25 percent increase in the Market Area population (primary and secondary areas) rather than a calculation of the supply to demand ratio, and was out to year 2060 rather than for the 10-year planning horizon adopted within the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the applicant identified "other policy factors," such as "job creation," and provided "public benefit commitments" to support the proposed development. These additional factors may be considered by the Board of County Commissioners in assessing the "non- numerical" commercial need for the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment if the market factor is higher than 1.25. Staff is still reviewing and evaluating the "needs" analysis and will provide additional comments to the Board at the hearing. The staff recommendation not to approve this petition for Transmittal stands. 5. PETITION NO. CP- 2008 -4, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future -Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to re- designate from Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands to Neutral Lands property located on the east and south sides 10-IN n of Washburn Avenue, east of the Naples landfill, in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 28.76 acres. [Coordinator. Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2008 -4 to the BCC with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, subject to reservation of 130 feet along the southern boundary of the site for future right -of -way. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CP- 2008 -4 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 8/0), per staffs recommendation, and with requirement that the petitioner is to submit to staff prior to the BCC Transmittal hearing data and analysis regarding HB 697 (pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions, lowering vehicle miles traveled, etc.). Speakers: None. Post -CCPC Action: Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, and pursuant to their recommendation, the petitioner submitted new data and analysis to address HB 697 (materials are located behind the tab labeled "Post -CCPC Submittal CP- 2008 -4° in the binder containing the original petition as provided to the CCPC). Staff has reviewed and evaluated the post -CCPC submittal and finds it to be satisfactory. 6. PETITION NO. CPSP - 200 8-7, Staff Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element to add a new Policy 4.11 pertaining to aligning planning time frames in the GMP. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CPSP - 2008 -7 to the BCC with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CPSP- 2008 -7 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 8/0). Speakers: None. 7. PETITION NO. CP- 2009 -1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUE/FLUM), to create the Dade - Collier Cypress Recreation Area District within the Conservation Designation, for property located along the Miami - Dade /Collier County border, in Sections 13, 14, 15 & 16, Township 53 South, Range 34 East, consisting of 1,6081 acres. [Coordinator: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2009 -1 to the BCC with a recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: There was no CCPC recommendation on petition CP- 2009 -1 by virtue of a tie vote (414). The failed motion to approve was subject to staff alternative text in the Staff Report, as revised in two places regarding lake edge littoral zone requirement The text that reflects the CCPC's unsuccessful motion is contained in the attached document titled `CCPC Transmittal Recommendations for 2007 -2008 Combined Cycles Growth Management Plan Amendments.' Speakers: None. Post -CCPC Action: Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, the petitioner submitted additional data and analysis (new materials are located behind the tab labeled "Post -CCPC Submittal CP- 2009 -1" in the binder containing the original petition as provided to the CCPC). Staff is still reviewing and evaluating the post -CCPC submittal. As a follow -up to CCPC discussion regarding emergency response capability to the site and impacts upon adopted Level of Service Standards, Comprehensive Planning staff solicited input from the Bureau of Emergency Services (BES) Director. Attached is a memo dated November 9, 2009 from the BES Director addressing these concerns and offering stipulations for consideration. Though these stipulations are appropriate to include during subsequent development order approval, not within the GMP as part of this amendment, they are helpful in alerting the petitioner to the County's concerns and position. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendations for the 2007 -2008 combined cycles of Growth Management Plan amendments, including one 2009 cycle petition, are as reflected above following each petition. CCPC RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission held their required public hearing on October 19, 20 and 29, 2009, and November 19, 2009. The CCPC forwarded the 2007 -2008 combined cycles of Growth Management Plan amendments, including one 2009 cycle petition, to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendations as reflected above following each petition and as contained in the attached document titled "CCPC Transmittal Recommendations for 2007 -2008 Combined Cycles Growth Management Plan Amendments." PREPARED BY: 'D DATE: DAVID WEEKS, AICP, GMP MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION � --7 -/0 REVIEWED BY: DATE: 10 MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION REVIEWED BY: � DATE: a t • 07- t o W IAM LORE , P.E., ECTOR ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: 942i�� DATE: ) --?-/o NICK CASALANG INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION EX SUM Transmittal 2007 -2008 combined Cycle GMPAs GAComprehensivelCOMP. PLANNING GMP DATAIComp. Plan Amendments12007 -2008 Combined Cycle Petitions dw/11 -3-09 — t(7 /10 2010 CYCLE CCPC ADOPTION STAFF REPORT Agenda Items 9.1), F, G, H s-r 4zo"-"Ly STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION /PLANNING AND REGULATION, LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: JULY 21, 2011 SUBJECT: 2010 CYCLE OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING ONE 2008 CYCLE PETITION (ADOPTION HEARING) ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES; AND, GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN (GGAMP) ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES At time of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) Transmittal hearings, the 2010 cycle of Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments consisted of three petitions - one private sector petition and two County - initiated petitions. However, at the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) Transmittal hearing on this 2010 cycle, a prior cycle petition (CP72008 -1) that had been continued indefinitely at the BCC Transmittal hearing in 2009 was added to this 2010 cycle. Therefore, there are now four petitions in this 2010 cycle of GMP amendments — two private sector and two County- initiated petitions. Transmittal hearings on these amendments were held on December 1, 2010 (EAC, Environmental Advisory Council) for the Wellhead Protection Areas Map portion of petition CPSP - 2010 -2 only; December 16, 2010 and January 20, 2011 (CCPC, Collier County Planning Commission) for petitions CP- 2010 -1 and CPSP- 2010 -2, and February 17, 2011 (CCPC) for petition CPSP - 2010 -5, and October 19 and 20, 2009 (CCPC) for petition CP- 2008 -1; and, March 22, 2011 (BCC) for petitions CP- 2010 -1, CPSP - 2010 -2 and CPSP- 2010 -5, and January 19, 2010 and March 22, 2011 (BCC) for petition CP- 2008-1. The respective Transmittal recommendations /actions are presented further below, following each petition number and title. Within the CCPC binder you will find the Transmittal Executive Summary from the March 22, 2011 BCC hearing and certain attachments referenced therein, the Transmittal CCPC staff report for each petition, and both. the Transmittal and Adoption EAC staff reports (for the Wellhead Protection Map portion of petition CPSP- 2010 -2 only); all of which provide staff's detailed analysis of each petition. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ORC REPORT: After review of Transmitted GMP amendments, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) renders an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Only Objections can form the basis of a non - compliance determination, unless the adopted amendments vary significantly from those transmitted. If an Objection is not adequately addressed when adopted, then the DCA may (presumably will) find the Agenda Items 9.1), F, G, H amendment to be "Not in Compliance" with Florida Statutes, and issue a Notice of Intent (NOI) to indicate such noncompliance. The County may respond to the ORC Report in one of four ways at Adoption: 1. not modify the amendment, but provide additional explanation of what the amendment is about, its purpose, what it will achieve [appropriate if we believe DCA simply does not understand/has misunderstood the amendment] and /or provide additional data and analysis to support the amendment; or 2. modify the amendment, so as to address the ORC issue; or, 3. modify the amendment, and provide additional explanation and/or provide additional data and analysis; or, 4. not adopt the amendment In their April 21, 2011 ORC Report for the 2010 cycle of GM amendments, DCA raises no Objections, and offers only one Comment — relative to petition CP- 2008 -1. That Comment pertains to historical /archaeological resources in the vicinity of the subject site. The staff response is to note there are no such resources known to exist on the site itself; further, to note that the LDC already provides that should such resources be discovered during development activity, development is to cease and proper authorities are to be notified. The ORC Report, which includes comments from other state and regional review agencies, is included in the CCPC binder. The ordinances proposed for adoption include text and/or map exhibits for each petition; those exhibits are located within the CCPC binder. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS A. PETITION CP- 200 8-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Mal) Series, to create the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 190,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts, with exceptions, and some uses of the C -4 and C -5 zoning districts with a requirement to construct a grocery store, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard extending from Wilson Blvd. west to 3rd Street Northwest, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of ±40.62 acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] This petition seeks to amend the GGAMP to establish the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict and re- designate the subject site from Neighborhood Center Subdistrict L5 acres) and Residential Estates Subdistrict to this new Subdistrict. The Subdistrict would allow a total of 190,000 square feet of development, including a grocery store no less than 27,000 square feet and which must be the first building/user issued a Certificate of Occupancy. Note: The companion PUD rezone petition is scheduled for this same hearing. TRANSMITTAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Do not transmit to DCA. [However, as presented at the March 22, 2011 BCC hearing, staff would recommend approval IF the petition was revised to: limit the overall size (square feet) to that of a neighborhood shopping center; limit individual users, except for grocer, to 20,000 square feet; replace detailed list of Agenda Items 9.D, F, G, H permitted uses with reference to uses allowed in the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts; and, remove the conceptual site plan.] CCPC RECOMMENDATION: There was no CCPC recommendation on revised petition CP- 2008 -1 by virtue of a be vote (4/4). At the CCPC Transmittal hearing, the petitioner verbally proposed two changes to the amendment: 1) reduce building height from two stories to one story; and, 2) reduce the proposed building area from 225,000 square feet to 210,000 square feet. The failed motion to approve was subject to staff alternative text in the Staff Report, revised to: 1) keep the list of allowable uses #1 -27 as proposed by petitioner, but delete #28 [this requires a re- lettering of paragraphs]; 2) revise paragraph "a.12" to reflect the correct SIC Code term; 3) revise paragraph "a." to add a "catchall" prohibited use #14; 4) revise paragraph "b." to reduce the total allowable building area from 225,000 s.f. to 210,000 s.f., as proposed by the petitioner at the hearing, and to modify the building floor area term; 5) revise paragraph "c." to recognize the potential for more than one grocery use; 6) revise paragraph "e.1." pertaining to the timing of right -of- way donation; and, 6) delete paragraph "n." pertaining to common architectural theme. The text that reflects the CCPC's unsuccessful motion is contained in the document titled "CCPC Transmittal Recommendation for CP- 2008 -1." BCC ACTION: At their January 19, 2010 hearing, the BCC continued this petition indefinitely so as to allow the petitioner to place this item on the November 2010 ballot for a non - binding referendum. The petitioner did so. The Executive Summary and attachments, especially the Supplemental Report, for the March 22, 2011 BCC hearing contains details about the referendum, additional staff analysis, etc. n At their March 22, 2011 hearing, the BCC approved this petition for Transmittal to DCA (vote: 4/1), as presented by the petitioner, with direction to the CCPC to make recommendation upon the appropriate square feet cap for individual users. ADOPTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Do not transmit to DCA as presented; however, staff would recommend approval for adoption with the following changes: limit the overall size (square feet) to that of a neighborhood shopping center; limit individual users, except for grocer, to 20,000 square feet; replace detailed list of permitted uses with reference to uses allowed in the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts; and, remove the conceptual site plan. B. PETITION CP- 2010 -1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), to modify the language of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict to allow a grocery/supermarket, physical fitness facility, craft/hobby store, home furnishing store and department store use to exceed the 20,000 square feet limitation for a single commercial use, up to a maximum of 50,000 square feet, for Parcel 1 (±9.2 acres, zoned Bradford Square MPUD) only, and with the overall maximum development limitation of 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses on Parcel 1 to remain; the subject portion of the Subdistrct is located at the northeast corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] ADenda Items 9.1), F, G, H ___1*1 The Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict was established in 2005 and comprises two non - contiguous parcels that generally allow commercial uses found in the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts. Each parcel has an overall building square feet cap, and each parcel includes a maximum size for any individual commercial use of 20,000 square feet. This petition, which applies to Parcel 1 only, seeks to increase the individual use cap to 50,000 square feet for certain specified uses. TRANSMITTAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DCA. CCPC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DCA as submitted by the petitioner and modified at the hearing to add a list of prohibited uses, and to require, by adoption hearings, the recordation of deed restrictions listing the same prohibited uses (vote: 9/0). BCC ACTION: Transmitted to DCA (vote: 5/0), per CCPC recommendation. ADOPTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt as transmitted. C. PETITION CPSP - 2010 -2, Staff petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUE/FLUM), to: modify the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B /GTRO); modify FLUE Policy 5.1; modify applicability of the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict; update the Wellhead Protection Map; update the FLUM and Map Series to reflect annexations, etc.; make FLUM boundary corrections in rural areas; and, add clarity, correct date errors, and make other non - substantive text revisions. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager] On September 14, 2010, the BCC authorized County Manager or designee to initiate this petition which proposes various amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map series. Most of the amendments seek only to add clarity, correct errors and omissions, provide updates to map features, and provide harmony and internal consistency. However, exceptions include: 1) changes to Policy 5.1 to allow redistribution of use density and intensity; 2) modification of the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict pertaining to its applicability; 3) changes to the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B /GTRO) to delete a development standard, add a use, and add clarity regarding applicability of FLUE Policies; and, 4) update the Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map, based upon most recent hydrologic modeling, as required by Objective 1 of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub - Element and subsequent policies, and Objective 3.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element and subsequent policies. TRANSMITTAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DCA. EAC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DCA (vote: 3 -0). [Only applicable to the Wellhead Protection Areas Map.] 4 Agenda Items 9.D, F, G, H CCPC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DCA (vote: 9/0), per staff's recommendation, except subject to modifications to FLUE Policy 5.1 and the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict — both for clarity/brevity /simplicity, and revision to the Wellfields Protection Map to add Marco Island Utilities' Marco Lakes (in northeast quadrant of US -41 East/Collier Blvd. intersection). BCC ACTION: Transmit to DCA (vote: 5/0), per CCPC recommendation. POST - TRANSMITTAL ACTIVITY Subsequent to the Transmittal of this petition, staff has further reviewed and analyzed- the addition of the City of Marco Island's Marco Lakes Reservoir (Reservoir) to the Wellhead Protection Areas Map. Staff notes that the Map serves as the basis for the map boundaries and protective measures found within the Land Development Code, Section 3.06, Groundwater Protection. Those maps and regulations found therein are designed to protect potable water supply wellfields that draw water from the surficial aquifer system, by placing controls on land uses that may pollute a wellfield's drinking water supply. The Reservoir receives water from both the surficial aquifer system and Henderson Creek (Creek) that runs along the east side of the Reservoir. There is a weir (gate valve) located on the north side of the Reservoir that is closed most of the time, but water from the Creek still trickles around the weir structure. In addition water from the Creek infiltrates through the bank that separates it from the Reservoir. The volume of water that infiltrates into the Reservoir varies based on seasonal pump rates from the Reservoir (up to 16 mgd) to the City of Marco Island and ASR wells. Infiltration may also vary based on the elevation of the Creek compared with the elevation of the Reservoir. The Marco Island Utilities provides limited monitoring in the Creek, upstream of the Reservoir. There are also no protections from flooding. The Pollution Control Department has modeled risk management special treatment overlay zones (STW -1 through STW -5) around the Reservoir, derived from a three - dimensional computer - modeled analysis of ground water flow and solute transport in the County's freshwater aquifer system. While this model provides a limited level of risk management protection from a pollutant entering the reservoir through the surficial aquifer system, it provides no protection from a pollutant entering the reservoir from the Creek. Pollution Control has no modeling tool that will provide for this protection. Because the wellhead protection zone maps and regulations are not designed to, and cannot, protect the reservoir from surface water pollutants that may unexpectedly enter Henderson Creek, staff does not believe it appropriate to include the Marco Lakes Reservoir on the Wellhead Protection Areas Map. ADOPTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt as transmitted except remove the Marco Island Utilities' Marco Lakes. EAC RECOMMENDATION: To be presented at CCPC hearing (meeting is scheduled for July 6, 2011). Agenda Items 9.D, F, G, H D. PETITION CPSP - 2010 -5, Staff Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to delete the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed Use Subdistrict and re- designate the site as Urban Residential Subdistrict for property consisting of approximately 22.83 acres located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) at County Barn Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] On December 14, 2010, the BCC held a public hearing to consider rezone petition PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6829 for the Davis Reserve Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) at the subject site. During that hearing, the applicant withdrew that rezone petition; the BCC directed County Manager or designee to initiate a GMP amendment to the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed -Use Subdistrict to remove the traditional neighborhood development requirement, the commercial component, and the affordable housing requirement — with the applicant stating "no objection" to this direction; and, the applicant committed to request a PUD rezone that eliminates the retail and limits the maximum density to five dwelling units per acre (DU /A), and to pay costs for that rezone. From the BCC direction, staff developed the below two alternatives. Alternative 1: Modify the Subdistrict to eliminate the commercial component, affordable housing requirement, and all design and development standards, and limit density to a maximum of 5 DU /A; and, Altemative 2 Eliminate the entire Subdistrict and re- designate the site as Urban Residential Subdistrict (the site's designation prior to 2005 when the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed -Use Subdistrict was established). TRANSMITTAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DCA to delete the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed Use Subdistrict in its entirety and re- designate the site as Urban Residential Subdistrict (Alternative 2). CCPC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DCA (vote: 9/0), per staff recommendation. BCC ACTION: Transmit to DCA (vote: 5/0), per CCPC recommendation. ADOPTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt as transmitted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION OVERALL: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2008 -1 to the BCC with a recommendation not to adopt OR to adopt with changes as noted in this Staff Report; to forward petitions CP- 2010-1 and CPSP- 2010 -5 with a recommendation to adopt as transmitted; and, to forward petition CPSP- 2010 -2 with a recommendation to adopt with one map change as noted in this Staff Report; and, to transmit all approved petitions to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Agenda Items 9.D, F, G, H Prepared By: Date: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager Comprehensive Planning Section Reviewed By: �-"' Date: - " d Michael Bosi, AICP, Planning Manager Comprehensive Planning Section .. I- I Reviewed By: - '"`�'�"% 2 Date: 7 William D. Lorenz, Jr., P.E., Director Land Development Services Department L Approved Byi_r,% Date:° Nick tasi alanguida, Deputy Administrator Growth Management Division /Planning & Regulation COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MR. MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN 2010 cycle GMPAs - Adoption (petitions CP- 2008 -1; CP- 2010 -1; CPSP - 2010 -2; CPSP- 2010 -5). Staff Report for July 21, 2011 CCPC hearing. NOTE: This cycle of petitions has been scheduled for the September 13, 2011 BCC hearing. CCPC Staff Report Adoption 2010 cycle GMPAs & CP- 2008 -1 G.-WES Planning Services4ComprehensWCOMP PLANNING GMP DATAtComp Plan Amendments12009 -2010 Combined Cycles petitions12010 Cycle Petitions\CCPC Adoption dw(1 -1 -11 CPSP - 2010 -2 EAC ADOPTION STAFF REPORT Item VIII.A. CsO et-r Ci z4i my ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF July 6, 2011 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT Petition No.: CPSP- 2010 -2 Petition Name: Amendment to the Future Land Use Map Series — Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map (Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment initiated by the Collier County Pollution Control and Prevention Dept.) [Adoption Hearing] Applicant; Collier County II. LOCATION: This petition does not pertain to a specific property. III. BACKGROUND and PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is the Adoption review of that portion of the Growth Management Plan Amendment petition CPSP- 2010 -2 that was previously reviewed by the EAC at Transmittal. The petition is part of the 2009 -2010 combined cycles of GMT amendments, including one 2008 cycle n petition. The petition seeks to amend the Wellfields Map based upon the most recent hydrologic modeling report prepared in 2010. Transmittal hearings on this amendment were held on December 1, 2010 (EAC), December 16, 2010 and January 20, 2011 (CCPC, Collier County Planning Commission), and on March 22, 2011 (BCC, Board of County Commissioners). The respective Transmittal recommendations/actions are presented below. Included in the EAC binder for this petition are the following documents: (a) existing Wellhead Protection Areas Map; (b) EAC staff report from the Transmittal hearing, which provides more explanation and staff analysis; (c) Hydrologic Modeling Report; (d) Ordinance with Exhibit A, the proposed Wellhead Protection Areas Map. Transmittal Recommendations: STAFF: Transmit to DCA. VAC: Transmit to DCA (vote: 3 -0). CCPC: Transmit to DCA (vote: 9/0), with requirement that the City of Marco Island — Marco Lakes water reservoir be added to the map (located in the northeast quadrant of US-41 East/ Collier Boulevard intersection). BCC ACTION: Transmit to DCA (vote: 5/0), per CCPC recommendation. Florida Department of Community Affairs ORC Report: After review of Transmitted GMP amendments, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) renders an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Only Objections can form the basis of a non - compliance determination, unless the adopted amendments vary significantly from those transmitted. If an Objection is not adequately n addressed when adopted, then the DCA may (presumably will) find the amendment to be "Not Item VIII.A. in Compliance" with Florida Statutes, and issue a Notice of Intent (NOI) to indicate such noncompliance. In its .Tune 3, 2011 ORC Report for the 2009 -2010 combined cycles of GMP amendments, DCA offered no Objections Recommendations or Comments relevant to petition CPSP - 2010 -2 presented for EAC review. Additionally, all other state and regional review agencies offered no comments /objections relevant to this petition. Consideration of this proposed amendment at this EAC meeting was duly advertised in the Naples Daily News as required by Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME) Policy 33.2. IV. GROWTH ?VLANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: This is a proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map series. It is required to be periodically revised, as necessary, pursuant to Objective 1 of the Natural Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Sub - Element and subsequent policies, and Objective 3.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element and subsequent policies. V. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for petition CPSP - 2010 -2, Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map, dated June 16, 2011. – STW VT. RECOMMENDATION: That the EAC recommend approval of petition CPSP- 2010 -2, proposed amendment to the Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map. By: Prepared B «`°. Date: P David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager Comprehensive Planning Section, Land Development Services Department \ r' f 4 6- ' Reviewed By: Date: —o jiIliam D. Lorenz; r., PE irector Land Development Services Department 2) �2 2 Approved By %i_. Hate: NA 06salanguida, DO* mistrator Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation Staff Report for July 6, 2011 EAC hearing. EAC Staff Report CPSP -2010 2 Wetlfield Map — Adoption2 G: \ODES Planning Services\Comprehensive=IVIP PLANNING GMP DATA \Comp Plan AmendmentsWg -2010 Combined Cycles petfions12010 Cycle PetrfionslCPSP- 2010 -2 batchiEAC Adoptbn dwt6 -1411 2 Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) July 6, 2011 Meeting Recommendation for Petition CPSP- 2010 -2, Growth Management Plan amendment pertaining to Future Land Use Map: Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map By vote of 510, the EAC recommended approval of the Map as approved for Transmittal, subject to the following two changes, and expressed concerns: 1. Per staff recommendation, remove the label "Marco Island Utilities Marco Lakes" and associated concentric rings around that location; 2. Add a note to the Map to identify the aquifers reflected (surficial and intermediate). 3. Concern: That. the planned Orangetree Wellfield may negatively impact the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed and Corkscrew Swamp. 4. Concern: That the Golden Gate Wellfield drawdown may negatively impact private wells in Golden Gate Estates. 5. Concern/Desire: The Water Master Plan updates (Public Utilities Division) are approved by the Board of County Commissioners without benefit of review by the EAC; the EAC believes the Water Master Plan should be brought before the EAC for review and recommendation as it impacts natural resources under their purview. EAC Adoption recommendation GACDES Planning ServiceslComprehensive=IVIP PLANNING GMP DATAIComp Plan Amendments12009 -2010 Combined Cycles petitions12010 Cycle Petitions\CPSP- 2010 -2 batch\EAC Adoption dwf7-13 -11 .^ CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. Se -!'' STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COWER COUNTY PLANNING'COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: October 19, 2009 RE: PETITION CP- 2008 -1, ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] Coordinator. Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner AGENT /APPLICANT: Agent: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 and Agent: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich, & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Applicant: Kenneth R. Johnson, as Trustee C/O Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich, & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, containing 40.6± acres, is located at the northwest comer of Golden Gate and Wilson Boulevards, within Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, and is within the Rural Estates Planning Community. The site extends west from Wilson Blvd. to 3`d Street NW. (Refer to aerial and zoning maps on page 2.) CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. Highlighted tracts indicate existing acreage within the Neighborhood Center REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner seeks to amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) text, Future Land Use Map and map series by: 1. Amending the Estates — Mixed Use District, Neighborhood Center Subdistrict to remove Tract 144, Unit 11 of Golden Gate Estates from the Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard Neighborhood Center; 2. Amending the Future Land Use Map and Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard Neighborhood Center map of the Future Land Use Maps series to remove Tract 144, Unit 11 of Golden Gate Estates; 3. Amending Policy 1.1.2 of the Estates — Commercial District to add the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict; 4. Amending the Estates — Commercial District to add the proposed Subdistrict; and 5. Amending the Future Land Use Map to add this new Subdistrict, and creating a new Future Land Use Map series map depicting this new Subdistrict. The petitioner's proposed text changes, shown in strike - through/underline format, are as follows: (Words underlined are added, words are deleted; row of asterisks denotes break in text.) Policy 1.1.2: The ESTATES Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: Fj OP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. B. ESTATES — COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 1. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 2. Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict 3. Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 4. Commercial Western Estates infill Subdistrict 5. Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict 6. Estates ShoDDino Center Subdistrict B. Estates — Commercial District 6. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict — Recognizina the need to Drovide for centrally located basic goods and services within a portion of Northern Golden Gate Estates, the Estates ShoDDing Center Subdistrict has been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. 180 feet of Tracts 142 and 106 of Unit 11 and the southern 255 feet of Tract 111 of Unit 11 of Golden Gate Estates totaling approximately 41 acres The Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict is intended to provide convenient shopping, personal services and employment for the central areas of Northem Golden Gate Estates. Commercial development in this Subdistrict will reduce driving distances for many residents, assist in minimizing the road network required and reduce traffic impacts in this area of Collier County. All development in this Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and limitations: a. Allowable Uses shall be limited to the following: 1. Amusement and Recreation (Groups 7911 7991 7993 and 7999 including only day camps, gymnastics instruction iudo/karate instruction sporting goods rental and yoga instruction) 2. Apparel and Accessory Stores (Groups 5611 -5699) 3. Auto and Home Supply Stores (Groups 5531 5541 including -gasoline service stations without repair) 4. Automotive Repair and Services (Groups 7514 7534 including only tire repair, 7539, including only minor service lubricating and diagnostic service) and 7542) 5. Business Services (Groups 73347342 7371 -7376 7379 7382 7383 7384 and 7389 6. Child Day Care Services (Group 8351) 7. Communications (Groups 4812. 4841) 8. Depository and Non - Depository Institutions (Groups 6021 -6062 6091 6099 6111 -6163, including drive through facilities) 3 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. 9. Eating Places (Group 5812 including_ only liquor service accessory to the restaurant use. 10. Educational Services (Group 8299) 11. Engineering Accounting Research and Management (Groups 8711 -8721. 8741- 8743, 8748) 12. Food Stores (Groups 5411 -5499 including convenience stores with gas) 13. General Merchandise Stores (Groups 5311. 5331. and 5399) 14. Government Administration Offices (Groups 9111 -9199) 15. Hardware Garden Supply and Paint/Wallgaper Stores (Groups 5231 5251 and 5261 16. Holdinq and Other Investment (Groups 6712 -6799) 17. Home Furniture /Fumishings (Groups 5712 -5736) 18. Insurance Carriers (Groups 6311 -6361) 19. Justice Public Order and Safety (Groups 9221, 9222, 9229, and 9311) 20. Meeting and Banquet Rooms 21. Miscellaneous Retail (Groups 5912 5921 (accessory to grocery or pharmacy only) 5932 5941 -5949. 5992 -5995, and 5999) 22. Personal Services (Groups 7211 7212 7215, 7221 -7251, 7291 -7299) 23. Real Estate (Groups 6512 -6552) 24. Security and Commodity Brokers (Groups 6211 -6289) 25. Transportation Services (Group 47241 26. Video Rental (Group 7841) 27. U.S. Post Office (Group 4311 excluding maior distribution centers) 28. Any other similar use as may be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals FA-M-112 The following uses shall be prohibited within the Subdistrict: b. The following uses shall be prohibited: 1. Drinking Places (5813) and Stand Alone Liquor Stores (59211 2. Mail Order Houses (5961) 3. Merchandizing Machine Operators (5962) 4. Power Laundries (7211) 5. Crematories (7261) 6. Radio TV Reoresentatives (7313) and Direct Mail Advertising Services (7331) 7. NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges, Waterslides, etc. (7999) 8. _General Hospitals (8062) Psychiatric Hospitals (8063) and Specialty Hospitals 8069 9. Elementary and Secondary Schools (8211) Colleges (8221). Junior Colleges 8222 10. Libraries (8231) 11. Correctional Institutions (9223) 12. Waste Management (9511) 13. Homeless Shelters and Soup Kitchens c Development intensity shall be limited to 225,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. d The grocery use will be a minimum of 27,000 square feet with the exception of the grocery use no individual user may exceed 30,000 square feet of buiidinq area. CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. e. Development within this Subdistrict shall be phased and the following commitments related to area roadway improvements shall be completed within the specified timeframes• 1. Right -of -Way for Golden Gate Boulevard Expansion and Right -of -Way for the Wilson Boulevard Expansion will be donated to the County at no cost within 120 days of a written request from the County. 2. The applicant will pay its fair share for the intersection improvements at Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard within SO days of County request for reimbursement 3. Until the intersection improvements at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard are complete, the County shall not issue a Certificates) of Occupancy (CO) for more than 100,000 square feet of development. The applicant must obtain a C.O. for a grocery store as part of this 100 000 square feet and the grocery store must be the first C.O. obtained. f. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and the rezone ordinance must contain development standards to ensure that all commercial land uses will be compatible with neighboring residential uses. A conceptual plan, - which identifies the location of the permitted development area and required preserve area for this subdistrict is attached. The preserve area depicted on the conceptual plan shall satisfy all comprehensive plan requirements for retained native vegetation, including but not limited to the requirements of Policy 6.1.1 of the CCME A more detailed development plan must be developed and utilized for the required PUD rezoning. g. Development standards, including permitted uses and setbacks for principal buildings shall be established at the time of PUD rezoning. Any future PUD rezone shall include at a minimum: 1) A minimum twenty -five (25) feet wide landscape buffer must be provided adlacent to external rights-of-way. 12) No commercial building may be constructed within 125 feet of the northern or western property boundary of this subdistict. (3) Any portion of the Proiect directly abutting residential property (property zoned E- Estates and without an approved conditional use) shall provide at a minimum a seventy -five (75) feet wide buffer, except the westernmost 330' of Tract 106 which shall provide a minimum 20' wide buffer in which no parking uses are permitted. Twenty -five (25) feet of the width of the buffer along the developed area shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of fifty (50) feet of the buffer width shall consist of retained or re- planted native vegetation and must be consistent with subsection 3.05.07.11 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) The native vegetation retention area may consist of a perimeter berm and be used for water management detention. Any newly constructed berm shall be revegetated to meet subsection 3.05.07.11 of the LDC (native vegetation replantinq requirements). Additionally, in order to be considered for approval use of the native vegetation retention area for water management purposes shall meet the following criteria: CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. (4) There shall be no adverse imoacts to the native vegetation being retained. The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro -penod unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the existing veaetaton. (5) If the proiect requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management District, the project shall provide a letter or official document from the District indicating that the native vegetation within the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water management requirements. If the District cannot or will not supply such a letter, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for water management. (6) If the groiect is reviewed by Collier County, the County engineer shall provide evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to facilitate the necessary storage of water in the water management area. ttt ttt ttt ttt tine *tt t ** ttt ttt ttt ttt ttt *tt ttt ttt ttt ttt ttt ttt ttt ttt ttt ttt ttt ttt ttt (Page 27] A. Estates Mixed Use District 2) Neighborhood Center Subdistrict — Recognizing the need to provide basic goods, services and amenities to Estates residents, Neighborhood Centers have been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. The Neighborhood Center designation does not guarantee that commercial zoning will be granted. The designation only provides the opportunity to request commercial zoning. a) The Collier County Land Development Code shall be amended to provide rural design criteria to regulate all new commercial development within Neighborhood Centers. b) Locations Neighborhood Centers are located along major roadways and are distributed within Golden Gate Estates according to commercial demand estimates, (See Map 9). The centers are designed to concentrate all new commercial zoning, and conditional uses, as allowed in the Estates Zoning District, in locations where traffic impacts can be readily accommodated and to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial and conditional use development. Four Neighborhood Centers are established as follows: Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center. This center consists of all #eaf three quadrants at the intersection of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards (See Map 10). The N E and SE quadrants of the Center consist of Tract 1 and 2, Unit 14, Tract 17, Unit 13 and the western half of Tract 18, Unit 13 Golden Gate Estates. The NE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is approximately 8.45 acres. The parcels within the NE quadrant shall be interconnected and share access to Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard to minimize connections to these two major roadways. The SE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is 7.15 acres, allows 5.00 acres of commercial development, and allocates 2.15 acres to project buffering and right -of -way for Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. nsi + of Tr n+ 144 Unit 14 of Golden Gate Estates The SW quadrant of the Center is approximately 4.86 acres in size and consists of Tract 125, Unit 12 of Golden Gate Estates. CP- 2048 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. n *** *** *** *** *** *** * ** *** *** *** *** *** * ** * ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Areas Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict Estates Shorming Center Subdistrict * ** **! *** *** *** *** * ** *** *** * ** * ** *** *** * ** *** * ** !*! *** !!* **! *** **! *!* *** *** **! PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The petitioner is requesting approval for a new commercial subdistrict on 40.6± acres, allowing up to 225,004 square feet of gross leasable floor area of uses in the General Commercial (C-4) zoning district of the Collier County Land Development Code, with exceptions, and select uses of the Heavy Commercial (C-5) zoning district. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION- Subiect Site: n • The subject project boundary includes the following Tracts within Unit 11, Golden Gate Estates. All tracts are zoned E, Estates and are within a Special Treatment (Wellfield) Overlay (ST/W). Tract 106 (s. 180 fL): The subject site is developed with a single - family home and is designated Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The site is located on a local roadway — 3rd Street NW. Tract 107 (w. 105 ft.): The subject site is developed with a single - family home and is designated Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The site is located on a rural major collector roadway — Golden Gate Boulevard, and a local roadway — 3rd Street NW. Tract 107 (e. 75 fL of w. 180 ft.): The subject site is undeveloped and is designated Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The site is located on Golden Gate Boulevard. Tract 107 (e. 150 ft.): The subject site is undeveloped and is designated Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict The site is located on a rural major collector roadway — Golden Gate Boulevard. Tract 108 (w. 180 ft.): The subject site is developed with a single - family home and is designated Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict The site is located on Golden Gate Boulevard. CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. Tract 108 (e. 150 ft.): The subject site is developed with a single- family home and is designated Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The site is located on Golden Gate Boulevard. Tract 109 (w. 105 ft.): The subject site is developed with a single - family home and is designated Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The site is located on Golden Gate Boulevard. Tract 109 (e. 75 ft. of w. 180 ft.): The subject site is developed with a single - family home and is designated Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The site is located on Golden Gate Boulevard. Tract 109 (e.150 ft.): The subject site is developed with a single - family home and is designated Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The site is located on Golden Gate Boulevard. Tract 110 (w. 150 ft.): The subject site is undeveloped and is designated Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The site is located on Golden Gate Boulevard. Tract 110 (e. 180 ft.): The subject site is undeveloped and is designated Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The site is located on Golden Gate Boulevard, and a local roadway —1 st Street NW. Tract 111 (s. 180 ft): The subject site is undeveloped and is designated Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The site is located on a local roadway — 1s' Street NW. Tract 111 (s. 75 ft. of n. 150 ft.): The subject site is developed with a single - family home and is designated Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict The site is located on 1St Street NW. Tract 142 (s. 180 ft.): The subject site is developed with a single - family home and is designated Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The site is located on a rural minor collector roadway — Wilson Boulevard. (The subject site may be eligible for transitional conditional uses, as provided in the Conditional Uses Subdistrict of the GGAMP.) Tract 143: The subject site is undeveloped and is designated Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The site is located on a rural major collector roadway — Golden Gate Boulevard. (The subject site may be eligible for transitional conditional uses, as provided in the Conditional Uses Subdistrict of the GGAMP.) Tract 144: The subject site is undeveloped and is designated Estates — Mixed Use District, Neighborhood Center Subdistrict. The site is located on a rural major collector roadway — Golden Gate Boulevard, and a rural minor collector roadway — Wilson Boulevard. (The subject site is eligible for rezoning to allow commercial development consistent with the C-1 through C -3 zoning districts of the Land Development Code, subject to criteria in the GGAMP.) CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. Surrounding Lands: • North: Developed (except north of Tract 111 — undeveloped), single - family homes; zoned E, Estates; and designated Estates (Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict) on the GGAMP Future Land Use Map. • South: Across Golden Gate Boulevard, a 4-lane divided road, developed single - family homes and undeveloped tracts, zoned E, Estates and designated Estates (Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict) on the GGAMP Future Land Use Map; and a Walgreens pharmacy, zoned PUD (Snowy Egret Plaza) and undeveloped tracts, zoned E, Estates and designated Estates (Mixed Use District, Neighborhood Center Subdistrict) on the GGAMP Future Land Use Map. • West: Across 3`d Street NW, developed, single - family homes; zoned E, Estates; and designated Estates (Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict) on the GGAMP Future Land Use Map. • East: Across Wilson Boulevard, a 2 -lane. undivided road, undeveloped tract, zoned E, Estates and designated Estates (Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict) on the GGAMP Future Land Use Map; and a developed tract, zoned C -2, and two undeveloped tracts, zoned E, Estates and designated Estates (Mixed Use District, Neighborhood Center Subdistrict) on the GGAMP Future Land Use Map. n STAFF ANALYSIS: Please refer to the document titled Standard Language for GMPA Staff Reports" located behind the "GMPA Standard Language" tab. This document addresses some items common to all petitions in this cycle — statutory data and analysis, the GMP vision, and HB 697 — and one item common to the six petitions seeking amendments to the GGAMP. Appropriateness of Chance: The proposed amendment would allow intense commercial development in an area of the County intended for low density residential development and neighborhood commercial uses. An evaluation of the project site and surrounding area, commercial needs assessment, population growth in the area, development impacts, infrastructure demands, and other considerations will be analyzed to determine the appropriateness of this proposed change. Background and Considerations: • Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) — Goals, Objectives and Policies: Goal 3: Provide for basic commercial services for purposes of serving the rural needs of Golden Gate Estates residents, shortening vehicle trips, and preserving rural character. Goal 5: Future development within Golden Gate Estates will balance the desire by residents for urban amenities with the preservation of the area's rural character... CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. The above goals and their related objectives and policies found in the GGAMP demonstrate the community's desire to maintain the rural character of the Estates while providing for the basic commercial needs of its growing population. The proposed expansion and commercial intensification of the Neighborhood Center quadrant to 40+ acres with up to 225,000 sq. ft. of select commercial land uses from the General Commercial C-4 and C-5 zoning districts, is not consistent with, or reflective of, the Estates residents' vision of the area as expressed in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. • Commercial opportunities within Golden Gate Estates In 1991, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan was adopted and incorporated into the county's Growth Management Plan. The Plan established locationsl criteria limiting commercial development in the Estates designation to the Estates Neighborhood Centers, site- specific commercial subdistricts, and already existing commercially zoned lands. • Estates Neighborhood Centers The Estates Neighborhood Centers were established as a means to direct new commercial development to areas where traffic impacts could be readily accommodated. These Centers were originally located at Pine Ridge and C.R. 951, Golden Gate and Wilson Boulevards, Golden Gate and Everglades Boulevards, and Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard, Wong major roadways and distributed according to projected commercial demand in the Estates. In 1992, the Board of County Commissioners denied a commercial rezone petition at the n Golden Gate and Everglades Boulevard Neighborhood Center and directed staff to remove all Neighborhood Centers east of C.R. 951, stating the commercial centers were premature. Those centers were removed in 1993. In 1996, the Neighborhood Center concept was reevaluated as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report review process, required by State Law. As a result, the neighborhood centers at Golden Gate and Wilson Boulevards and Immokalee Rd. and Everglades Boulevard were reinstated in 1997 as future centers on the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) Future Land Use Map. In 2002, the GGAMP Restudy Committee was formed by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and authorized, in part, to study the commercial land use needs of the Golden Gate Estates community. County staff worked closely with the Committee and community to identify appropriate areas to locate new commercial development within the Estates. The Committee recommendations to the BCC included added provisions for the expansion and creation of Neighborhood Centers within the Estates. The Board of County Commissioners subsequently adopted amendments to the GGAMP and Future Land Use Map and Map Series in 2003 to include the recommended expansions and new neighborhood centers (in effect, neighborhood centers were reestablished at their original locations but some were increased in size). • Development patterns in the Neighborhood Centers east of Collier Boulevard Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center NE quadrant: Total size is approximately 8.45 acres — Partially DEVELOPED (Approximately 2.65 acres are developed with 8,113 sq. ft. of convenience commercial.) 10 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. NW quadrant: Total size is approximately 4.98 acres — UNDEVELOPED (Portion of project: site) SE quadrant: Total size is approximately 7.15 acres (5.00 acs. commercial & 2.15 acs. buffering and r-o-w) — Partially DEVELOPED (Wilson Boulevard Shopping Center — 41,800 sq. ft. of commercial development). Approximately 12,572 sq. ft. undeveloped commercial sq. ft. remaining — Liberty Gold LLC. SW quadrant: Total size is approximately 11.78 acres — Partially DEVELOPED (16,550 sq. ft. Walgreens store). Balance of quadrant added to Neighborhood Center via GMP amendment (CP- 2005 -2) approved in 2007, and rezoned for up to 60,000 sq. ft. of office, medical office and medical related uses. Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center NE quadrant: Total size is approximately 5.46 acres — UNDEVELOPED (Big Bear Plaza CPUD approved for C-1 thru C-3 uses) NW quadrant: Total size is approximately 5.46 acres — UNDEVELOPED (pending rezone to Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD for C -1 thru C -3 uses) SE quadrant: Total size is approximately 5.46 acres - UNDEVELOPED SW quadrant: Total size is approximately 5.46 acres - UNDEVELOPED Immokalee Rd. and Everglades Boulevard Center SE quadrant: Total size is approximately 920 acres — UNDEVELOPED (4.05 acres have been rezoned from E, Estates to Chestnut Place MPUD [balance of PUD lies outside Neighborhood Center and is approved for church]) SW quadrant Total size is approximately 5.15 acres- UNDEVELOPED (pending rezone to Singer Park CPUD for C -1 thru C-3 uses) The potential and existing commercial sq. ft. within the Estates Neighborhood Centers located east of Collier Boulevard is 450,186 square feet, based on the CIGM and approved zoning. (It should be noted that the CIGM uses a countywide average of 6,044 sq. ft. /ac. to determine potential commercial development.) Existing commercial acreage serving portions of the Estates, but not located within an Estates Neighborhood Center: Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Approximately 7.53 acres are allocated for up to 41,000 sq. ft. of commercial development, located within Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East. The Subdistrict is located approximately 4 miles from the proposed project site. 11 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. • Commercial development projected to serve portions of the Estates, but not located within an Estates Neighborhood Center: Orange Tree PUD: Approximately 22 acres within the Planned Unit Development are allocated for up to 60,000 square feet of commercial development, located in Sections 22 and 23, Township 48 South, Range 27 East. This PUD is located approximately 4 road miles from the proposed project site (refer to map on page 13). (A petition to increase the commercial sq. ft. up to 332,000 sq. ft. in the PUD is pending.) [Approved for 2,100 dwelling units; pending petition to increase this to 3,350 dwelling units.] Orange Blossom Ranch PUD: Approximately 44 acres within the Planned Unit Development are allocated for up to 200,000 square feet of commercial development, located in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 27 East. This PUD is located approximately 5.50 road miles from the proposed project site (refer to map on page 13). [Approved for 1,600 dwelling units.] Big Cypress Development of Regional Impact (DRI) /Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) - pending: Approximately 564 acres (includes approximately 494,080 sq. ft. light industrial) within the DRI are allocated for up to 987,188 square feet of retail/service commercial and 664,395 square feet of office development, located in Sections 10, 14 and 27, Township 48 South, Range 28 East. This pending DRI is located approximately 7 miles from the proposed project site (refer to map on page 13). [Proposes 8,968 dwelling units.] Rural Villages — (allowed): Two Rural Villages ranging in size from 300 to 1,500 -acres are permitted on the Receiving Lands north and south of the proposed project location (refer to map on page 13). A Rural Village development must include a Village Center and may also include several Neighborhood Centers. A 300+ acre (calculation doesn't include Greenbelt Area) Rural Village will yield a 30 -acre Village Center with approximately 90,000 sq. ft. of commercial development. Neighborhood Centers within the same Rural Village may consist of a 1.50 -acre Center with approximately 5,100 -sq. ft. of commercial development. A 1,500 -acre Rural Village will yield a 150 -acre Village Center with approximately 450,000 -sq. ft. of commercial development. Neighborhood Centers within the same Rural Village may consist of 7.50 acres each with approximately 25,500 -sq. ft. of commercial development within each center. The Receiving Lands range in distance from approximately 1.50 to 6 road miles from the proposed project site. [Density in Rural Villages must range between 2 -3 dwelling units per acre.] 12 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. GOLDEN RATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP Neighborhood C�nter 06MR4= BUD - 0-9. sman noft~ Los" 0000-ft" E _ F as , DMOR W mna ocr=1019" IL lit awwr ftiew�.titr�war.� 4 . Randall Blvd. Va Commercial Nergh oed .. f4 #r��wffw'.�a ►YYYl ciao �• Ia �f.1�R+l��r }F .: Agenda Item 4.A. GOLDEN RATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP Neighborhood C�nter 06MR4= BUD Proposed Big Cypress DR1 Future commercial development outside of Golden Gate Estates - as part of Rural Village (allowed), SRA (pending) and PUD development (zoned) - will meet some of the projected commercial demand in the Estates area. 13 - 0-9. E _ F as , DMOR W mna l ' 4 . Randall Blvd. Va Commercial Nergh oed Pf0) C ter - .... - ....._ site Neighborbood t„ - F14rL iiTL Center - Neighborhood �. . ai rc Proposed Big Cypress DR1 Future commercial development outside of Golden Gate Estates - as part of Rural Village (allowed), SRA (pending) and PUD development (zoned) - will meet some of the projected commercial demand in the Estates area. 13 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. • Petitions in Vicinity It should be noted there are five petitions for sites located east of Collier Blvd. and in Golden Gate Estates, inclusive of the subject petition. Four petitions are for commercial uses; one petition request is for mostly institutional uses, but includes a small commercial allocation. The attached location map identifies these five petition sites, what each request consists of, and commercial opportunities in the surrounding area. The table below also provides information about these five petitions seeking amendments to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The attached map (Pending GMPAs Commercial Market Area) depicts the overlapping market areas of these petitions. Petition Location # Acres Request CP- 2007 -1 SE comer CR846/Wilson Blvd. 5.17 Create Wilson Blvd. Commercial Subdistrict to allow max. of 40,000 S.F. of com'I uses CP- 2007 -2 SW corner of CR846133rd Ave. NE 10.28 Create Immokalee Road/Oil Well Road Commercial Subdistrict to allow max. of 70,000 S.F. of C-1 thru C -3 com'I uses CP- 2007 -3 south side of CR858, 1/4 mile west of 21.72 Create Mission Subdistrict to allow Everglades Blvd. institutional uses (church and related uses, e.g. child & adult day care), and limited C -1 com'I uses (90,000 s.f. total, inclusive of 2,500 s.f. of com'I CP- 2008 -1 NW quadrant of Wilson & Golden 40.62 Create a new Estates Shopping Gate Blvds. Center Subdistrict to allow 225,000 s.f of C-4 com'l uses, with exceptions and select C-5 commercial uses, with requirement to provide a grocery store [portion of site (4.98 acs.) lies within existing Neighborhood Center and could yield 30,099 s.f. of com'I] CP- 2008 -2 south side of CR846 & Randall Blvd., 56.50 Expand and modify Randall Blvd from canal east to 8th Street NE Commercial Subdistrict to add 390,950 (inclusive of BCE Fire Station, existing s.f. of C -4 com'I uses [zoning in existing Randall Blvd. Com'I Subdistrict, and Subdistrict allows 41,000 s.f. of com'l on DOF fire tower site). 7.53 acs. sum 13429 769,450 s.f. of com'I [728,450 s.f. is [121.78 new] acres are new Two of the five petitions proposed (CP- 2008 -1 & CP- 2008 -2) could be categorized as community serving in nature, providing a wider variety of goods and services and more intense land use activities than the others, which likely would provide convenience goods and services, consistent with existing commercial uses in the Estates Neighborhood Centers. in total, the commercial square feet proposed by these five petitions, if approved, would add approximately 728,450 sq. ft. -of commercial uses on approximately 121.78 acres. This figure, combined with the existing and potential commercial sq. ft. allowed in the Estates Neighborhood Centers (450,186 sq. ft.), existing Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict (41,000), OrangeTree PUD (approved for 60,000, but expected to increase to 332,000 sq. ft. via a 14 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. pending petition) and Orange Blossom Ranch PUD (200,000 sq. ft.), would total approximately 1,751,636 sq. ft. (This figure does not reflect the 987,188 sq. ft. in the pending Big Cypress DRI or future development of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, located proximate to the proposed GMPAs.) Commercial Demand: Comprehensive Planning staff reviewed and analyzed the petitioner's commercial demand data and analysis, the Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM), and other available data to estimate and project population within the defined Study area to determine the existing and potential commercial supply, supportable commercial square feet and demand. Additionally, staff analyzed the CIGM population estimates and projections and supportable commercial square feet for all Estates designated lands located east of Collier Boulevard and the Rural Settlement Area to determine the need for neighborhood and community serving commercial centers. Staff began the analysis with the CIGM to obtain baseline population estimates and projections, and housing unit counts for the petitioner's defined market area. Staff examined the projected supportable commercial square feet generated from the resulting population (demand), and then compared those figures to the existing and potential commercial sq. ft. supply in the market area The Model identified that in 2010 the projected population in the petitioner's market area will be approximately 16,531 people and the supportable neighborhood commercial square feet will be 139,687; and, by year 2030 the population will be approximately 30,687 and the estimated supportable neighborhood commercial square feet will be approximately 259,305. Staff then examined and compared the existing and potential neighborhood commercial supply with the demand generated from future population growth in the market area and determined that the neighborhood commercial supply of 387,283 sq. ft. (refer to Map 4) will exceed the demand in the market area beyond year 2030. Additionally, the Model identified that in this same market area the supportable community commercial square feet will be 123,652 in 2010; and, by year 2030 the estimated supportable community commercial square feet will be approximately 229,539. However, staff ac* knowledges that no community commercial sq. ft. exists or is planned within the defined market area to serve the area residents. Based upon the foregoing, the requested commercial sq. ft. of 225,000 could not likely be supported in the market area until sometime between years 2025 and 2030. If the project development commences prior to the community commercial demand being fully realized, then it is assumed the project would be built in phases. Early phases would then be presumed to function as neighborhood commercial, thereby impacting the existing and planned neighborhood commercial supply. The following is a complete analysis of this proposed GMPA based on the CIGM for all years, beginning with year 2007 through year 2030. • 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 on January 13, 2009. This model was developed to assist in projecting population and its spatial distribution over time to 15 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. 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 centers required as a function of time and population, and as a result of disposable incomes of the population. Guidelines for Commercial Development used in the CIGM: • 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 SQFT per Capita) • Square Feet Building Area per Community Center: 257,668 (7.48 SQFT per Capita) • Square Feet Building Area per Regional Center. 1,000,000 (6.36 SQFT 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 CIGM, staff has developed a commercial analysis for petition CP- 2008 -1 as follows (the 4 referenced maps are attached to this Staff Report): • Existing and Potential Commercial SQFT (see Map 1, attached) Within the petition's defined custom trade area (CTA), there are 89,813 SQFT of existing commercial development and 297,470 SQFT of potential commercial development (vacant land designated as commercial & vacant land zoned commercial). The total existing and potential commercial SQFT within the CTA is 387,283. • Housing Units & Population (see Map 2, attached) Based on the CIGM, the total housing units and total population in the CTA are /will be: 2007 - 4,660 units and 14,443 persons; 2010 - 5,333 units and 16,531 persons; 2015 - 6,491 units and 20,188 persons; 2020 - 8,111 units and 23,981 persons; 2025 - 9,334 units and 27,532 persons; and, 2030 - 10,460 units and 30,697 persons. Square Footage Demand for a Community Center (see Map 3, attached) The total existing/projected population within the CTA translates into an existing/ projected demand for commercial space within the CTA as follows: 2007 - 14,443 persons yields demand for 108,034 square feet of commercial (7.48 SQ FT per capita); 2010 - 16,531 persons yields demand for 123,652 SQ FT; 2015 - 20,118 persons yields demand for 150,483 SQ FT; 2020 - 23,981 persons yields demand for 179,378 SQ FT; 2025 - 27,532 persons yields demand for 205,939 SQ FT; and, 2030 - 30,687 persons yields demand for 229,539 SQ FT. There is no existing and potential community commercial SQFT (Supply) within the CTA. Based on the criteria established in the CIGM, demand for the proposed 225,000 sq. ft of community center commercial will not be generated by the population within the defined CTA until sometime after year 2030. 16 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4A. • Square Footage Demand for a Neighborhood Center (see Map 4, attached) The total existing/projected population within the CTA translates into an existing/ projected demand for commercial space within the CTA as follows: 2007 — 14,443 persons yields demand for 122,043 square feet of commercial (8.45 SQFT per capita); 2010 — 16,531 persons yields demand for 139,687 SQ FT; 2015 — 20,118 persons yields demand for 169,997 SQ FT; 2020 — 23,981 persons yields demand for 202,640 SQ FT; 2025 — 27,532 persons yields demand for 232,645 SQ FT; and, 2030 — .30,687 persons in 2030 translate to 259,305 square feet demand for commercial space. The existing and potential commercial SQFT (Supply) within the CTA is 387,283; therefore, there will not be a need for additional neighborhood center commercial in this CTA until sometime after year 2030. Data Sources: The CIGM analysis for this petition utilized: (1) the 2008 commercial inventory prepared by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department; (2) present GMP designations that allow commercial zoning; (3) housing unit and population projections prepared by the CIGM consultant, which account for vacancy rates. There is a minor discrepancy between the CIGM population projections and those prepared by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida. • Justification for the proposed amendment and commercial demand analysis (refer to Exhibit V.D.5.) as provided by the petitioner: The Commercial Needs Analysis was prepared by Fishkind & Associates, Inc. The analysis 10-11N evaluated commercial supply and demand characteristics within a custom market area, consisting of a 10- minute drive time and including select acreage located north and south of Golden Gate Boulevard (refer to red boundary on map on page 18). (Please note that the population and housing unit counts are not consistence with the population and housing counts ideniifred in the Collier Interactive Growth Model.) n 17 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTFUCT ILZS t R21 t R27 E 8237 f rte-++. .. • e FLAMI® Ulur oEirFSrr ®irk _ _ _ COMRWALAW — — IN1275tttr.L I I . ZMEG i r— pun �f _ R16 GORY FnGML Ix� - I '�' L"04 : ••.lys wrm Wb*a IMM •• r �IMWI- �TRVIL r 6; 7�y - �+ � f •e �'.. _.•fan Neighborhood and Community Markets are defined in the Commercial Needs Analysis as follows: Neighborhood: A neighborhood center's typical size is about 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area but, in practice, it may range from 30,000 to 100,000 or more square feet. Neighborhood centers sell convenience goods, groceries and personal services to the immediate neighborhood community. The typical market area for a neighborhood center is a 10- minute drive time. Community: A community center's typical size is about 150,000 square feet of gross leasable area but, in practice, it may range from 100,000 to 500,000 or more square feet. Community centers sell a wider range of products that include apparel, hardware and appliances_ The typical market area for a community retail center is a 20- minute drive time. (Centers that fit the general profile of a community center but contain more than 250,000 square feet are classified as super community centers.) 18 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. n In addition to the custom trade area established for the proposed project, the consultant also analyzed office space demand within 2 -miles of the subject site. The findings of the study are as follows: Demand for commercial space in the custom trade area was based on population estimates and projections of 12,415 persons in' 2008 to 17,379 persons in 2030; household estimates and projections of 3,522 households in 2008 to 4,930 households in 2030; and market retail demand estimates and projections of 119,100 sq. ft. in 2008 to 200,340 sq. ft. in 2030; and supply estimates and projections of 179,906 sq. ft. (total does not reflect potential commercial development allowed in three quadrants of the Neighborhood Center located at Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevard, totaling ±99,918 sq. ft. or cumulative total of ±279,824 sq. ft. with an allocation ratio of 2.35) in 2008 and 404,906 sq. ft. (includes proposed project sq. ft., but does not include ±99,918 sq. ft. as noted for Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center) in 2030. The study indicates that although the projected commercial sq. ft. supply is greater than projected demand throughout the years studied, the ratio of the total supply of land designated for commercial use compared to the total demand for commercial lands falls below the desired "allocation ratio of 2.00 in year 2008. Further, the study concludes that by adding the proposed project's commercial sq. ft. (225,000) to the market area, the allocation ratio supply /demand would increase from 1.51 in 2008 to 3.09 in 2010, 2.31 in 2020 and 2.02 in 2030. (Allocation ratios do not reflect potential commercial development of ±99,918 sq. ft. in the Neighborhood Center located at Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevards. Additional sq. ft. would result in allocation ratios of 2.35 in 2008, 2.13 in 2010, 1.60 in 2020 and 1.40 in 2030 without the addition of the proposed project sq. ft; and, ratios of 2.35 in 2008, 3.85 in 2010, 2.89 in 2020 and 2.52 in 2030 with the proposed project sq. ft.) Demand for new office acreage within the 2 -mile market area was based on the supply of countywide office space, resulting in a per capita office figure of 14.7 sq. ft. The analysis focused on ,historical population estimates and projections of 2,539 persons in 1990 to 17,379 persons in 2030, and historical office demand and supply of 37,384 sq. ft. demand in 1990 to 255,887 sq. ft projected demand in 2030 and a stated supply of 156,940 sq. ft (figure provided by applicant is static) in 1990 and 2030. The study concludes that there is an immediate need for office uses in the 2 -mile market surrounding the project Further, the study concludes that without the proposed amendment to add sq. ft. the allocation ratio for office land would drop to 0.61 by 2030. (Note: The allocation ratio measures the amount of additional acreage required in relation to the directly utilized acreage to assure proper market functioning in the sale, usage and allocation of land.) Population Projections (CIGM); and, Neighborhood and Community Center supportable sq. ft. (CIGM) in Golden Gate Estates and the Rural Settlement Area: The population in Golden Gate Estates (east of Collier Boulevard) and the Rural Settlement Area is projected to be: 35,136 persons in year 2010; 51,560 persons in year 2020; 65,217 persons in year 2030; and, 81,847 persons by build -out. (see Housing Units and Population Forecast map, atfached) 19 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda item 4.A. Based on CIGM criteria, approximately 35,136 persons could support approximately 296,899 sq. ft. of neighborhood serving commercial and 262,817 sq. ft. of community serving commercial; 51,560 persons could support approximately 435,632 sq. ft. of neighborhood serving commercial and 385,669 sq. ft. of community serving commercial; 65,217 persons could support approximately 551,084 sq. ft. of neighborhood serving commercial and 487,823 sq. ft. of community serving commercial; and, 81,847 persons could support approximately 691,607 sq. ft. of neighborhood serving commercial and 612,216 sq. ft. of community serving commercial. As noted in a previous section of this Report, the existing and potential supply of neighborhood serving commercial is approximately 551,186 sq. fL and community serving commercial is approximately 200,000 sq. ft. (plus 332,000 sq. ft potential in OrangeTree PUD). If the five proposed GMPAs east of Collier Blvd. are approved, the existing and potential supply of neighborhood serving commercial will increase to 636,686 sq. ft and community serving commercial will increase to approximately 815,950 sq. ft. (plus 332,000 sq. ft. potential in OrangeTree PUD). Based on the above analysis, it is evident that the existing and potential neighborhood serving commercial supply is sufficient to support the needs of the Estates /Rural Settlement Area for the immediate future to year 2030. Conversely, the data reveal that there is a deficit of community serving commercial sq. ft beginning in year 2010 in the amount of 63,817 sq. ft. This deficit is projected to increase to 185,665 sq. ft in year 2020; 287,823 sq. ft. by year 2030; and 412,216 sq. ft. by build -out. (Note: Population in certain sections of the Estates designated lands, located within 2 -miles east of Collier Boulevard, north and south of Golden Gate Blvd. and south of White Blvd. have been omitted from this analysis. This analysis assumes that most of the described population is /will be served primarily by commercial centers located along, or west of, Collier Blvd.) (Note: This analysis does not consider intermodal splits which demonstrate a peak hour of 74% of the trips on Golden Gate Boulevard with an urban destination in the morning. Shopping patterns related to that traffic to the urban area is not factored into the market analysis. As a result, 100% of commercial spending is assumed to be in the market area.) Site Assessment — General Comments: Roadway: The site is located on Wilson Blvd. and Golden Gate Boulevard, with an intervening local roadway —1` Street NW. Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard are expected to be widened in the future. Golden Gate Boulevard Status., Golden Gate Blvd. from Wilson Blvd. to Desoto Blvd. is identified as a future 4 -lane roadway in the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. In the 2009 Annual Update and Inventory Report, right -of -way acquisition is scheduled for this segment in years 10, 11 and 12. Golden Gate Blvd. extends west to Collier Blvd., and east beyond Everglades and Desoto Boulevards into the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. Wilson Boulevard Status: Wilson Blvd. is identified as a 2 -lane roadway in the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. Wilson Blvd. extends north to Immokalee Rd. and beyond, and south to the edge of Golden Gate Estates and the beginning of the Rural 20 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands where a Rural Village could potentially be developed. Access: Access to the proposed project will be from Golden Gate Boulevard, Wilson Boulevard, 1St Street NW and 3rd Street NW. Site Depth and Width: The site consists of two development tracts, each comprising several GGE properties; the tract at Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is approximately 560 feet (width) x 760 feet (depth), and the parcel between 1 St Street NW and 3rd Street NW varies from approximately 750 -820 feet (depth) X 1170 feet (width). However, the site's developable area will be reduced to accommodate future roadway and intersection improvements to Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. Additionally, the property will be reduced further by buffering requirements - at least 75 feet adjacent to residential tracts. Utilities: The proposed project will not be served by central water and sewer. Adjacent Properties: The subject property is almost entirely surrounded by residential development or vacant residential tracts, except for the neighborhood center located at the Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard intersection. Rural Character Impact; The proposed project will most likely alter the rural character of the area. Typically, the residents in the area can expect to experience increased noise, light/glare and traffic volumes at the site and in the surrounding area. It will be critical at time of rezoning, if. the GMPA is approved, to address project uses, unified theme of development, buffers, setbacks, heights, hours of operation, and noise and light mitigation in order to minimize resulting project impacts and to protect the rural character of the area. Environmental Impacts: The environmental report prepared by Marco Espinar of Collier Environmental Consultants and submitted with this petition, dated October 2006 and amended April 2009, indicates the following: The project site includes 9 single family homes, roadway and a pump station. The vegetated habitats include palmetto, pine flatwoods, cabbage palm, cypress canopy with Brazilian pepper, and drained pine - cypress - cabbage palm. The soils found on site are listed as pineda, limestone substratum and boca fine sand. The listed species survey conducted on site concluded that there were no listed species found foraging or nesting, and there were no signs of gopher tortoises, red cockaded woodpeckers, big cypress fox squirrels, Florida panther or Florida black bear. Non - listed species observed include songbirds, Cooper's hawk, black vulture, various reptiles, and evidence of raccoons, rabbits and other small mammals were visible. The only protected plant species found on site were species of Tilandsia [air plants]. Environmental Specialists with the Collier County Engineering and Environmental Services Department reviewed the application and provided the following comments: 21 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. • No special environmental concerns are associated with the establishment of the Subdistrict on the subject site. Native vegetation preservation requirements will be specifically addressed during subsequent development order review (rezone and/or site development plan). Therefore, the following language should be removed from the proposed text. In the paragraph beginning with "A conceptual plan..." remove the sentence, "The preserve area depicted on the conceptual plan shall satisfy all comprehensive plan requirements for retained native vegetation, including but not limited to the requirements of Policy 6.1.1 of the CCME " The exact preserve location is determined at rezone/development order review stage. The preserve area depicted on the conceptual plan cannot be evaluated for consistency at this time due to the additional information required for an evaluation as explained in the proposed text in the paragraph beginning with "Development standards, including permitted uses..." If the area is proposed for water management, an evaluation must be done showing no detrimental effects to the native vegetation. This cannot be done until more detail is provided at a later stage of the development. Historical and Archeological Impacts: The Florida Master Site File lists no previously recorded archeological sites within the project acreage. However, the Florida Dept. of State, Division of Historical Resources cautions the property owner that sites may contain unrecorded archaeological resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources. The Department suggests that a historic resource survey be conducted on most sites to ensure no archeological resources are present. Further, this site has not been identified on the County's Historical and Archeological Probability maps. Traffic Impacts and GMP Consistency: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that this project can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan with the provision of mitigation. Staff comments are limited to the significant impacts shown on the initial concurrency links. Traffic Impacts: Golden Gate Boulevard The first concurrency link that would be impacted by this project is Link 17, Golden Gate Boulevard between CR -951 and Wilson Boulevard. The project would generate up to 130 PM peak hour, peak direction trips on this link, which represents a 5.53% impact. This concurrency link reflects a remaining capacity of 530 trips in the draft 2009 AUIR and is at Level of Service "D ". Network improvements and specific dedications have been proposed that will mitigate the significant impacts on this link. The second concurrency link that would be impacted by this project is Link 123, Golden Gate Boulevard between Wilson Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard. The project would generate up to 111 PM peak hour, peak direction trips on this link, which represents a 10.99% impact. This concurrency link reflects a negative remaining capacity of -53 trips in the draft 2009 AUIR and is at Level of Service "F". This roadway is currently in the County's 22 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. 5 year CIE. Contributions towards network improvements and specific dedications have been proposed that will mitigate the significant impacts on this link. Wilson Boulevard The first concurrency link on Wilson Boulevard that would be impacted by this project is Link 118, Wilson Boulevard between Golden Gate Boulevard and the northerly terminus of Wilson (north of Immokalee Road). The project would generate up to 74 PM peak hour, peak direction trips on this link, which represents an 8.04% impact. This concurrency link reflects a remaining capacity of 529 trips in the draft 2009 AUIR and is at Level of Service "B ". Network improvements and speck dedications have been proposed which mitigate the significant impacts on this link. • Consistency with the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP): Transportation Element Policy 5.1 Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that this project can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, if the applicant provides adequate mitigation. The following mitigation and conditions proposed by staff are anticipated to accommodate the impacts that would result from the approval of this amendment. 1. Up to four primary project access locations are recognized: a. One direct connection to Wilson Boulevard; located as far to the north as can be reasonably accommodated on the final SDP. This connection is anticipated to be a full- movement driveway until such time that Wilson Boulevard median improvements are made, which may restrict left -in, left -out, or right -out movements at the discretion of Collier County Transportation Division. b. Access to Golden Gate Blvd via 1st Street NW will remain; and is subject to any median revisions created by Collier County. c. Access to Golden Gate Boulevard between 1s' Street NW and 3rd Street NW with a possibility for a median opening. Refer to condition no. 2 below, referring to signalization. d. Access to Golden Gate Blvd via 3st Street NW will remain; and is subject to any median revisions created by Collier County. e. No other provisions or restrictions are currently stated for project driveways connecting to 1st Street NW or 3rd Street NW, which shall otherwise be governed by the CCAMP. 2. Signalization: a. A signal is acknowledged as a possible provision at either 3'd Street NW, or the project entrance between 1St and 3rd. The final conceptual location of this signal, if warranted and approved by the Transportation Division, shall be determined at the time of rezoning. If allowed at the project's entrance between 16t and 3rd, then the following conditions must already be in place: i. Closure of the full median opening at 1 st Street NW to limit it to a RVRO only. H. Directionaiization of 3rd Street NW median opening (restricted left turn movements as deemed appropriate by Transportation Division.) b. Any traffic signal serving any of this project's primary access(es) to Golden Gate Boulevard shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors, or assign to install. The Developer, his successors, or assign shall also pay annual operation and maintenance fees for said signal, if installed, for the lifetime of the signal. 23 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4A. 3. The developer, his successors, or assign agree to donate to the County any necessary rights of way along the Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard to accommodate capacity improvements associated with County Project Number 60040; within 180 days of approval of the first subsequent zoning change. 4. Phasing: a. The first phase of development, inclusive of the required grocery store and recognized to be no greater than 100,000 sq. ft shall have a proportionate share responsibility towards intersection improvements at Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. 60040 b. The remaining 125,000 sq. ft. shall not obtain SDP approval from the Transportation Division until such time that project number 60040 has commenced, unless the Developer has elected to construct the complete intersection improvements shown in project 60040 (at Wilson and Golden Gate) prior to the County's commencement (some of which will be eligible for impact fee credits). This phase shall also have proportionate share responsibility toward the intersection of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. Public Facilities Impacts: • Water and Wastewater: The subject property is not located within the Collier County Water and Sewer District boundary and is not part of any other existing utilities district. Development of the property will require installation of a potable well and private sector package sanitary sewer or septic treatment system, permitted consistent with the applicable provisions of the GMP, LDC and other jurisdictional agencies including FDEP and SFWMD. n Additionally, the proposed project site is located within the zone of the Collier County Tamiami Wellfield for the North and South County Regional Water Treatment Plants; compliance with all rules and regulations to protect the wellfield will be required (LDC Section 3.06.00). All well sites and pipeline easements located on and close to this project need to be shown on all future site development plans, PPL or any other site plan applications. Potable Water Demand: Proposed Uses: Office (60,000 sq. ft.) — 9,000 GPD; Retail (148,500 sq. ft.) — 14,850 GPD; and Restaurant (19,500 sq. ft.) — 9,750 GPD. Potable Water Demand: Existing Land Use Designation: 17 Residential Units — 4,250 GPD. Incidental Use for Irrigation - Seating Areas: 3,000 GPD The net difference in demand for potable water is 32,350 GPD. Sanitary Sewer Demand: Proposed Uses: Office (60,000 sq. ft.) — 9,000 GPD; Retail (148,500 sq. ft.) — 14,850 GPD; and Restaurant (19,500 sq. ft.) — 9,750 GPD. Sanitary Sewer Demand: Existing Land Use Designation: 17 Residential Units — 4,250 G PD. The net difference in demand for sanitary sewer is 32,350 GPD. • Solid Waste: The service provider is Collier County Solid Waste Management. The 2008 AUIR identifies that the County has sufficient landfill capacity up to the year 2031 for the required lined cell capacity. The project's change in land use from a potential of 17 residential units (425 cy /yr) to 60,000 sq. ft. of office (630 cy /yr), 148,500 sq. ft. of retail uses 24 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. (6,450 cy/yr) and, 19,500 sq. ft. of restaurant uses (8,090 cy/yr) would permit [result in] an increase in daily trash generation of 7,655 cy/yr. • Drainage: The subject property is located in Flood Zone D. Future development will be required to comply with the SFWMD and/or Collier County rules and regulations that assure controlled accommodation of storm water events by both on -site and off -site improvements. • Schools, Libraries, Parks and Recreational Facilities: The application does not propose an increase in residential density; therefore, no additional demand for services is anticipated. • EMS, Fire, Police and County Jail: The subject project is located within the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. The nearest fire station and EMS services are located approximately four miles from the subject site and sheriff substation is located approximately ten miles from the site. The proposed Subdistrict is anticipated to have minimal impacts on safety services and jail facilities 2008 Legislation — H13 697 This legislation, which pertains to energy conservation and efficiency, went into effect on July 1, 2008. The DCA (Florida Department of Community Affairs) will be reviewing GMP amendments for compliance with this legislation. The petitioner has submitted the following data and analysis in support of the projects compliance with the new legislation. "The pending Estates Shopping Center Sub - district amendment to the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan proposes to establish a grocery- anchored community shopping center within close proximity to several thousand households located within the Northern Golden Gate Estates subdivision. Approval of this plan amendment will provide convenient shopping and job opportunities for the central portion of Golden Gate Estates which will reduce vehicle trips and driving distances for many residents. By capturing these trips presently on the local roadway network, the amendment will assist in reducing future road network improvements and traffic impacts to other areas within the more urbanized area of Collier County. The reduction in vehicle miles traveled will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Golden Gate Estates is one of the largest subdivisions in the United States and encompasses approximately 175 square miles (112,000 acres), and is an example of urban sprawl. Almost all of the Golden Gate Estates area has been platted into 1.25 acre or larger single - family home sites with very little commercial development planned to serve the residents of the area, requiring residents to travel by automobile into the more urbanized portions of Collier County for most of their daily shopping and service needs. While the area provides for a semi -rural lifestyle because of the large lots and zoning that permits the keeping of horses, fowl and other livestock, it has a population exceeding 36,000 in 2008 and is anticipated to continue to grow to a population approaching 45,000 by year 2020. There is presently a large deficit of commercial land in Golden Gate Estates; thereby, exacerbating the need to utilize the automobile for daily commercial needs and increasing the vehicle miles traveled for residents of this subdivision. It is documented that the automobile is the largest generator of green house gases for most communities. The proposed amendment provides conveniently located retail services, including a grocery store where none currently exists or can exist under the current comprehensive plan. The grocery store and other retails services will result in the reduction of vehicle trip lengths. 25 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4A. House Bill 697 encourages energy efficient land use patterns. The proposed plan amendment, located at the intersection of two major roadway corridors serving the Northern Golden Gate Estates area, is an efficient land use pattern. The proposed grocery- anchored shopping center located at this prominent intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard will capture numerous trips that otherwise would be passing through the intersection in route to the urban area for daily shopping needs. This location is also well- suited for a community sized shopping center due to its location along a current Collier Area Transit (CAT) route serving Golden Gate Estates. Proximity to a transit route is an efficient land use pattern and is an example of smart growth by allowing residents to have an alternative to automobile use for shopping or employment. Locating goods and services in closer proximity to the residents will equate to reduced dependence on the automobile, reduced vehicle miles traveled and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions." Staff has reviewed this petition for adequacy of data and analysis to demonstrate how it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Based upon the petitioner's information provided, staff is able to conclude that the project would likely reduce vehicle trips traveled by providing commercial and employment opportunities proximate to area residents. However, the analysis provided was not quantified in terms of trips captured by internal and extemal users. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) NOTES: The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was held on September 14, 2009, after the applicantlagent duly noticed and advertised the meeting, as required by the Collier County Land Development Code. Approximately 100+ people attended the NIM, held at Restoration Church, located at 7690 Running Buck Court, Naples, FL 34119. The following is a synopsis of the meeting: • The County staff planner gave a brief explanation of the GMPA process, including public hearing dates, and the agents discussed the proposed project in its entirety. individuals spoke about the following: • Traffic impacts and circulation — timing of planned intersection improvements, access to project from 13' Street NW, 3`d Street NW, Wilson Blvd. and Golden Gate Boulevard. • Commercial demand — requests for grocery store use, burdensome to travel to urban area for groceries and other services/need for commercial uses in Golden Gate Estates, and need competition for same goods and services in the Estates area. • Estates rural character — maintain quiet rural setting/moved to Golden Gate Estates to be away from intense development, proposed commercial intensity would change the character of the Estates, commercial project would be the first of more to come, and no additional need for commercial development in the area. • Well and Septic — general discussion of package plant and location on site. • Project impacts — discussions about lighting, drainage, height of buildings, buffering adjacent to residential homes, and other related project impacts. The meeting began at approximately 6:00 p.m. and concluded at approximately 8:30 p.m. 26 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. [Synopsis prepared by M. Mosca, Principal Plannerj FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: • The proposed site specific commercial amendment is a departure from the residents' established vision for Golden Gate Estates. Visioning requires public input and coordinated efforts to locate commercial centers where appropriate, considering project impacts, available infrastructure, growth trends, etc. • Approval of the proposed Subdistrict circumvents the master planning process and limits public involvement • The GGAMP limits new commercial projects in the Estates to uses generally found in the C- 1 through C-3 zoning districts of the Collier County Land Development Code, which are intended to serve the basic shopping needs of area residents. • The proposed development will most likely alter the semi -rural characteristics of the Estates area. Additional noise, light, traffic and etc. can be expected at the site and the surrounding area. • The intensity and scale of the proposed project is consistent with commercial intensities found in urban commercial centers. • Approval of this amendment may result in nearby properties seeking to expand existing or potential commercial acreage or establish new commercial subdistricts. • No significant public facility impacts, except those related to the transportation network, are expected to occur as a result of the approval of this amendment. • Approval of this request to add 225,000 square feet of commercial uses at the .subject location may be deemed consistent with policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, if the proposed mitigation is approved by the Board of County Commissioners. • The petitioner's market analysis identified that within the Custom Trade Area there is a total commercial supply of 179,906 sq. ft. and a commercial demand of 200,340 sq. ft., based on a population of 17,379 persons and 4,930 households by year 2030. The consultant reduced the commercial inventory by 99,918 sq. ft from the available sq. ft. /acreage supply at the Everglades/Golden Gate Blvd. Neighborhood Center to account for limited population growth around that Center and the improbability that this Center would develop within the 2030 planning period. The Study concludes that the project sq. ft. of 225,000 is needed immediately to allow flexibility in the market • The CIGM identified that within the petitioner's Custom Trade Area there is a total existing and potential neighborhood commercial supply of 387,283 sq. ft. and a commercial demand of 259,305 sq. ft., based on a population of 30,687 persons by year 2030. • The CIGM identifies that within the project's Custom Trade Area (CTA) there will not be a demand for the requested 225,000 sq. ft. of community center commercial until sometime after year 2030, based on a projected population of 30,687. 27 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4A. The CIGM identifies a deficit in community commercial serving land uses in the Estates and Rural Settlement Area beginning in year 2010 in the amount of 63,817 sq. ft. and increasing to 412,216 sq. ft. by build -out. However, this deficit does not take into account the potential commercial sq. ft. supply in the pending Big Cypress DRI petition, located approximately 6+ miles from the project site, that will likely provide commercial and employment opportunities to residents residing in the eastern areas of the Estates. [ft should be noted that 390,950 sq. ft. of community commercial uses are proposed in petition GMPA - 2008 -2, which includes much of the same trade area as this petition] • The Estates Neighborhood Centers are not large enough to accommodate a grocer /drug store anchored neighborhood or community shopping center, due to limited parcel size in each quadrant, buffering requirements, and other development standards. • The subject property consists of assembled properties centrally located in the Estates. Staff is not aware of other such properties in the Estates that could accommodate a grocery anchored neighborhood or community shopping center, except for property located on Randall Boulevard that is the subject of a GMPA— Petition CP- 2008 -2. • The project will not be served by central water and sewer, rather by on -site utilities. • The site has access to two collector roads, both of which will be 4 -lane divided roads. • All development in this Subdistrict will be subject to the lighting requirements in Policy 5.1.1. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report has been reviewed by the County Attorney's office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CP- 2008 -1 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to not transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. However, should the CCPC choose to recommend transmittal, staff recommends the following revisions to the proposed subdistrict text, mostly to maintain consistency and harmony within the GGAMP, for proper format, use of code language, succinctness and clarity. (Note: single underline text is added, as proposed by petitioner; double underline text is added, double text is deleted, as proposed by staff). 6 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Recognizing the need to provide for centrally located -goods and services within a portion Qf_ Golden Gate Estates (vino east of Collier Boulevard the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict has been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and Qa the MM pole It consists of the following properties within Unit 11 of Golden date Estate s• all of Tracts 107 108 109 110 143 and 144 and the southern 180 feet of QQ Tracts 142 and 106 oWn444 and the southern 255 feet of Tract 111 Est n 29 CP- 200 8-1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. Al—N, The QRRsRF This Subdistrict is intended to provide convenient shopping, many residents, assist in minimizing the road network required and reduce traffic impacts in this area of Collier County. All development in this Subdistrict shall comOv with the following requirements and limitations 29 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. a. 41 as amended except that the following use shall be prohibited: 1. Drinking Places (5813) and Stand Alone Liauor Stores (5921) 2. Mail Order Houses (5961) 3. Merchandizing Machine Operators (5962) 4. Power Laundries (7211) 5. Crematories (7261) 6. Radio TV Representatives (7313) and Direct Mail Advertising Services (7331) 7. NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges Waterslides, etc. (7999) 8. General Hospitals (8062) Psychiatric Hospitals (8063) and Specialty Hospitals (8069) 9. Elementary and Secondary Schools (8211) Colleges (8221) Junior Colleges 8222 10. Libraries (8231) 11. Correctional Institutions (9223) 12. W_ aste Management (9511) 13. Homeless Shelters and Soup Kitchens e=b Development intensity shall be limited to 225,000 square feet of cross leasable floor area. ice A grocery use€i# shall be constructed and it shall contain a minimum of 27,000 square feet. a e Development within this Subdistrict shall be phased and the following commitments related to area roadway improvements shall be completed within the specified timeframes: 1 Right-of-Way for Golden Gate Boulevard Expansion and Right -of -Way for the Wilson Boulevard Expansion will be donated to the County at no cost within 4-20 180 days of a written request from the County. 2 The applicant wi4 shall pay its fair share for the intersection improvements at Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard within 90 days of County request for reimbursement. 3 Until the intersection improvements at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard are complete the County shall not issue a Certificate(s) of Occupancy (CO) for more than 100,000 square feet of development The applicant must obtain a C.O. for a grocery store as part of this 100,000 square feet and the arocery store must be the first C.O. obtained. f Rezoning is encouraaed to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). , The rezone ordinance wms4 shall contain development standards to ensure that all commercial land uses will be compatible with neighboring residential uses. 30 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. a rim ILIA, • - - • •• • 1 •_ a - -••- _ -- - - • I •_• • • as h.424 No commercial building may be constructed within 125 feet of the northern or western property boundaries * of this a S-ubdistict I. Q4 Any portion of the Proiect directly abutting residential property roDerty zoned E Estates and without an approved conditional use) shall provide at a minimum a seventy five (75) feet wide buffer, except the westernmost 330' of Tract 106 which shall provide a minimum 20' wide buffer, in which no parking uses are Dermitted Twenty -five (25) feet of the width of �-� the buffer along the developed area shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of fifty (50) feet of the buffer width shall consist of retained or re- planted native vegetation and must be consistent with subsection 3.05.07.1-1 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) The native vegetation retention area may consist of a perimeter berm and be used for water management detention. Any-- newly constructed berm shall be reveaetated to meet subsection 3.05.07.1-1 of the LDC (native vegetation replanting requirements) Additionally to order to be considered for aDDroval use of the native vegetation retention area for water management Durposes shall meet the following criteria• Lj) �4 There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro-12eriod unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the existing vegetation LZ1 W4 If the Droiect requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management District the voiect shall Drovide a letter or official document from the District indicating that the native ve etation within the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water management requirements If the District cannot or will not supply such a letter, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be-used for water management IM (C4 If the project is reviewed by Collier County, the County engineer shall provide evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to facilitate the necessary storaoe of water in the water management area i. All buildinas shall have the roofs 'Old Shde Florida' metal roofs or deco ive oaranet walls above the rooflme. The b ildina hall be finished in light s bd ed colorG Pxcep for decorative trim. k. Building heights shall be limited to one (1) story fR••^ ^*^^s^ and a maximum of thirty frve fe I. All lighting shall be architecturally designed and limited to a height of twenty-five (25M-eat Such lighting shall be hielded from netahborina r sidential land !- 31 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 4.A. • _ _ - _ • .�- •-f- - - - - -� ill.• �_•- -i • •- - • •MN - _ • _ • • f. • • - •i 1y • i - - - _ - • • • _l! t • �•S I- 11W . • ll• t _ _ •_ all covered by slats. boards or wire). 52 rdolilb n PREPARED BY: �ICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: DATE: 3 p DATE: `l f DAVID WEEKS, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: RANDALL COH N, AICP, DIRECTOR. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: DATE: 67- 34—Q DATE: %- VENONMENTAL K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR NITY DEVELOPMENT & SERVICES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN Petition No: CP -2008-1 Staff Report for the October 19, 2009 CCPC Meeting Note: This petition has been scheduled for the January 19, 2009, BCC Meeting. 33 Agenda Item 4.A. ".� Pending GMPA CP- 2007 -1 1 (Wilson Blvd Commercial Subdistrict) Acres: 5.17 i . Proposed Commercial SOFT: 40,000 RR E 9 ::; E 33,000 I I _ - -`— IMMOKALEE RD E 33,000 - -- -� -•- - -- mI 1 wl kenneth Johnson Properties 3j COMMERCIAL ANALYSIS FOR GMPA CP- 2008 -1 USING INTERACTIVE GROWTH MODEL = (EXISTING & POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL SQFT) CFA nor -1.211i L INS-1.211i INSET I I, ; -FAk ^N Pu0 �_ Pending GMPA CP- 2007.2 -- 1 6 p F r t 1 --7r' '^ F✓+;k 17 (ImmokaleetOii Well Rd Commercial Subdistrict) Acres 10 3 ° HP 4 L E Proposed Commercial SQFT: 70,000 �I. t - �Y / RANOALL RLVC 1 i e : t �• „ e} A } LaG Pending GMPACP- 2006 -2 ^ - ""'F ('o" - s•rd;� - y',,rp w M7- y �!h \GOLDEN CA7 E BLVD-- (Randall n - y GOLDEN GATE BLVD Acres 56.50 -• -�, - '^r - - Proposed Commercial SOFT; 390,950 PAC OF COLLIER INC.. FLN: 37744040001 I ol- •r f t' 'd r sT ,>S� ` *).i j aR X ' URIK OII IN[`. j I y" v�. 5 r• a' r; •c` r FLN: 37745180009 I of PROJECT LOCATION .,¢ 41 Acres - Proposed Estates Shopping e Center Subdistrict I j "` - , r • t ,t r'e v[Vy r.,. Proposed Commercial SOFT: 225,000 SEE INSET 1 SEE INSET 2 6 I I �I 1 I I Legend , I I I Existing Commercial Parcels ` Vacant & Potential Commercial Parcels j Pending GMPAs (07108 Cycle) I I I 10-minute Drive Time Market Boundary t - - - -- Major Roads j Water j 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles ci6EwrPe.6E,N VM'6..xP C01 tic, County f.MroaFNExe�VFPINMxe nFMFeeF.Ni ... -_ .. ......, E: cN�&e�iMF W 64r/CM1ie E W MpMmNMxo ,. Existing Commercial Parcels Vacant & Potential Commercial Parcels j EXISTING COMMERCIAL SOFT (within 10- minute Drive Time) VACANT LAND W/ PENDING GMPAs ZONING SQT I ACRES (within 10- minute Drive Time) 37280040109 es Country Stores LLC C -2 9,113 2.65 GMP s SQFT ACRE I 37221120101 Gullstream Retail Invest LLC CPUD 41.600 5.07 CP. 2007 -1 40,000 5.17 I 37169520009 Walgreen GO CPUD 16,550 5.53 CP- 2008.2 390,850 56.5 j 37745180009 Lklka Oil Inc. Pt1D 3,350 1.33 37744040001 PAC of Callier Inc. PUD 20,000 2.39 TOTAL: 430,950 61.67 - j TOTAL: 89,813 16.96 I VACANT LAND ZONED COMMERCIAL (within 10- minute Drive _Time ) j NAME - ZONING SgF'66 C. j E's Gou "'y Stores LLC 37280040002 C -2 '16,984 2.81 i I Liberty Gold LLC - 37221120208 CPUD 12,572 2.08 Norman Taylor - 40680040000 CPUD 33,000 5.46 Urtka oil Inc. PUD 17,650 3.82 j Michael Corder Properties - Wilson NC Addition C -3 60,000 6.25 TOTAL: 140,206 20.42 VACANT LAND DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL bneeop LLP- 4ub29000001 E 33,000 i William Vines - 40930720009 E 33,000 Double Be Investment Inc- 40930760001 E 33,000 - -- -� -•- - -- kenneth Johnson Properties E 30,099 Richard Townsend- 37280080004 E 12,813 Richard Townsend - 372811160005 E 6,407 Joy Anderson- 37280120003 .E 8,945 PER ACRE (COUNTY-WIDE AVERAGE). TOTAL: 157,264 a, 'ASSUMED 6,044 SQFT COMMERCIAL ANALYSIS FOR GMPA CP- 2008 -1 USING INTERACTIVE GROWTH MODEL (HOUSING UNITS & POPULATION) . f - - Pending GMPA CP- 200i -t ) '� ORANGE eIOYSV Gj' 1 % / r• a N c N Poe -{ (Wilson Blvd Commercial Subdistrict) 1,-,, Awes: 5.17 t �" Pending GMPA CP- Proposed Commercial SQFE 40,000 __ __ ._____, 2007.2 1 i - l i'`r� � (ImmokaleetOd Well Rd Commercial Subdistrict) / ( iER TA rE DAr Acres; 103 GD Proposed I Commercial SOFT 70 000 ✓ P u . IMMOKIMMO ALE_RD RANDALL BLVD �- — ' --- - --- - - - - -- �� ... -.. �' Pending GMPA CP- 2008.2 (Randall Blvd Commercial Subdistrict) I Acres: 56.50 m i Proposed Commercial SQFT: 390,950 FLN: 37744040001 Q �' j ERIK OIL INC. O ;FLN: 37745180009 - PROJECT LO CATION ' 41 Acres - Proposed Estates Shopping 01 { Center Subdistrict Proposed Commercial SQFT. 225,000 1 GOLDENGATESLVD 1 I - Legend - - --- I iExisting Commercial Parcels ) i fl •,.•,., ,,, _.. vacant 9 Potential Commercial Parcels i Pending GMPAs (07/08 Cycle) 10- minute Drive Time Markel Boundary f —•- -- Major Roads i ! Water 0 0.5 1 2 3 y� - Miles o ""a�,E,�oraa�Nrxr Cuit;ercprlrtcy i' GAE. FfESronIAFFOUESiixOxSxcFOP UFwi6rNp .•...'_�.•- "..' -. _. _..._ ) ro ' __- - ._._ —__-.. ova - =_— - - -_ _ CR B5d —. __— ____._____� •/ HOUSING UNITS & POPULATION PROJECTIONS (within 10- minute Drive Time) POPULATION 8 HOUSING - 2007 2010 - 2015 1 2020 2025 2030 Total Housing Units 4,660 6,333 6,491 8.111 9,]34 10,460 Total Population 14,443 16,531 20,118 23.981 27,532 30.687 POPULATION PROJECTIONS CHART 40,000 - 35,000 27,532 1 30,687 OFLi 20,00 0 15,000 z 10,000 20,118 1 16.5311 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 YEAR.. CIGM Guidelines for Commercial Development: (County -wide Average) 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 or Acres per Community Center: 28 Number of Acres per Regional Center: 100 Square Feet Building Area per Neighborhood Center 110.734 (8.45 SOFT Per Capita) ' Square Feel Building Area per Community Center. 257,668 (7.48 SOFT Per Capita) Square Feet Building Area per Regional Center: 1.000.000 (6.36 SOFT Per Capita) COMMERCIAL ANALYSIS FOR GMPA CP- 2008 -1 USING INTERACTIVE GROWTH MODEL C:UIMMERCIAL SQFT DEMAND FO GOLDEN GATE Ii VDVI r r m� of s Legend Existing Commercial Parcels -tee Vacant & Potential Commercial Parcels — Pending GMPAS (07108 Cycle) ~'j WPminute Drive Time Markel Boundary - - -- Major Roads Water 0 0.5 1 2 3 - - -- - - -° *- Miles cze uNSNC. arrarN�c.a:En C_ oilier County CgEraEKe31v6 rtnnel�eEPNR1MEN1 .. - _ rn.E: r.WSeriNtEe�ESticaErpUNTYEMEa ImMIEMVn R COMMUNITY CENTER) DEMAND FOR COMMERCAIL SQFT - COMMUNITY CENTER (within 10- minute Drive Time) GET1F711AL COMMERCIAL 2007 '1720167-2 2020 2025 2036 Existing and Potential Commercial SOFT 387,283 387,283 387,283 387,283 387,283 387.283 Commercial SOFT Demand for Com munily Center 108,034 123, 652150.483179,378205,939229,539 COMMERCIAL SQFT SUPPLY a DEMAND CHART (Community Center) 3 3 2 2 � 1 1 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 YEAR CIGM Guidelines for Commercial Development: (County -wide Average) I ' Number of Persons per Neighborhood Center: 13.110 Number of Persons per Community Center. 34.464 'Number of Persons per Regional Center. 157.324 I ` Number of Acres per Neighborhood Center 11 Number of Acres Der Community Center: 28 ' Number of Acres Per Regional Center. 100 ' Square Feet Building Area per Neighborhood Center: 110.734 (8.45 SQFT Per Capita) Square Feet Building Area per Community Center. 257,668 (7.48 SOFT Per Capita) Square Feet Building Area per Regional Center: 1,000,000 (6.36 SOFT Per Capita) m Pending GMPA CP- 2008 -2 (Randall Blvd Commercial Subdistrict) Pending GMPA CP•2007 -1 (Wilson Blvd Commercial Subdistrict) �/ r v o Acres: 5.17 � - Pending GMPA CP- 2007 -2 —••— - — - - --— Proposed Commercial SOFT: 40,000 7• �/ ' -: � -, tfon (Immokaiee /Oil Well Rd Commercial Subdistrict) Acres: 10.3 - - ,tr c R E �' Proposed °L n u Commercial SOFT: 70,000 � -� O1' FLN: 37745100009 m a PROJECT LOCATION cl !' -g „ i 41 Acres - Proposed Estates Shopping GOLDEN GATE Ii VDVI r r m� of s Legend Existing Commercial Parcels -tee Vacant & Potential Commercial Parcels — Pending GMPAS (07108 Cycle) ~'j WPminute Drive Time Markel Boundary - - -- Major Roads Water 0 0.5 1 2 3 - - -- - - -° *- Miles cze uNSNC. arrarN�c.a:En C_ oilier County CgEraEKe31v6 rtnnel�eEPNR1MEN1 .. - _ rn.E: r.WSeriNtEe�ESticaErpUNTYEMEa ImMIEMVn R COMMUNITY CENTER) DEMAND FOR COMMERCAIL SQFT - COMMUNITY CENTER (within 10- minute Drive Time) GET1F711AL COMMERCIAL 2007 '1720167-2 2020 2025 2036 Existing and Potential Commercial SOFT 387,283 387,283 387,283 387,283 387,283 387.283 Commercial SOFT Demand for Com munily Center 108,034 123, 652150.483179,378205,939229,539 COMMERCIAL SQFT SUPPLY a DEMAND CHART (Community Center) 3 3 2 2 � 1 1 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 YEAR CIGM Guidelines for Commercial Development: (County -wide Average) I ' Number of Persons per Neighborhood Center: 13.110 Number of Persons per Community Center. 34.464 'Number of Persons per Regional Center. 157.324 I ` Number of Acres per Neighborhood Center 11 Number of Acres Der Community Center: 28 ' Number of Acres Per Regional Center. 100 ' Square Feet Building Area per Neighborhood Center: 110.734 (8.45 SQFT Per Capita) Square Feet Building Area per Community Center. 257,668 (7.48 SOFT Per Capita) Square Feet Building Area per Regional Center: 1,000,000 (6.36 SOFT Per Capita) m Pending GMPA CP- 2008 -2 (Randall Blvd Commercial Subdistrict) e i Acres: 56.50 - Proposed Commercial SOFT: 390,950 I PAC OF COLLIER tNC., - - 1 FLN: 37744040DD1 °L i URIK OII INS � -� O1' FLN: 37745100009 m a PROJECT LOCATION cl !' -g „ i 41 Acres - Proposed Estates Shopping I I Center Subdistrict �I I Proposed Commercial SOFT: 225,000 GOLDEN GATE Ii VDVI r r m� of s Legend Existing Commercial Parcels -tee Vacant & Potential Commercial Parcels — Pending GMPAS (07108 Cycle) ~'j WPminute Drive Time Markel Boundary - - -- Major Roads Water 0 0.5 1 2 3 - - -- - - -° *- Miles cze uNSNC. arrarN�c.a:En C_ oilier County CgEraEKe31v6 rtnnel�eEPNR1MEN1 .. - _ rn.E: r.WSeriNtEe�ESticaErpUNTYEMEa ImMIEMVn R COMMUNITY CENTER) DEMAND FOR COMMERCAIL SQFT - COMMUNITY CENTER (within 10- minute Drive Time) GET1F711AL COMMERCIAL 2007 '1720167-2 2020 2025 2036 Existing and Potential Commercial SOFT 387,283 387,283 387,283 387,283 387,283 387.283 Commercial SOFT Demand for Com munily Center 108,034 123, 652150.483179,378205,939229,539 COMMERCIAL SQFT SUPPLY a DEMAND CHART (Community Center) 3 3 2 2 � 1 1 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 YEAR CIGM Guidelines for Commercial Development: (County -wide Average) I ' Number of Persons per Neighborhood Center: 13.110 Number of Persons per Community Center. 34.464 'Number of Persons per Regional Center. 157.324 I ` Number of Acres per Neighborhood Center 11 Number of Acres Der Community Center: 28 ' Number of Acres Per Regional Center. 100 ' Square Feet Building Area per Neighborhood Center: 110.734 (8.45 SQFT Per Capita) Square Feet Building Area per Community Center. 257,668 (7.48 SOFT Per Capita) Square Feet Building Area per Regional Center: 1,000,000 (6.36 SOFT Per Capita) m COMMERCIAL ANALYSIS FOR GMPA CP- 2008 -1 USING INTERACTIVE GROWTH MODEL UIJIVIIVILINUTAL. 51UFT DEMAND FOR NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER :� __. _ _... . I• iIORANIGE BI,Q32,2 _ Pending GMPA CF-211,07.1 f / / �� /ff RANeH Puo (Wilson Blvd Commercial Subdistrict) I'�ff, `! _ -.. _ _ I' .. _ .... DEMAND FOR COMMERCAIL SQFT - NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER 1 Acres: 5.17 / Pending GMPA CP- 2007 -2 Proposed Commercial SQFT: 40,000 ' - - - -- -- (within 10- minute Drive Time) r f, (Immokaleef0li Well Rd Commercial Subdistrict) Legend Existing Commercial Parcels Vacant & Polemist Commercial Parcels I - Pending GMPAs (07108 Cycle) 10-minute Drive Time Market Boundary - - - -- Major Roads Water 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles Ocd.PgEHEN5IVE nANNNO JEPMIMENT FX, E: i, eSr.MrngEWESiMEIOHBONHOCOCEHrER '3'MTF.Mxo I,I I I, I Collin Cotdnly I GENEFt.4L COMMERCIAL 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 20 0- 0stmg and Potential Commercial SOFT 387,283 387.283 387,263 387,203 387,283 38728: ommercial SOFT Oamand for Neighborhood Cen ter 122,043 139,687 169,997 202.639 232,645 259.30! 350 300 250 A"200 -1 150 100 50 COMMERCIAL SQFT SUPPLY & DEMAND CHART (Neighborhood Center) 2uut 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 YEAR CIGM Guidelines for Commercial Development - (County -wide Average) Numberof Persons Per Neighborhood Center- 13,110 ' Number of Persons per Community Center. 34,463 ' Number of Persons per Regional Center: 157,324 Number or Acres per Neighborh000 Center: 11 Number of Acres per Community Center: 26 ' Number of Acres per Regional Center: 100 • Square Feet Building Area per Neighborhood Center 110,734 (6.45 SOFT Per Capita) ' Square Feet Building Area per Community Center: 257,668 (7 4e SOFT Per Capita) Square Feet Building Area per Regional Center: 1,000.000 (6.36 SOFT Per Capita) Acres: 10.3 HERITAGE BAY I j f / QR A406 �LPL�E Proposed Commercial SQFT : 70,000 ' f IMMOfcALEE RANDALBLVD _ Pending GMPA CP•2008.2 ._ I - - (Randall Blvd Commercial Subdistrict) Acres: 56.50 m _ " Proposed Commercial SOFT. 390,950 � l PAC OF COLLIER INC. FLN: 37744040001 I FLN: 37745180009 m of •- - - - ". I PROJECT LOCATION m -- ' 41 Acres •Proposed Estates Shopping `r I '... Center Subdistrict >I I I Proposed Commercial SQFT: 225,000 w I I .. G0L0ENGAiEee.VO4N c . I I I i Legend Existing Commercial Parcels Vacant & Polemist Commercial Parcels I - Pending GMPAs (07108 Cycle) 10-minute Drive Time Market Boundary - - - -- Major Roads Water 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles Ocd.PgEHEN5IVE nANNNO JEPMIMENT FX, E: i, eSr.MrngEWESiMEIOHBONHOCOCEHrER '3'MTF.Mxo I,I I I, I Collin Cotdnly I GENEFt.4L COMMERCIAL 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 20 0- 0stmg and Potential Commercial SOFT 387,283 387.283 387,263 387,203 387,283 38728: ommercial SOFT Oamand for Neighborhood Cen ter 122,043 139,687 169,997 202.639 232,645 259.30! 350 300 250 A"200 -1 150 100 50 COMMERCIAL SQFT SUPPLY & DEMAND CHART (Neighborhood Center) 2uut 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 YEAR CIGM Guidelines for Commercial Development - (County -wide Average) Numberof Persons Per Neighborhood Center- 13,110 ' Number of Persons per Community Center. 34,463 ' Number of Persons per Regional Center: 157,324 Number or Acres per Neighborh000 Center: 11 Number of Acres per Community Center: 26 ' Number of Acres per Regional Center: 100 • Square Feet Building Area per Neighborhood Center 110,734 (6.45 SOFT Per Capita) ' Square Feet Building Area per Community Center: 257,668 (7 4e SOFT Per Capita) Square Feet Building Area per Regional Center: 1,000.000 (6.36 SOFT Per Capita) PENDING GMPAs LOCATIONS (200712008 COMBINED CYCLE) EAST OF CR Qsl cbrksceew Island Nplghborhood, - 1d�lYlOKALEE RD E �HE$TNIIT PLACE G Ti "n eTv ^Oal SJbd_sf 3Ct '�'� - MPUO m T 18 FA R NI M�O HERITAGE RFMUD i O/ BAY, PUD/ RFMUD ImmokaleelEverglades Neighborhood Center LEE COUNTY �r+yy`�kr �q L.lJ4YFa�fJ3 RFMUD MIR -NAR Pu. - Pending GMPA CP- 2008 -2 Pending GMPA CP- 2007 -2 _) RLSA (lmmokaleelOii Well Rd Commercial Subdistrict) CommerciaiSubdistrict Acres: 56.50 Acres: 10.3 Pending GMPA CP- 2007 -3 Proposed Commercial SOFT: 70,000 (Mission Subdistrict) Acres: 21.72 Western Estates Proposed SOFT 90,000 (2,500 SOFT Commerical) Pending GtJIPA CP- 2007 -1 (Wilson Blvd Commercial Subdistrict) o fORANG�J�j j m. i /ORANGE'BLOSSOM ;o Acres: 5.17 3 Proposed Commercial SOFT. 40,000 0 / RANCHH PP m T 18 FA R NI M�O HERITAGE RFMUD i O/ BAY, PUD/ RFMUD - OIL WELL RD ".O RANGETREE /PUD /` ALLRAND BLVD _ IMMOKALEE RD . �ed Use �ctivity MIR -NAR Pu. - Pending GMPA CP- 2008 -2 s` r #3 Randal Rlc LANG Cente 1 Blvd (Randall Blvd Commercial Subdistrict) S CommerciaiSubdistrict Acres: 56.50 OAKMA Proposed Commercial SQFT: 390,950 MISSON i HILLS Western Estates z InfiiI11 Subdistrict _ „°,' o CAR OLINA VILLAGE 3I J m O w i- O CallierlPine Ridge. Rd Neigtibor hood Center m w GOLDEN GATE BLVD W o Pending GMPA CP- 2008 -1 Wilson IGolden Gate Blvd Everglades /Golden Gate Blvd Neighborhood Center Neighborhood Center ® (Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict) - Acres: 41 - Proposed Commercial SOFT: 225,000 Comm. Infilll Subdistrict i -�--,Cdlw Blvd RFMUD Comrri: Subdistrict : I i i \� AVr MARIA " —TOWN S tJ NIV ERSITY IJ}J I J. -. CR 855 . MUr Legend -- - - - ® Pending GMPAs (East of CR951) Existing Commercial Parcels Vacant & Potential Commercial Parcels RLSAr Major Roads RLSA ! MajorCPUD /MPUD Golden Gate Estates RLSA RFMUD- Neutral RFMUD- Receiving RFMUD- Sending Conservation" t ;'i 2 3 y PENDING GMPAs COMMERCIAL MARKET AREA (EAST GP C.R 951) Pending GMPA CP- 2007 -2 (immokalee /Oil Well Rd Commercial Subdistrict) Acres: 10.3 w Proposed Commercial SQFT: 70,000 W aQW O / AG /HERITAGE BAY P I I;. ° J �1 W� � GOLDEN GATE BLVD —_ -- O _ UJ , Pending GMPA CP- 2008 -1 (Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict) Acres: 41 Proposed Commercial SQFT: 225,000 '� I GRA E NG I JI I, R ALN CSH P UD C13 IMMOKALEE RD E 1 I AVE MARIA � I Pending GMPA CP- 2007 -1 TOWN a UNIVERSITY (Wilson Blvd Commercial Subdistrict) Acres: 5.17 A Proposed Commercial SQFT: 40,000 OIL WELL RD j CR 858 RAN LL BLVD Pending GMPA CP- 2008 -2 (Randall Blvd Commercial Subdistrict) Acres: 56.50 n Proposed Commercial SOFT., 390,950 w s e I >j ml I ° pl m �I O CeI O > O W . CP- 2008 -1 Legend 13CP-2008-2 Market Area (Primary Trade Area) CP- 2008 -1 Market Area (10- minute Drive Time) CP- 2007 -1 Market Area (2 Mile Radius) 10 CP- 2007 -2 Market Area (Primary Trade Area) Water Pending GMPAs (2007/2008 Combined Cycle) Major Roads N to 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles I �Nrss+s�aurµ+wrui; �aann�l�rt I FLLE' F1cISNgTgMwR1�ETNxFq I i i HOUSING UNITS AND P[)PULAT/ON FORECAST FOR GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AREA (2-MILE EAST OF CR 951) USING CIGM HOUSING UNITS POPULATION 30.000. POP.11ON1.NG 1 2010 1 2020 1 2030 10 F--2-1-71 MOW. t1o" 35,136 51."o 65,217 81,847 2010 2020 2030 IT LEE COUNTY YEAR 20101 LEE COUNTY Q YEAR 20201 POP 1 DOT 25 PERSON - 1 DOT 25 PERSON 4. LEE COUNTY YEAR 2030 i LEE COUNTY BUILD OUT� POP: 65,217, POP: 81,847i loo ikl* L—D 1 DOT 25 PERSON 0 1 DOT 25 PERSON CCPC TRANSMITTAL RECOMMENDATION FOR CP- 2008 -1 CCPC TRANSMITTAL RECOMMENDATION FOR CP- 2008 -1 Petition CP- 2008 -1, Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict CCPC Recommendation: No recommendation. Motion to Transmit failed by 4/4 vote. Motion was subject to staff alternative text in the Staff Report, but revised to: 1) keep the list of allowable uses #1 -27 as proposed by petitioner, but delete #28 [this requires a re- lettering of paragraphs]; 2) revise paragraph "a.12" to reflect the correct SIC Code term; 3) revise paragraph "a." to add a "catchall' prohibited use #14; 4) revise paragraph "b.° to reduce the total allowable building area from 225,000 s.f. to 210,000 s.f., as proposed by the petitioner at the hearing, and to modify the building floor area term; 5) revise paragraph "c." to recognize the potential for more than one grocery use; 6) revise paragraph "e.1.° pertaining to the timing of right -of -way donation; and, 6) delete paragraph "n." pertaining to common architectural theme. [Staff Report pages 29 -32] a. Allowable Uses shall be limited to the following: 1. Amusement and Recreation (Groups 7911 7991 7993 and 7999 including only day camps gymnastics instruction. Judo /karate instruction sporting goods rental and Aga instruction) 2. Apparel and Accessory Stores (Groups 5611 -569 3. Auto and Home Supply Stores (Groups 5531 5541 including gasoline service stations without repair) 4. Automotive Repair and Services (Groups 7514, 7534 including only tire repair, 7539 including only minor service lubricating and diagnostic service) and 7542) S. Business Services (Groups 7334 -7342 7371 -7376 7379 7382 7383 7384 and 7389) 6. Child Day Care Services Group 8351) 7. Communications CGroups 4812 4841) 8. Depository and Non - Depository Institutions CGroups 6021-6062, 6091 6099 6111-6163, including drive through facilities) 9. Eating Places (Group 5812 including only liquor service accessory to the restaurant use 10. Educational Services Grou 8299) 11. Engineering. Accounting. Research and Management CGroups 8711-8721, 8741-8743,8748) 12. Food Stores (Groups 5411 -5499 including convenience stores with gas) 13. General Merchandise Stores CGroups 5311 5331 and 5399) 14. Government Administration Offices CGroups 9111-9199) 15. Hardware, Garden Supply and PaintLWallpaper Stores Groups 5231 5251 and 5261) 16. Holding and Other Investment CGroups 6712 - 67991 17. Home Furniture /Furnishings CGroups 5712 -5736) 18. Insurance Carriers CGroups 6311 -6361) 19. Justice, Public Order and Safety (Groups 9221 9222 9229 and 9311) 20. Meeting and Banquet Rooms 21. Miscellaneous Retail (Groups 5912 5921 Caccesso1y to grocery or pharmacy only) 5932 5941 - 5949.5992 -5995 and 5999) 22. Personal Services (Groups 7211 7212 7215 7221-7251, 7291-7299) 23. Real Estate CGroups 6512 -6552) 24. Security and Commodity Brokers (Groups 6211 62891 25. Transportation Services CGroup 4724) 26. Video Rental (Group 78411 27. U.S. Post Office (Group 4311 excluding major distribution centers) b. The following uses shall be prohibited: 1. Drinking Places (5813) and Stand Alone Liquor Stores (5921) 2. Mail Order Houses (5961 3. Merchandizing Machine Operators (5962 4. Power Laundries (7211) S. Crematories 07261) 6. Radio TV Representatives (7313) and Direct Mail Advertising Services (7331) 7. NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges Waterslides etc. (7999) 8. General Hospitals (8062) Psychiatric Hospitals 08063) and Specialty Hospitals (80691 9. Elementary and Secondary Schools (821) Colleges (8221) junior Colleges (8222 10. Libraries 08231) 11. Correctional Institutions (9223) 12. Solid Waste Management Services (9511) 13. Homeless Shelters and Soup Kitchens 14. Any use not listed in paragraph "a." above c. Development intensity shall be limited to 210.000 square feet of gross floor area. d. A grocery use shall be constructed first and it shall contain a minimum of 27.000 square feet e. No individual use shall exceed 30,000 square feet of building area with the exception of grocery use. f. Development within this Subdistrict shall be phased and the following commitments related to area roadway improvements shall be completed within the specified time frames: 1 Right-of-Way for Golden Gate Boulevard Expansion and Right -of -Way for the Wilson n Boulevard Expansion will be donated to the County at no cost within 180 days of a written request from the County after rezoning approval. 2 The applicant shall pay its fair share for the intersection improvements at Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard within 90 days of County request for reimbursement. 3. Until the intersection improvements at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard are complete the County shall not issue a Certificate(s) of Occupancy (CO) for more than 100 000 square feet of development The applicant must obtain a C.O. for a grocery store as part of this 100,000 square feet and the grocery store must be the first C.O. obtained. g. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The rezone ordinance shall contain development standards to ensure that all commercial land uses will be compatible with neighboring residential uses. h. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer shall be provided abutting the external right -of -way. This buffer shall contain two staggered rows of trees that shall be spaced no more than 30 feet on center, and a double row hedge at least 24 inches in height at time of planting and attaining a minimum of three feet height within one year. A minimum of 50% of the 25 -foot wide buffer area shall be comprised of a meandering bed of shrubs and ground covers other than grass. Existing native trees must be retained within this 25 -foot wide buffer area to aid in achieving this buffer requirement other existing native vegetation shall be retained, where possible, to aid in achieving this buffer requirement Water retention /detention areas shall be allowed in this buffer area if left in natural state and drainage conveyance through the buffer area shall be allowed if necessary to reach an external outfall. L No commercial building may be constructed within 125 feet of the northern or western n property boundaries of this Subdistict Any portion of the Project directly abutting residential property y (property zoned E Estates and without an approved conditional use) shall provide at a minimum a seventy five (751 feet wide buffer. except the westernmost 330' of Tract 106 which shall provide a minimum 20' wide buffer. in which no parking uses are permitted Twen -five 25) feet of the width of the buffer along the developed area shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of fifty 50) feet of the buffer width shall consist of retained or re- planted native vegetation and must be consistent with subsection 3.05.07.H of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The native vegetation retention area may consist of a perimeter berm and be used for water management detention. Any newly constructed berm shall be revegetated to meet subsection 3 05 07 H of the LDC (native vegetation replanting requirements) Additionally, in order to be considered for approval, use of the native vegetation retention area for water management purposes shall meet the following criteria: 1. There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual h dro- eriod unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the existing vegetation 2. If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management District the project shall provide a letter or official document from the District indicating that the native vegetation within the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water management requirements If the District cannot or will not supply such a letter, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for water management 3. If the project is reviewed by Collier County, the County engineer shall provide evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to facilitate the necessaly storage of water in the water management area k All buildings shall have file roofs 'Old Style Florida' metal roofs or decorative parapet walls above the roofline. The buildings shall be finished in light subdued colors except for decorative trim. 1. Building heights shall be limited to one (1) story and a maximum of thirty five (35) feet m. All lighting shall be architecturally designed and limited to a height of twenty five (25) feet Such lighting shall be shielded from neighboring residential land uses n. Commercial uses shall encourage pedestrian traffic through placement of sidewalks pedestrian walkways, and marked crosswalks within parking areas Adjacent projects shall coordinate placement of sidewalks so that a continuous pathway through the Subdistrict is created o. Drive - through establishments shall be limited to financial institutions with no more than three lanes. The drive - through areas shall be architecturally integrated with the rest of the building. p. Fences or walls may be constructed on the commercial side of the required landscape buffer between adjacent commercial and residential uses If constructed such fences or walls shall not exceed five (5) feet in height Walls shall be constructed of brick or stone Fences shall be of wood or concrete post or rail types and shall be of open design (not covered by slats boards or wire 1. CCPC Transmittal Recommendation for CP -200 8-1 G:ICDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\COMP PLANNING GMP DATA1Comp Plan Amendments12009 -2010 Combined Cycles petitions12010 Cycle PetitionsSCC Transmittal dw/14 -10 — 3/1/11 CP- 2010 -1 CCPC TRANSMITTAL STAFF REPORT Agenda item 9.E. n CO eY' Covr>v�.-ty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JANUARY 20, 2011 RE: PETITION NO. CP- 20010 -1, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] AGENTS /APPLICANT /OWNER Agent: Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey n Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Agent: Richard Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, PA 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Agent/Applicant: Douglas W. Nelson, Vice President EverBank 1185 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34110 Applicant: Tripp Gullitord, Vice President EverBank 1185 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34110 Owner: EverBank 1185 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34110 1 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, totaling ±9.2 acres, is located at the northeast corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road, within the Urban Estates Planning Community in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. IfH�'.r.r'1 1~ ° �`` �lej A ice.~ /, °�f� � •� - „`njw��11 ' � ! I U 1.3 f HISTORY /REQUESTED ACTION: In 2005, the subject site (and Parcel 2, presently zoned CFPUD, The Vanderbilt Trust — 1989) was the subject of a Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) request (Petition CP -2004- 3) that established the existing Subdistrict to allow the permitted and conditional uses of the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts, other limited commercial and non - commercial uses, and residential uses up to 16 dwelling units per acre. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved the petition on June 7, 2005 with the limitation that a single commercial user may not exceed 20,000 square feet after discussing neighboring properties' development expectations, potential "big box" development, and future commercial development on the intervening parcels (zoned "A" on the above zoning map) that were not included within the GMPA request (refer to the attached June 7, 2005 BCC Minutes). The applicant now seeks to amend the Subdistrict (Parcel 1 only) to allow a grocery/supermarket, physical fitness facility, craft/hobby store, home furniture /furnishings store or department store use to exceed the existing 20,000 square feet limitation for a single commercial use, up to a maximum of 50,000 square feet; the uses proposed to exceed the square feet cap are allowed uses within the existing Subdistrict. The petitioner's proposed text changes to the Subdistrict are identified below in underlined text. A. Urban Mixed Use District 16. Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide primarily for neighborhood commercial development at a scale not typically found in the Mixed -use Activity Center Subdistrict. The intent is to provide commercial uses to serve the emerging residential development in close proximity to this Subdistrict, and to provide employment opportunities for residents in the surrounding area. Allowable uses shall be a variety of commercial uses as more particularly described below, and mixed use (commercial and residential). Prohibited uses shall be gas stations and convenience stores with gas pumps, and certain types of fast food restaurants. 2 IF Pt” pdsed I Project Site W7, 61 W7 L U 1.3 f HISTORY /REQUESTED ACTION: In 2005, the subject site (and Parcel 2, presently zoned CFPUD, The Vanderbilt Trust — 1989) was the subject of a Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) request (Petition CP -2004- 3) that established the existing Subdistrict to allow the permitted and conditional uses of the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts, other limited commercial and non - commercial uses, and residential uses up to 16 dwelling units per acre. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved the petition on June 7, 2005 with the limitation that a single commercial user may not exceed 20,000 square feet after discussing neighboring properties' development expectations, potential "big box" development, and future commercial development on the intervening parcels (zoned "A" on the above zoning map) that were not included within the GMPA request (refer to the attached June 7, 2005 BCC Minutes). The applicant now seeks to amend the Subdistrict (Parcel 1 only) to allow a grocery/supermarket, physical fitness facility, craft/hobby store, home furniture /furnishings store or department store use to exceed the existing 20,000 square feet limitation for a single commercial use, up to a maximum of 50,000 square feet; the uses proposed to exceed the square feet cap are allowed uses within the existing Subdistrict. The petitioner's proposed text changes to the Subdistrict are identified below in underlined text. A. Urban Mixed Use District 16. Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide primarily for neighborhood commercial development at a scale not typically found in the Mixed -use Activity Center Subdistrict. The intent is to provide commercial uses to serve the emerging residential development in close proximity to this Subdistrict, and to provide employment opportunities for residents in the surrounding area. Allowable uses shall be a variety of commercial uses as more particularly described below, and mixed use (commercial and residential). Prohibited uses shall be gas stations and convenience stores with gas pumps, and certain types of fast food restaurants. 2 The Subdistrict consists of two parcels comprising approximately 17 acres, located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and east of Livingston Road, as shown on the Subdistrict Map. For mixed -use development, residential density shall be limited to sixteen dwelling units per acres. Residential density shall be calculated based upon the gross acreage of the Subdistrict parcel on which it is located (Parcel 1 or Parcel 2). Rezoning of the parcels comprising this Subdistrict is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD, Planned Unit Development. At the time of rezoning, the applicant must include architectural and landscape standards for each parcel. a. Parcel This parcel is located at the intersection of Livingston Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. A maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial uses may be allowed. Allowable uses shall be the following, except as prohibited above: retail, personal service, restaurant, office, and all other uses as allowed, whether by right or by conditional use, in the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04 -41, as amended, in effect as of the date of adoption of this Subdistrict (Ordinance No. 2005 -25 adopted on June 7, 2005); other comparable and/or compatible land uses not found specifically in the C -1 through C-3 zoning districts, limited to: general and medical offices, government offices, financial institutions, personal and business services, limited indoor recreational uses, and limited retail uses; mixed -use development (residential and commercial uses). The maximum floor area for any single commercial user shall be 20,000 square feet, except for a grocery /supermarket physical fitness facility, craft/hobby store home furniture /furnishing store or department store use which shall not exceed a maximum of 50,000 square feet. b. Parcel This parcel is located approximately Y4 mile east of Livingston Road and is adjacent to multifamily residential uses. A maximum of 80,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial uses may be allowed. Allowable uses shall be the following, except as prohibited above: General and medical offices, community facilities, and business and personal services, all as allowed, whether by right or by conditional use, in the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04 -41, as amended, in effect as of the date of adoption of this Subdistrict (Ordinance No. 2005 -25 adopted on June 7, 2005). The maximum floor area for any single commercial user shall be 20,000 square feet. At the time of rezoning of Parcel 2, the developer shall provide restrictions and standards to insure that uses and hours of operation are compatible with surrounding land uses. Permitted uses such as assisted living facilities, independent living facilities for persons over the age of 55, continuing care retirement communities, and nursing homes, shall be restricted to a maximum of 200 units and a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.6. The developer of Parcel 2 shall provide a landscape buffer along the eastern property line, abutting the Wilshire Lakes PUD, at a minimum width of thirty (30) feet. At the time of rezoning, the developer shall incorporate a detailed landscape plan for that portion of the property fronting Vanderbilt Beach Road as well as that portion along the eastern property line, abutting the Wilshire Lakes PUD. Words underlined are added, as proposed by the petitioner SURROUNDING LAND USE ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION Existinq Conditions: The subject site is zoned Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD — Bradford Square), and is approved for up to 100,000 square feet of C -1 through C -3 commercial uses, 10 residential multi- family units, and other non - residential uses such as essential service and open space and recreational uses. The Future Land Use designation is Urban Commercial Mixed Use District, Vanderilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. The site is undeveloped. Surrounding Land Uses: North: The Pelican Marsh PUD /DRI is located to the north of the subject property and is presently developed with a golf course. The Future Land Use designation is Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. East: The land east of the subject property is zoned Agricultural "A," and is presently developed with a pet hospital and resort, and an equestrian center. The Future Land Use designation is Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. South: The land to the south of the subject property, across Vanderbilt Beach Road, is the Vineyards PUD /DRI and is currently developed with multifamily homes. The Future Land Use designation is Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. West: The land to the west of the subject property, across Livingston Road, is part of the Pelican Marsh PUD /DRI and is developed with a golf course and a golf course maintenance facility. The Future Land Use designation is Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. STAFF ANALYSIS Considerations: The proposed change to allow certain uses to exceed the 20,000 square feet cap for a single commercial user within the Subdistrict is not expected to generate additional impacts. The existing Subdistrict allows the same uses as those proposed by this Growth Management Plan amendment and the existing Subdistrict does not contain development standards specific to this parcel. Additionally, the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) approved for the subject site contains appropriate development standards to ensure that the existing approved development within the project is compatible with surrounding properties. Further, the proposed increase in commercial intensity, from 20,000 to 50,000 square feet for certain commercial uses, will be reviewed for compatibility with surrounding properties at time of rezoning /PUD amendment. There are no additional public facilities impacts resulting from the proposed GMPA, as noted in the analysis below. Because commercial demand, and project intensity and density were established with the original GMPA approval in 2005, and no additional uses and commercial square feet are proposed by this GMPA, staff did not request a needs analysis for this petition. Environmental Impacts: Environmental conditions have not changed since the original Plan amendment in 2005 and subsequent PUD rezoning. Further, an environmental analysis will be required as part of a subsequent rezoning /PUD amendment. Traffic Capacity/Traffic Impacts: The proposed amendment does not modify the previously approved maximum intensity of development. The previously approved impact statement for this site had an adjusted Total Daily trip count of 5185 with 480 adjusted PM Peak Hour trips (6880 Total Daily, 635 P.M. Peak Hour Trips — Unadjusted). The PM Peak hour service volume on Livingston Road between Vanderbilt and Immokalee Roads is 3,840 vehicles (Total Volume is 1510 trips and Remaining Capacity is 2330 trips). The PM Peak hour service volume on Vanderbilt Beach Road between Logan and Livingston Roads is 3,540 vehicles (Total Volume is 1934 trips and Remaining Capacity is 1606 trips). 4 Transportation Planning staff has reviewed this petition and concluded that no change to the maximum traffic impact is evident as a result of the proposed re- allocation of commercial square feet within the Subdistrict (certain commercial uses allowed to exceed the existing 20,000 square feet limitation for a single commercial use, up to a maximum of 50,000 square feet, as part of the shopping center use). Further, staff recommends that this application may be found consistent with policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Public Facilities Impact: Public Facilities (water, waste water, parks, etc.) conditions have not changed since the original Plan amendment in 2005 and subsequent PUD rezoning. Further, public facilities analyses will be required as part of a subsequent rezoning/PUD amendment. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) NOTES (provided by the agent and reviewed and edited by staff) The Neighborhood Information meeting was held on Monday, November 1, 2010 from 5:35 p.m. to 6:50 p.m. at the Hampton Inn Naples /1 -75, located at 2630 Northbrooke Plaza Drive, Naples, FL, after the agent dully noticed and advertised the meeting as required by the Collier County Land Development Code. D. Wayne Arnold, agent for the applicant opened the meeting at 5:35 p.m. In attendance was Michele Mosca, representing Collier County, and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., agent for the applicant. At the time the meeting began, eight people were in attendance. A sign -in sheet was provided at the entrance of the meeting room and all eight attendees signed -in. Aerial photographs of the site and surrounding area were displayed. Mr. Arnold explained the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment application process, project location, and description of the proposed text changes to the Future Land Element of the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Arnold emphasized that the proposed increase from 20,000 square feet to up to 50,000 square feet for a limited number of commercial uses is necessary in order to establish a successful commercial center with key anchor tenants. The overall maximum commercial development on Parcel 1 of the Subdistrict will remain unchanged at 100,000 square feet. Ms. Mosca provided the tentative transmittal hearing dates for the CCPC and BCC — CCPC in December and BCC in January/February. Questions were raised in regard to landscape buffering, building heights, traffic volumes, and hours of operation. The neighbors were also concerned about empty store fronts and the over abundance of vacant commercial in the area and asked how this project would benefit the surrounding neighborhoods. The residents also expressed that they did not want to see a Wal -Mart or Target on the site. Mr. Arnold answered questions from the neighbors, and both Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Arnold agreed that they would work with the neighbors as they had done in the past with the original Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone. Several attendees indicated their opposition to the proposed amendment in its current form but agreed to meet with the applicant to address outstanding concerns. Mr. Arnold invited anyone with further questions to contact his office or contact Ms. Mosca. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: • The magnitude and scale of this project (100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area of C -1 to C- 3 commercial uses, and other similar commercial uses) are consistent with neighborhood commercial development at the upper size limits. 5 • The subject site abuts an arterial road – Livingston Road and a collector road – Vanderbilt Beach Road. • No additional commercial uses or overall commercial square feet are proposed by this amendment. • No additional public facilities impacts will be generated as a result of the proposed change. • The petition is generally compatible with surrounding land uses. A more detailed compatibility analysis will be performed at time of rezoning /PUD amendment. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CP- 2010 -1 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval to transmit to the Florida Department of Community of Affairs. Prepared By: Date: ••Michele R. Mos. P, Principal Planner Comprehensiv anning Section D—,!� W Reviewed B Y : W— Date: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager Comprehensive Planning Section Reviewed By:_ Date: Michael Bosi, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager Comprehensive Plannin Section n^ Reviewed By: ! Date: liam D. Lorenz, r., PE, irector Lan lopment Services Department Approved B : Date: Nick Casal g ' , Deputy Administrator Growth Management Division PETITION NO.: CP- 2010 -01 Staff Report for the January 20, 2010 CCPC Meeting. Dt -10 -Z-c[ /-)2--// NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the March 22, 2011, BCC Meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN June 7, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas -- MS. MOSCA: Commissioners, if I may, I just have a correction for the record. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. MOSCA: If I may., I apologize for interrupting. staff. For the record, Michele Mosca with the comprehensive planning The only change I have is a correction to the ordinance. What we'd like to do is accurately reflect the project acreage. The redesignation of 79 acres, rather than 80 to sending, and the redesignation of 153 acres to receiving, with a total project acreage of 232. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm fine. I was going to make a motion, but Commissioner Fiala did. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign. (No response.) CHAHUMIAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us with to the next item, which is Petition CP- 2004 -3. Petition requesting amendment to the future land use element and future land use map to create a new Page 62 June 7, 2005 Vanderbilt Beach Road neighborhood commercial subdistrict to allow for C -1 through C -3 commercial uses, other comparable and/or compatible commercial uses not found specifically in the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts. Mixed use development and indoor self storage on two parcels, one located at the northeast corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road- and Livingston Road, which is 9.18 acres, and one parcel further east on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, eight acres, zoned Vanderbilt Trust PUD, in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, urban estates planning community. And Mr. Arnold, Wayne Arnold, will present. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Commissioners. Wayne Arnold for the record, here with Rich Yovanovich, Tammy Kipp, Amy Turner, who are the property owners of the subject petition. Staff report was very clear. The property is two parcels located on Vanderbilt Beach Road; one at the corner of Livingston Road, the other is just slightly removed by two parcels to the east. This started out under your original transmittal to the state with the reference to indoor self - storage. Between the transmittal and our adoption today, and in fact before the planning commission, we held a neighborhood informational meeting out at the Vineyards Community School, well attended by residents from Wilshire Lakes, as well as some residents from Village Walk, which is across the street from the two parcels. And one thing was very clear at that meeting, nobody was supporting indoor self - storage. So after that meeting, we modified our request to eliminate the indoor self - storage reference in this. I understand that the text that's before you today still has one stray reference to indoor self - storage that I think staff s going to tell you it should be removed. But that was probably the largest discussion point at that meeting. And so we eliminated that request. We did have follow -up meetings with certain residents of Wilshire Lakes and Fieldstone Village Condominium that's part of Page 63 June 7, 2005 '^ Wilshire Lakes, as well as representatives from Village Walk board of directors. And after that meeting, I think it was clear that the self - storage was a use that they were very happy that we were willing to give up. Also out of that meeting we learned that there was a concern over gas station uses. We agreed to eliminate gas stations and convenience stores with gas pumps. The other significant amendment was there was a concern about certain types of fast food restaurants. Not all fast food, but -- I could name some of them, but they're primarily the type that serve hamburgers of the fried variety, and we agreed that the most appropriate reference rather than naming specific chain restaurant names, was to --'I think it was David Weeks who actually coined the phrase, it would be limited fast food restaurants would be prohibited. So you'll now find this a little bit reorganized, but there's prohibition on self - storage, prohibition on gas stations and a limitation on certain types of restaurants, if you will. And the other couple things that we did do, we agreed to provide a minimum 30 -foot buffer adjacent to the Wilshire Lakes property, which would be our eastern boundary, and we agreed to allow the county and Wilshire Lakes to work along our common property line to bring a sound wall, if required, as part of the six -lane improvements for Vanderbilt Beach Road, to turn it north along our common property line to help satisfy some of the noise concerns that the Fieldstone Village residents had with the six- laning. The other thing that we agreed to do that I think both groups that we've primarily worked with here were happy to hear was the fact that we were willing to bring forward a specific landscape plan and architectural standards as part of the zoning that we'll certainly follow so that we can demonstrate to them that this isn't your typical commercial type development. And in fact, on the eastern parcel, with the limitations that we have, there is no retail even permitted, it's Page 64 June 7, 2005 now primarily office, professional service type uses and assisted p facilities. living type facilities, those types of community our es. neighbors that And I think we have concurrence from all of o could move we're on the right track and they would hope that we forward endorsing the plan amendment- One planning commission had One of the other suggestions that onin was that in the that would be certainly something tied to that no Certificates zoning document, they would look for assurances of Occupancy for either parcel would be is sued until October of '07, which coordinates with the six -lane improve ments for Vanderbilt Beach Road. But with that, that's really my presentation. We would encourage you all to adopt it. We've had unanimous recommendation from Planning Commission. I think y ou'll hear . favor of it from at least one of our neighbors here that they're now limited with the elimination of self - storage, the gas stations an restaurant uses. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have one public speaker. Would you like to listen to speakers first, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure. MS. FILSON: Your speaker is Kathleen Adams. MS. ADAMS: Kathleen Adams, Village Walk Homeowners Association. Many of you may remember that you did receive a letter from us, along with a petition, asking for residential. And after meeting with the folks from the Turner family and their representation, we're convinced that what they're proposing is something that we can live with and we have absolutely no objection to it, and we urge you to vote for it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I think you were -- what is Page 65 June 7, 2005 the height of the buildings going to be in that general area? I think you were looking at coming up with assisted living and some office space. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. Right now the assisted living that was approved as part of the Vanderbilt Trust PUD on the easternmost parcel, which is known as parcel two, allows for 50 -foot building heights on that parcel. One of the things that we had talked about was adding a building height to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment language, and the Planning Commission eliminated that early on, thinking that if we put a height then we're entitled to get it. And I think there was a thought that let us be silent on height in the comprehensive plan and let's debate that point of what's the appropriate height when we come back for zoning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion for approval by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. Cornrnissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, this is boxing in a parcel in between that I can see the only future use for that one would be commercial. And why would you put residential in between two commercials? So my concern is that we limit it, that there won't be any big boxes on either one of these parcels, Parcel A or Parcel B. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So Parcel 1 or Parcel 2? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Both. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. MR. ARNOLD: If I might address that. I don't -- in the context that I think of big box retail, if that's like some of the other users that we've had, the Toys R*Us, the Sports Authorities, things of that size, your code talks about them being 20,000 square feet or larger Page 66 June 7, 2005 q ualifies under the big box regulations that you have in the land development code. The only way that I see any individual user exceeding 20,000 is if we end up with an assisted living facility t hat would house that much square footagen the corner you would end up But otherwise, I really envision o Y with more of a retail center that would have outparcels. And that in itself may exceed 20,000 square feet, but I don t think we've envisioned a single user that would connote a big box user COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the only for that is this the parcel might languish for years and years, and then the people in middle here come back for a comprehensive amendment and therefore demonstrating a big box, so -- NM. ARNOLD: Well, if it would satisfy the Commissioners' concerns, I guess if we could keep it to single user not exceeding the 20,000 square -foot standard, I think that that's something that works for us. We don't certainly envision that -- COMMIS SIONER HALAS : That's in my motion. MR. ARNOLD: -- on the retail or commercial side of things. No retail or commercial -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the difference between what I said and what you're saying? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that there is. I was just trying to clarify that we meant a single use. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wonder if your assisted living is 20,000? Then all of a sudden you've defeated that, right? MR. ARNOLD: Maybe what we should say is no retail or commercial use would exceed the 20,000. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Retail or commercial. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we have a motion by Commissioner Halas -- MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, staff has to put a couple of things on the record. Page 67 June 7, 2005 ^ Mr. Moss? MR. MOSS: Good morning, Commissioners, John -David Moss, Comprehensive Planning. As Mr. Arnold mentioned, if you look at the exhibit that's been provided to you, there is in the second line the phrase "and indoor self- storage," which needs to be stricken. So I just wanted to point that out. I also wanted to point out that I did speak with another community group in the neighborhood, and although they were opposed to it initially, they are perfectly satisfied with the changes that have been made and they're 100 percent in support of it also. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Halas, seconded by Commissioner Fiala for approval with the stipulation that no single commercial or retail user will occupy either of these sites and that we will strike any -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Size of the building, less than 20,000 feet -- square feet. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it's greater than 20,000 feet. But if we -- is that where we are, no single user -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No individual user can exceed 20,000 square feet of retail. And there's no retail at all on Parcel 2, so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't mean individual user, you mean individual retail user. Isn't that what you said? MR YOVANOVICH: Yes. On Parcel 1 where commercial and retail is allowed, no individual single retail user will be allowed to exceed 20,000 square -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Retail or commercial user will be committed (sic) to build there. And we will strike all references to indoor self- storage. Okay, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the key word is commercial. That's retail and offices. And the other one about the June 7, 2005 indoor storage, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I've already stipulated that and it's included in this motion. I want to make sure we're clear on what you're saying, Commissioner Henning. We're saying retail or commercial. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you just say commercial, that takes care of office and retail, that you can only limit it to 20,000 square feet. It would be on both parcels. MR. ARNOLD: Right. I don't think we have an objection to the direction we're headed. I guess the only hesitation .I would have is the only C -1 to C -3 use that we would envision that could ever exceed that 20,000 might be something like a supermarket or grocery store. It could be an anchor tenant that has that type of square footage. I don't know if that use is a specific concern, but, you know, I understand which way we're headed. I don't want to make this too confusing, but like I said, I think that would be the only type of use I can envision under those C -1 to C -3 as a retail type commercial use that could gain that kind of square footage. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm trying to get the specific language for this motion in place. Are we going to say retail and commercial not to exceed 20,000 feet for a single user, or are we just going to say conunercial? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commercial, Commissioner, is anything. It's office, it's retail, it's industrial, it's -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it assisted living? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there's still some discussion about this issue. MR. ARNOLD: Could I just ask clarification? Is there a concern specifically about a grocery store? Because I -- that would be the only hesitation I'd have about boxing ourselves in to something that we didn't intend -- Page 69 June 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER HAT "AS: I don't think a grocery store even enters into this, with the size of the parcel that's here. And I think from my understanding talking with the particular people that own this property, the discussion was that it may be a certain type of restaurant, it may be little curio shops, and then it may be also assisted living on the other part. So that's my understanding. So as far as exceeding the 20,000, I don't even think that really enters into the picture. MR. ARNOLD: To be honest, Commissioner, it didn't to me either until the issue was raised by Commissioner Henning about the big box. And dust not knowing exactly what the mix of tenants is that was the only tenant that I could envision that could exceed that 20,000 square feet. But I certainly understand and I don't want to overcomplicate something I think we're headed in the direction we need. CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's the motion going to say? COMMISSIONER HAT "AS: Well, the motion should say that this is strictly for small -scale retail or restaurants that fit the agenda that's been discussed by not only the petitioner but also by the community that was accepted. And I think the things that were brought forth through all the negotiations with the property owners that surrounded this particular piece of property, I think that's what we need to address in that manner. And I think that everybody realized that what was going to be there is basically assisted living on Parcel No. 2, and on Parcel No. I there would be no gas stations, but there could be a restaurant there, an upscale restaurant or whatever else, and maybe some upscale type of coffee shops or whatever else. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does that help clarify? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, stop, okay? You guys sit down. Commissioner Henning, go ahead. Page 70 June 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me clarify the motion and you can correct me, Commissioner. It's a motion to approve removal of self - storage out of the parcel and limit the square foot of commercial space to single user to 20,000 -- not to exceed 20,000. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not to exceed 20,000. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And thaf s okay with your second, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further discussion? (No response.) b saying CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify y y g aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS : Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Commissioners o Petition Na. MUDD: Commissioner, that bungs us t CP- 2004 -4. It's a petition requesting an amendment to the future land use element to change the rural fringe mixed use district sending lands to add three transfer of development rights, TDR bonun into provisions, each for one TDR credit for, number one, early entry the TDR program; number two, environmental restoration and maintenance; and number three, fee simple conveyance to a government agency by gift and to amend the rural village development standards. And Mr. Bruce Anderson is going to preseCo Commissioners. My MR. ANDERSON: Good morning again, Page 71 CPSP- 2010 -2 TRANSMITTAL STAFF REPORT, INCLUDING STAFF REPORT REVISIONS 1/12/11 Agenda Item 9.D. STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION /PLANNING AND REGULATION, LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2010 RE: PETITION NO. CPSP - 2010 -2, STAFF PETITION REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] Coordinator. David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager REQUESTED ACTION and STAFF ANALYSIS: This petition consists of several individual staff - initiated text and map amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series. These amendments were specifically, or generally, authorized by the Board of County Commissioners on September 14, 2010. Most, but not all, of the amendments seek only to add clarity, correct text and map errors and omissions, and provide harmony and internal consistency. However, there are exceptions, including: 1) changes to Policy 5.1 to allow redistribution of use density and intensity; 2) modification of the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict pertaining to its applicability; 3) changes to the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B /GTRO) to delete a development standard, add a use, and add clarity regarding applicability of FLUE Policies; and, 4) update the Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map. Each amendment is identified below with brief explanation /analysis. ]Within the proposed amended text, words underlined are added, and words &t^ 4 ^L th G .,h are deleted.] Future Land Use Element Text 1. Revise FLUE Policy 5.1 so as to allow, through rezoning, re- distribution of zoning and uses for sites with "non- conforming" - zoning districts, including adjacent sites without "non- conforming" zoning, so long as acreages remain the same. This amendment will provide greater development flexibility but will still allow the County to determine appropriateness of allowing that flexibility through the rezone review and hearing processes. There should be no impact upon infrastructure but there will be the potential to result in a better development pattern. Policy 5.1: All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13, the following provisions apply: Agenda Item 9.D. text break d. For property deemed to be consistent with this Element pursuant to one or more of policies 5.9 through 5.13, said properly may, through a zoning change, be combined and developed with other property, whether such other property is deemed consistent via those same policies or is deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section. Such combination of properties may include re- distribution of zoning districts so long as the acreage for each existing zoning district that is deemed consistent via the referenced 12olicies does not increase. For residential and mixed use developments only, the accumulated density between these properties may be distributed throughout the project, as provided for in the Density Rating System or the Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, as applicable. 2. Revise the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict to allow for its applicability when a proposed rezone site is abutting commercial -zoned property within an Infill Subdistrict if the site also abuts commercial zoning not within an Infill Subdistrict. Not doing so results in either that site not qualifying at all for rezone to commercial or that site being limited to (transitional) low intensity commercial zoning - even though that site may abut high intensity commercial zoning within the Infill Subdistrict. There is at least one such instance - a parcel on the south side of Pine Ridge Road abuts commercial zoning within an Activity Center on one side and abuts commercial zoning within an Infill Subdistrict on the other side. Office and In -fill Commercial Subdistrict text break * *� The criteria listed below must be met for any project utilizing this Subdistrict. text break�'y * H * ** 1. For properties zoned commercial pursuant to any of the Infill Subdistricts in the Urban Mixed Use District or in the Urban Commercial District, said commercial zoning shall not qualify to cause the abutting property(s) to become eligible for commercial zoning under this Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict if said commercial zoning is the only commercial zoning abutting the site for which rezoning is sought. 3. Correct a date in the Davis Boulevard /County Barn Road Mixed -Use Subdistrict. Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed -Use Subdistrict * * * * ** text break Projects within this Subdistrict shall comply with the following standards and criteria: Commercial Component,, E� text break � *'"�'. **'`* * *.'`�"�.`«�".� *' 5. Allowable commercial uses in the commercial component shall be limited to those uses permitted in the C -1, C -2, and C -3 zoning districts as contained in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended, in effect as of the date of adoption of this Subdistrict (Ordinance No. 2005 -25 adopted on 3uae 27 June 7, 2005) 4. Modify the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands provisions for essential services for proper organization, to specifically list water pumping stations and raw water wells, and to re -letter subparagraphs as necessary. RFMUD Sending Lands,F, text break 7. Permitted Uses: 7.a throu f) Essential Services necessary to serve permitted uses identified in Section �) TO - O gh �\ :private wells and septic tanks, '''.� '* 7.e such as r 2 Agenda Item 9.D. flFc ed pei4jeas vrc� �aTC'z$R 3�— f --$ fieeessafy to -serve the lT ti :TTt and S r• g) Essential Services as follows, necessary to serve Urban areas or the Rural Transition Water and Sewer District: utiLrty lines except sewer lines, lines and lift stations only if located within non -NRPA Sending Lands and only if located within already cleared portions of existing rights -of -way or easements; and, water Wiping stations and raw water wells g) h) Essential Services necessary to ensure public safety. h3 �i) Oil and gas exploration. Where practicable, directional - drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized to minimize impacts to native habitats. 5. Modify the Conservation designation provision for essential services for proper organization, to specifically list water pumping stations and raw water wells, to add reference to Urban areas, to re -letter subparagraphs as necessary, and to re -letter the paragraph reference under the conditional uses provision as necessary. Conservation Designation text break The following uses are authorized in this Designation. text break h. Essential Services necessary to serve permitted uses identified in Section a through g above such as private wells and septic tanks -k$ee��se� =ems lilt sta ieBs 1 if leeated v4tbin TTDPA Genseivatien Lands, ,1 1 if 1 * ,7 fien ah-eady al e f sting Fights of way or- ea emeaTTY and if li b �. an at s ti ubliely ewne er privately ewned eentrel water- system pr-evidifig to uFban areas , senixiee i. Essential Services as follows, necessary to serve Urban areas or the Rural Transition Water and Sewer District: utility lines. except sewer lines, lines and lift stations only if located within non -NRPA Conservation Lands, and only if located within already cleared portions of existing rights- of -wav or easements and if necessary to serve a publicly owned or privately owned central sewer system providing service to urban areas and/or the Rural Transition Water and Sewer District; and, water pumping stations and raw water wells necessary to serve a up blicly owned or privately owned central water system rop viding service to urban areas and/or the Rural Transition Water and Sewer District. iz L Essential Services necessary to ensure public safety. k. Oil extraction and related processing. Where practicable, directional- drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized to minimize impacts to native habitats. The following uses may be permitted as Conditional Uses: a) The following uses are conditionally permitted subject to approval through a public hearing process: (1) Essential services not identified above in Paragraph h., i• and �i Within one ... rx+"*** text break 6. Make five changes to the B /GTRO, Bays h ore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. In part, these amendments will aid the Community Redevelopment Agency in their efforts to promote development and redevelopment within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle area. a. Correct a date. b. Add performing arts center type uses. The proposed use is not listed in the C -1 thru C -3 zoning districts though some theater use(s) is allowed in C -3 by conditional use. Agenda Item 9.D. The BCC has designated the B /GTRO area as a cultural district" and this use is appropriate, perhaps necessary, for such a district. The CCPC and BCC should be aware that there is, or may be, a difference in the community theater presently allowed in B /GTRO by C -1 thru C -3 zoning districts vs. that proposed — larger size (visuallbulk impact), greater attendance possible (thus greater traffic impact). Nonetheless, staff supports the use addition. c. Clarify that uses are allowed as provided by FLUE Policies. d. Delete the development standard of feet per story. This is a unique development standard in the FLUE. Deleting it leaves such a determination to the Land Development Code (LDC), or possibly building codes. It may not be appropriate to even have such a standard in the LDC — within the Bayshore Mixed Use District (BMUD) — but if it is in the LDC, then it would be subject to deviation and variance processes such that a case -by- case evaluation would be possible; if the BCC determined it was warranted/justified, then they could approve a development order exceeding that standard. One intent of the B /GTRO is to develop at a human scale. The limitation on the number of stories combined with a story height limit serves to cap the total building height. A different way to accomplish this would have been to simply impose a maximum building height in the FLUE, e.g. 50 feet. The same principal as above applies — such a development standard is best located in the LDC where a case -by -case review could allow for an appropriately justified deviation or variance. e. Re -letter subparagraphs as needed to correlate with deletion of the development standard entry. Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay The Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is n within the boundaries of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on Mareh 14, -2 June 13, 2000. tee* text break 1. Mixed -Use Development: Mix of residential and commercial uses are permitted. For such development, commercial uses are limited to C -1 through C -3 zoning district uses; plus hotel/motel usei theatrical producers (except motion picture) bands orchestras and entertainers, and uses as may be allowed by pplicable FLUE Policies. Mixed -use projects will be pedestrian oriented and are encouraged to provide access (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle) to nearby residential areas. The intent is to encourage pedestrian use of the commercial area and to provide opportunity for nearby residents to access these commercial uses without traveling onto major roadways. Parking facilities are encouraged to be located in the rear of the buildings with the buildings oriented closer to the major roadway to promote traditional urban development. x* e� * *,+x,�x*, x�+ *«* t* t, *.�►m text break 8. To qualify for 12 dwelling units per acre, as provided for in paragraphs #4 and #5 above, mixed use projects within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay must comply with the following standards: a. Buildings containing only commercial uses are limited to a maximum height of three stories. b. Buildings containing only residential uses are limited to a maximum height of three stories except such buildings are allowed a maximum height of four stories if said residential buildings are located in close proximity to US-41. c. Buildings containing mixed use (residential uses over commercial uses) are limited to a maximum height of four stories. d. Hotels /motels will be limited to a maximum height of four stories. f. e. For mixed -use buildings, commercial uses are permitted on the first two stories only. n al Agenda Item 9.D. g. f. Each building containing commercial uses only is limited to a maximum building footprint /'� of 20,000 square feet gross floor area- h-. g_ One or more zoning overlays may be adopted which may include more restrictive standards than listed above in Paragraphs as -f. 7. Correct an omission by adding the missing FLUE Policy reference. The hard copy FLUE text already includes this Policy reference - and others; however, the policy reference was not .adopted, and the other policy references were not adopted and they do not correlate with the Properties Consistent By Policy Map. FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES ****""' text break Properties Consistent By Policy (5.9, 5.10, 5.11,5. JI J2 Future Land Use Map and Map Series 1. Future Land Use Map (countywide). a. Expand Incorporated Areas to reflect City of Naples annexations of the Collier Park of Commerce, on west side of Airport- Pulling Road and north of the Naples Airport (35 -49- 25); a portion of the Wilderness Country Club PUD commercial tract, on east side of Goodlette -Frank Road and north of Freedom Park (27- 49 -25); and, the Bridges at Gordon River project, on south side of Golden Gate Parkway opposite Freedom Park and on the west side of the Gordon River (27- 49 -25). b. Correct South Golden Gate Estates NRPA (Natural Resource Protection Area) boundary at US41, Port of the Islands and at 1 -75: shift boundary north so it follows 1 -75, follows US41, and follows the south line of Sections 33, 34, 35, Township 51 South, Range 28 East (so is no longer over Port of the Islands Urban area). c. Correct Agricultural/Rural boundary near US41 /CR29 /Everglades City: shift boundary to west to run along CR29, to follow ACSC (Area of Critical State Concern) boundary, and to follow west Section line of Sections 28 & 33, Township 52 South, Range 29 East; and, shift boundary to south to follow US41. d. Correct Agricultural /Rural -Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay- Conservation boundary along CR850, northwest of Immokalee: remove jog along common line for Sections 8 & 9, Township 46 South, Range 28 East - from near southeast corner of Section 7 — so that boundary runs along CR850 to the northeast. e. In map legend, add Interchange symbol under Overlays and Special Features and label: "Interchange." 2. Activity Center Index Map. Revise Activity Center #18 boundary to match the boundary on Activity Center #18 Map, to reflect prior expansion in southeast quadrant. Revise Activity Center #14 boundary to reflect City of Naples annexation of the Bridges at Gordon River project, in southeast quadrant. Revise City of Naples boundary to reflect City of Naples annexations of Hole -in- the -Wall Golf Club, on east side of Goodlette -Frank Road and north of Wilderness Country Club PUD (22- 49 -25); and, Collier Park of Commerce, on west side of Airport- Pulling Road (35-49 -25). 3. All Activity Center Maps. Revise to update underlying map features — zoning, lot/parcel creation, street names, etc. — and to reflect parcel development and generalized building footprints. 4. Activity Center #12 Map. 5 Agenda. Item 9.D. Revise City of Naples boundary to reflect City of Naples annexations of Moorings Park, on east side of Goodlette -Frank Road and north of Solana Road /Burning Tree Drive (15- 49 -25); and, a church zoned RSF-4, on south side of Seagate Drive and west of Seagate Elementary School (16- 49 -25). 5. Activity Center #14 Map. Revise Activity Center #14 boundary to reflect City of Naples annexation of the Bridges at Gordon River project, in southeast quadrant. Revise City of Naples boundary to reflect City of Naples annexation of a portion of Wilderness Country Club PUD commercial tract, on east side of Goodlette -Frank Road. 6. Map FLUE -10, Consistent by Policy Map. Revise City of Naples boundary to reflect City of Naples annexations of the Bridges at Gordon River project, on south side of Golden Gate Parkway; a church zoned RSF-4, on south side of Seagate Drive; Hole -in- the -Wall Golf Club, on east side of Goodlette -Frank Road; and, Collier Park of Commerce, on west side of Airport- Pulling Road. 7. Rivers and Floodplains Map. Revise City of Naples boundary to reflect City of Naples annexations of Hole -in -the -Wall Golf Club, on east side of Goodlette -Frank Road; Collier Park of Commerce, on west side of Airport- Pulling Road; and, the Bridges at Gordon River project, on south side of Golden Gate Parkway. 8. Estuarine Bays Map. Revise City of Naples boundary to reflect City of Naples annexations of Hole -in- the -Wall Golf Club, on east side of Goodlette -Frank Road; Collier Park of Commerce, on west side of Airport- Pulling Road; and, the Bridges at Gordon River project, on south side of Golden Gate Parkway. 9. Soils Map. Revise City of Naples boundary to reflect City of Naples annexations of Hole -in- the -Wall Golf Club, on east side of Goodlette -Frank Road; Collier Park of Commerce, on west side of Airport- Pulling Road; and, the Bridges at Gordon River project, on south side of Golden Gate Parkway. 10. Existing Commercial Mineral Extraction Sites Map. Revise City of Naples boundary to reflect City of Naples annexations of Hole -in- the -Wall Golf Club, on east side of Goodlette -Frank Road; Collier Park of Commerce, on west side of Airport- Pulling Road; and, the. Bridges at Gordon River project, on south side of Golden Gate Parkway. 11. Stewardship Overlay Map. Amend to add additional approved Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA 10 -15), as required by Policy 1.6 of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, and to correct the boundaries of SSA 7. 12. Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map Replace existing map with proposed map based upon the latest hydrologic modeling report (prepared by the Collier County Pollution Control and Prevention Department), as required by Objective 1 of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub - Element and subsequent policies, and Objective 3.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) and subsequent policies. More explanation is provided in the attached Staff Report to the EAC for their December 1, 2010 meeting. The hydrologic modeling report is also attached. As required by CCME Policy 3.3.2, public notice specific to this map was provided prior to the EAC and CCPC meetings, and will be provided prior to the BCC meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Only the proposed amendment to the Wellhead Protection Map is germane to the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC). The EAC heard that amendment at their December 1, 2010 meeting. Their recommendation will be presented at the CCPC hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CPSP - 2010 -2 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. �.. Prepared By: Date: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager Comprehensive Planning Section, Land Development Services Department Reviewed By:-�� Date: Michael Bosi, AICP, Planning Manager Comprehensive Planning Section, Land Development Services Department n Reviewed By: ,-, t Date: 12- - C-> I - 2 C)/ b Wilfiam D. Loren `, Jr., P. , Director Land Development Services Department Approved By: �f Date: Pick. alanguida, eputy dministrator Growth Management Division /Planning & Regulation Petition Number. CPSP- 2010 -2 Staff Report for December 16, 2010 CPCC meeting NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the February 22, 2011 BCC meeting, COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Mark P. Strain, CHAIRMAN CPSP 2010 2 CCPC Transmittal Staff Report dw 11 -30-10 G :1Comprehensrve\COMP PLANNING GMP DATAIComp Plan Amendments12009 -2010 Combined Cycles pe6tionsT010 Cycie PeWonslCPSP- 2.010 -2 batchICCPC Transmittal UM-30-10 7 CPSP- 2010 -2 Staff Report Revisions 1112/11 Below are two provisions from the Staff Report for the December 16, 2010 CCPC hearing, followed by proposed revisions based upon discussion at that hearing and subsequent collaboration between Comprehensive Planning Section staff and staff from the Office of the County Attorney. I. FLUE Policy 5.1 (pages 1 -2 of Staff Report) Text as proposed in Staff Report. Policy 5.1: All rezoni.ngs must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13, the following provisions apply: * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** text break * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** d. For property deemed to be consistent with this Element pursuant to one or more of policies 5.9 through 5.13, said property may through a zoning chance be combined and developed with other property, whether such other property is deemed consistent via those same policies or is deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section. Such combination of properties may include re- distribution of zoning districts so long as the acreage for each existing zoning district that is deemed consistent via the referenced policies does not n increase. For residential and mixed use developments only, the accumulated density between these properties may be distributed throughout the project, as provided for in the Density Rating System or the Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, as applicable. REVISED text. d. Any property deemed consistent may be comhineri and developed with other prQperly provided the density and intensity of development derived from the property deemed consistent is not increased. Words in single underline &W--�� are added /deleted per Staff Report for 12/16/10 CCPC hearing. Words in double underline are added /deleted per 1/12/11 REVISIONS. -------- _ - - -- - -- ---=- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - d. Any property deemed consistent may be comhineri and developed with other prQperly provided the density and intensity of development derived from the property deemed consistent is not increased. Words in single underline &W--�� are added /deleted per Staff Report for 12/16/10 CCPC hearing. Words in double underline are added /deleted per 1/12/11 REVISIONS. CPSP- 2010 -2 Staff Report Revisions 1/12/11 2. Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict (page 2 of Staff Report) Text as proposed in Staff Report: 1. For properties zoned commercial pursuant to any of the Infill Subdistricts in the Urban Mixed Use District or in the Urban Commercial District, said commercial zoning shall not qualify to cause the abutting property(s) to become eligible for commercial zoning under this Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict if said commercial zoning is the only commercial zoning abutting the site for which rezoning is so t REVISED text. d. The site abuts commercial zoning: (i) On one side and that abutting commercial site is not within an i_nfill Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District or the Tjrban Commercial District n -M� tile egief ' or, ... c�� - (ii) On both sides. * ** * ** . * ** * ** * ** text break * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** CPSP- 2010 -2 CCPC Transmittal Staff Report addition 1 -12 -11 GAMES Planning ServiceslComprehensivelCOMP PLANNING GMP DATMComp Plan Amendments12009 -2010 Combined Cycles petifions12010 Cycle PetitionslCPSP- 2010 -2 batnhlCCPC Transmittal dw/1 -12 -11 Words in single underline ; :;' e44FGug -4 are added /deleted per Staff Report for 12/16/10 CCPC hearing. Words in double underline _-- :. -_ -.... are added /deleted per 1/12/11 REVISIONS. CPSP- 2010 -2 EAC TRANSMITTAL STAFF REPORT Item VII.B. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF December 1, 2010 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: CPSP- 2010 -2 Petition Name: Various Amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Maps in the GMP - Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map ONLY (Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment initiated by the Collier County Pollution Control and Prevention Department) [Transmittal hearing] Applicant: Collier County H. LOCATION: This petition does not pertain to a specific property. III.. BACKGROUND and PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GNP), Objective 1 of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub - Element (NGWAR) and subsequent policies, and Objective 3.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) and subsequent policies, requires the County to maintain maps of potable water wellfields that are most sensitive to contamination from nearby development activities and other activities and conditions. Every two years, the County is to revise and update its three - dimensional computer models, based upon a variety of data, and revise wellfield maps, as necessary. In the GMP, there is a single map in the Future Land Use Element known as the Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map that is part of the Future Land Use Map series. Section 3.06.00 of the Land Development Code (LDC) contains " wellfield risk management special treatment overlay zone maps," maps that are similar to, but with greater detail than, the map in the Future Land Use Element. Similar to the GMP, the LDC requires review of the wellfield maps, but on an annual basis. The biennial process in the GMP consists of updating the computer model, then, if warranted, revising the map in the Future Land Use Element. Subsequently, any affected map(s) in the LDC would need to be amended. Since the LDC includes regulatory provisions, it is important to amend the LDC map(s) as soon as possible after the GMT map has been amended. EAC Meeting 12!1/10 The attacked 33 -page report provides the technical basis for the proposed map amendment; a similar report was used to support such map amendments in 2007, and in other prior years. The proposed Well fields map itself is located on page 6; the summary of map changes (affected wellfields) is identified on pages 4 and 5. Also, attached is the existing Wellfields map. The proposed amendment is technical in nature and is based upon the sound science of the computer modeling; it has no impact upon public infrastructure or surrounding properties (though properties newly added to a protection zone would be subject to additional regulatory scrutiny). Consideration of this proposed amendment at this EAC meeting was . duly advertised in the Naples Daily News as required by CCME Policy 33.2. TV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: This is a proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map series. It is required to be periodically revised, as necessary, pursuant to Objective 1 of the NGWAR and subsequent policies, and Objective 3.3 of the CCNIE and subsequent policies. V- RECOAUV ENDATION: That the EAC recommend approval of petition CPSP - 2010 -2, proposed amendment to the Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed IvVellfields and ASRs Map. PREPARED BY: David Weeks, AICP, GNP Manager Comprehensive Planning Section, Land Development Services Dept. William D. LOrerl.2 'Jr, P.E., Director Land Development Services Department Gro «,th Management Division/Planning and Regulation 2,1., /�- —1a Date Date /G -10. Date EAC Staff Report Transmittal CPSP - 2010 -2 batch petition - FLU Wellhead Map only 110\ GAComprehensWCOMP PLANNING GMP QATAIComp Plan Amendments12009 -2010 Combined Cycles pe55onst2010 Cycle PetifionslCPSP- 2010 -2 batc h)EAC Transmittal dw,111 -15-10 EXISTING WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS MAP & WELLFIELD MODEL REPORT e*'1 CITY OF NAPLES COASTAL RIDGE WELLFIELD COLLIER COUNTY WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS, PROPOSED WELLFIELDS AND ASRs J PROPOSED NORTHEAST REGIONAL / WATER TREATMENT PLANT PHASE to WELLFIELD AREA ' CARICA v ROAD AREAS OF INTEREST ASR CR 8nCOUNTY WELLFIELD r on U AWTHORN EXTENSION PINE KROADPANT OMPLETION) RIDG P O SCALE 0 5MI. AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 Ord. No. 2003 -44 AMENDED — JANUARY 25, 2007 Ord. No. 2007 -1 B AMENDED — DECEMBER 4, 2007 Ord. No. 2007 -82 J — IN OPERATION FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY GOLDEN GATE WATER TREATMENT WELLFIELD AWTHORN EXTENSION NSTRUCTION, KROADPANT OMPLETION) J CO N W 0 Q J U O_ W W CR 846 ORANGETREE WELLFIELD CR 858 AVE MARIA WELLFIELD CITY OF NAPLES EAST GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD 1 75 EVERGLADES CITY WELLFIELD /N rn ® RELIABILITY WELLS -S' 41 (BRACKISH OR FRESH WATER) WELLFIELD AREA ASR = AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY PREPARED BY: GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION SOURCE: COWER COUNTY POLLUTION CONTROL AND PREVENTION DEPT. DATE 12/2007 FILE: WFPZR12- 2007 -1.DWG IMMOKALEE WELLFIELD rn LnN D_ 846 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT - 2010 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP OF COLLIER COUNTY WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS, PROPOSED WELLFIELDS, AND AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY WELLS NOVEMBER, 2010 GMPpaper 2010 - Wellrteld Protection Report V5 11 -15 -10 Page 1 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION SUMMARY .. ............................... PAGE 1. AMENDMENT REQUEST .................................................. ............................... 4 2. HISTORICAL WELLFIELD PROTECTION MODELING IN COLLIER COUNTY......... 7 2.1 INITIATION OF MODELING IN 1989 ............................ ............................... 7 2.2 MODELING OF 2003 .................................................... ............................... 9 2.3 MODELING OF 2004 .................................................. ............................... 13 2.4 MODELING OF 2007 ................................................. ............................... 13 3. MODELING OF 2010 LEADING TO 2010 LDC AMENDMENT REQUEST ................. 15 3.1 STAKEHOLDERS .................................................... ............................... 15 3.2 METHODS ............................................................. ............................... 15 3.3 RESULTS ................................................................ ............................... 15 4. REFERENCES ................................................................ ............................... 16 APPENDIX A. TABLE OF OWNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS FOR THE 2010 WELLFIELD PROTECTION ZONE MODELING ....................................... ............................... 19 B. 2010 WELLFIELD MODELING DATA .................................. ............................... 21 MAP 1. PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN...... 6 GMPpaper 2010 - Wellfield Protection Report V5 11 -15 -10 Page 2 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper SUMMARY The Collier County Pollution Control and Prevention Department (PCD) is responsible for protecting the potable groundwater resources of Collier County under the Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.06.00, titled "Groundwater Protection." This Section of the LDC relates to public water supply wellfields permitted to withdraw a minimum of 100,000 gallons per day of groundwater from the topmost "surficial" and next lower "intermediate" freshwater aquifer systems of the county. In addition, the PCD is responsible under Section 9J -5.006 of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC), relating to the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan, to update and make input to the county's future land use maps when appropriate. A recent review and modeling of the municipal water supply wellfields within Collier County indicated that the existing 2007 approved "Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas, Proposed Wellfields, and Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells (ASR's) Map" (Map) requires updating. This proposed amendment to the 2007 version will update the Map so it reflects more closely what presently exists in Collier County. 11-IN, In summary, there are eight major municipal wellfields currently falling under LDC Section 3.06.00. Due to recent modifications, either to the number of wells in a field or to the permitted well pumpage rates, very minor changes are required to the computer generated shapes of the wellfield protection zones for all eight wellfields. The latest shapes of these wellfield risk management special treatment protection zones are shown on Map 1. In addition the installation three new shallow water supply wells at Port of the Islands, has resulted in this wellfield being added to the Map. Map 1 also shows the currently approved potential future wellfield areas and the permitted ASR wells within the county, as required by FAC Section 9J- 5.006. The purpose of this Paper is to present and describe the current conditions found within the proposed Future Land Use Map as pertaining to freshwater wellfields and ASR's, and to request the appropriate committees and bodies accept and approve inclusion of the revisions into the future Land Use Map for use in the Growth Management Plan for Collier County. GMPpaper 2010 - WelNeld Protection Report V5 11 -15 -10 Page 3 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper 1. AMENDMENT REQUEST The PCD is pursuing an amendment to the "Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas, Proposed Wellfields, and Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells (ASR's) Map" (Map) located within the Collier County Growth Management Plan's Future Land Use Element. This proposed amendment will update this Map so it more closely reflects what presently exists in Collier County. Through this process the public will be informed by Public Notices, and will have an opportunity to share their opinions and thoughts during public hearings held by the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and, finally, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), where the proposed amendment will be considered for adoption. If this amendment is approved, it will then be forwarded to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review to determine compliance with Florida Statutes. Following this process the PCD will then pursue the amendment of Collier County's LDC Section 3.06.00 "Groundwater Protection" to ensure the outdated wellfield risk management special treatment overlay zones are revised to reflect what presently exists. The purpose and intent of LDC Section 3.06.00 is to protect future and existing public water supply wellfields, protect natural aquifer system recharge areas, protect countywide ground water resources, and protect the public and resources from potential pollutant point sources. This regulation requires that the public water supply wellfields within the county are protected by means of "wellfield risk management special treatment overlay zones" commonly known as Wellfield Protection Zones. These zones are derived from a three- dimensional computer - modeled analysis of ground water and solute transport in the n county's freshwater aquifer system. This modeling has been done by the PCD since 1989. Following the initial setup of the model by a consultant in 1989, the model was run in 1991, 2003, 2004, 2007 and, most recently, in 2010. Each run of the model produced changes to the previous run results because of the input of new data and revised, increasingly stringent, wellfield permit conditions imposed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) (i.e., wellfield changes that occurred since the previous run of the model). The proposed map, "Map 1," reflects the results of the 2010 modeling. The reference statutory Geographic Information System (GIS) map of the Wellfield Protection Zones for each wellfield resides in the county's GIS map library. Shown below is a summary of the historic wellfield updates and hence modeling changes between 2004, 2007, and 2010. Wellfield 2004 Modeling 2007 Modeling 2010 Modeling Immokalee 13 wells 13 wells -no change 16 wells — 3 new wells Orangetree 2 wells 4 wells — 2 new wells 4 wells — changed pumping Ave Maria Utility Co. 0 wells 6 new wells 6 wells — changed pumping Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA) Golden Gate City 8 wells 8 wells - greater pumping 8 wells — changed pumping Everglades City 3 wells 3 wells — no change 3wells — changed pumping GMPpaper 2010 - Wellfield Protection Report V511 -15 -10 Page 4 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper Wellfield 2004 Modeling 2007 Modeling 2010 Modeling Collier County Utilities (Golden Gate) 32 wells 34 wells - 2 new wells & greater pumping 36 wells — 2 new wells City of Naples (Coastal Ridge) 26 wells 26 wells — no change 31 wells — 5 new wells City of Naples (East Golden Gate) 23 wells 23 wells — no change 23 wells — changed pumping Port of the Islands Not modeled Not modeled 3 new shallow wells The impact of these changes, in either the number of wells or the pumping rate of the wells in a particular wellfield, typically reflects in a change to the Wellfield Protection Zone shapes. Some of the shape changes, especially in large wellfields with many wells, are essentially very minor — and this is the case for the Immokalee, Everglades City, Collier County (Golden Gate), City of Naples (Coastal Ridge) and City of Naples (East Golden Gate) wellfields. However, for the small Ave Maria, Orangetree, and FGUA (Golden Gate) wellfields, the changed permitted pumping rates applied in the 2010 model have, in each case, resulted in a noticeable change to the Wellfield Protection Zone shapes. Map 1 presents and the PCD requests adoption of the actual results of the 2010 modeling — whether the Wellfield Protection Zone shape change was small or large. As required by Section 9J -5.006 of the FAC relating to the Future Land Use Element of the Growth n Management Plan, also shown in Map 1 are the locations of approved potential future wellfield areas, planned surficial aquifer supply wells, and the SFWMD- permitted ASR wells in the county. The potential future wellfield areas and the planned surficial aquifer supply wells shown on Mapl are extracted from Figure 5 -1of the 10 -Year Water Supply Work Plan. The original approval of this potential future wellfield area resulted when the BCC approved a comprehensive plan amendment to adopt the 10 -Year Water Supply Work Plan on February 24, 2009, by Ordinance No. 09 -04 (DCA 09- RWSPI). The ASR's shown on Map 1 are those documented as having received SFWMD ASR Permits within the county. The Map shows four sites at which ASR well permits have been issued to county wellfield stakeholders: Marco Island (9 Wells), City of Naples (4 Wells), Manatee Road (1 Well), and Livingston Road (1 Irrigation Quality Well). The Carica Road ASR shown in the 2007 Map is withdrawn because following completion of a test well at the site no ASR was installed. The following Sections and Appendices provide supplementary details of the proposed and historic amendments, an explanation and intent of the model, the stakeholders who were contacted, and the wellfield data collected during this consultative process. The PCD requests the adoption of Map 1 as the Future Land Use Map relating to the wellfield protection areas, proposed surficial aquifer wells, and current ASR's for incorporation into the Growth Management Plan of Collier County. GMPpaper 2010 - Wellfield Protection Report V5 I1 -15 -10 Page 5 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper MAP 1. PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FE7MYN CPV-20[1-2 COLLIER COUNTY WELLHEAD PROTECT]ION AREAS, PROPOSED VVELLFIELDS AND ASRs CITY OF NAPLES =ASTAL ;;,Di:E WELLFIELD 1-1 UANCISTON ROAD AM (WCATlCW CuALJTy) CR it CITY OF NAPLES ASR 44 WELL. PERIATS) AIFUL Aff IM %0 s"Alz 5ML AMNOM - SEMBEER M. 2X4 Ord, NO. 2,033-" AMEt4W - dANUARY 2$, =7 Ord %* 2,147-ld AMEWJED - DECE)MER 4, =t CrA: Na 2Q7 ?-92 /C4 Me E '%kCOLUER, )GE COIJITY UTILITIES ASR - AW, IFER STORAGE GanEw "TE POTENTIAL FUTLtRE WELLFIELD WELL.FELD, AREA WMLnEl I AREA FLt"0A WYMMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORTY GCLDEN GATE CITY WELLFIELZ SWTH HAWIHDRk WELLFIELD EXTENSION M Ld MARCO ISLAND UTILITIES ASR (9 WELL --ERIATS' MANATEE ROAD 454 81 ) REOAAnm AM "Eke.710k OEPT IMM(XALEE WELLFIELD CH 846 ) AVE MAkA WEUFIELr- ,POTENTIAL FURNE COWER C0047Y WELLRELD AREA CITY OF NAPLES EAST - ..OLDEN CATE WELLFIELD 1-75 I EvEktLAtIES CITY WELLFIELD GMTpaper 2010 - Welyield Protection Report V511 -15 -10 Page 6 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper Ao- PLANNED WATER SUPPLY WELLS ASR - AW, IFER STORAGE AND REWARY SITE POTENTIAL FUTLtRE WELL.FELD, AREA WMLnEl I AREA I EvEktLAtIES CITY WELLFIELD GMTpaper 2010 - Welyield Protection Report V511 -15 -10 Page 6 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper Ao- 2. HISTORICAL WELLFIELD PROTECTION MODELING IN COLLIER COUNTY 2.1 INITIATION OF MODELING IN 1989 The following are extracted portions from the 1989 and 1991 reports that described the initial motives, directives, setup and running of a wellfield protection zone model in Collier County. Some of the concepts and opinions expressed at that time may not be valid now or may have been overtaken by events; they are provided to record the development of this modeling within the county. Chapter 163.3203, FS, mandates the adoption of Land Development Regulations that "...provide for protection of potable water wel fields ". The Collier County Growth Management Plan translates this mandate into a series of Goals, Objectives, and Policies for implementation of ground water quality protection in Collier County. The goals state that the County shall: (1) identify and protect natural ground water aquifer recharge areas from activities that could degrade and/or contaminate the quality of ground water; (2) protect natural ground water aquifer recharge areas from activities that unacceptably alter the ground water recharge; (3) protect the County's ground water resources to ensure the highest water quality practical; and (4) conserve, protect, and appropriately manage the County's fresh water resources. Objectives and Policies included in these goals are: (1) to develop and maintain a 3- dimensional computer ground water flow model for existing and planned wellfields; (2) to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include modeled areas as "environmentally sensitive areas "; (3) to develop an ordinance to provide for an appropriate level of protection for all Collier County ground water; (4) to develop an ordinance(s) that will address well construction, rock mining and excavation, blasting, and confining units; (S) to develop an- ordinance that will address both existing and future land use and surface activities relative to petroleum storage tanks, stormwater, regulated substances, industrial and domestic wastes; (6) to develop a ground water protection ordinance to protect existing and future wellfields; and (7) to develop technical criteria for determining what areas are critical to the County's long -term ground water needs, e.g., Natural Aquifer Recharge areas. The citizens of Collier County derive their potable water largely from the Surficial Aquifer System via either the permitted public water supply wellfields or the private and household water wells. Water consumption from these sources are divided into three main use areas; potable water, agricultural use, and recreational uses. The Surficial Aquifer System in Collier County is composed of the unconfined water table aquifer and the underlying, semi - confined Lower Tamiami Aquifer, both of which are recharged by direct infiltration of precipitation that accumulates on the surface. The water table of this aquifer system lies at or within a very few feet of the ground surface, being visible in such situations as canals, ponds and lakes, wetland areas, and wet retention stormwater areas. The unsaturated soil or rock above the water table is commonly only a few inches to a few feet thick and provides little attenuation of most contaminants or pollutants passing from the surface downward to the water table. Thus, the Surficial Aquifer System is very susceptible to contamination resulting from land use activities. The sedimentary rock units underlying Collier County represent several millions of years of mixed carbonate and siliciclastic marine shelf and coastal deposition under subtropical to tropical GMPpaper 2010 - Wegield Protection Report V511 -15 -10 Page 7 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper climatic conditions. These rock units exhibit generally unpredictable vertical and lateral microlithologic as well as permeability and porosity variations with some generally recognized laterally extensive zones of relatively low permeability separating other zones of relatively high permeability. These latter zones or aquifers contain producible water and are separated by zones of lower permeability, i.e., aquitards. Nearly all of the potable water in Collier County is obtained from two permeable zones of the Surficial Aquifer System. This System is unconfined and is recharged directly from the surface. Hence, accurate knowledge of ground water flow directions and recharge characteristics is extremely important when attempting to predict ground water movement. Potential ground water contaminants from land use activities are introduced into aquifer systems via moving water. This movement may be in vertical and/or lateral directions. The conventional wisdom is that with increasing distance traveled in heterogeneous soils /rocks, the more attenuated or "diluted" a pollutant will become. However, even extremely minute amounts of some contaminants have high toxicity levels. Natural attenuation processes include filtration, sorption, chemical processes, dilution, and microbiological decomposition. The thin, sandy soils of Collier County are less capable of providing extensive natural attenuation of many pollutants generated by land use activities as compared to thicker, more heterogeneous soils. Hence, contaminant - generating land use activities should be regulated in order to reduce the potential for introduction of pollutants into the ground water system. Potential ground water contaminants are as numerous and as varied as the land use activities that produce them. In addition, each contaminant (e.g., bacteria, dissolved solids, petroleum products, p esticides, fertilizers, septic or sewa g e waste ) behaves differently in the water system in terms of its residence time, movement with other pore fluids, reactivity with or to pore fluids and soil /rock, and reactivity to /with other chemicals within the aquifer system. Because of the lack of a complete understanding of contaminant behavior in the aquifer system, combined with only a very general knowledge of local soil /rock characteristics affecting this behavior, it is difficult to predict with a high degree of certainty exactly how far or in what direction a particular contaminant will travel in a given time. Numerous studies have been conducted in attempts to estimate travel characteristics, travel times, and residence times of commonly introduced contaminants in aquifer systems. Because of the inhomogeneity of the soil /rock and aquifer systems, most of these estimates provide either ranges of values for velocity, distance, and residence time for the contaminants or present some minimum setback distances based on risk potential to human health and welfare. Hence, rate, distance and longevity of contaminant data for an aquifer system should be recognized as a range of values when considered in the light of risk analysis. In order to develop an effective ground water protection program, an effort must be made to establish a minimum County --wide water quality baseline applicable to all potable water wells and against which to compare suspected contaminated areas. In addition, areas around public water supply wellfields should be provided protection in the form of land use restrictions and prohibitions. The extent of such areas should be predicated on geologic and hydrogeologic data as well as knowledge of the behavior of contaminants in these systems. Wellfield protection zones are in reality risk management zones. Such zones must be based on the best available regional and local geologic and hydrogeologic information; historic and projected water demands; evaluation of contaminant behavior in the ground water systems; natural n attenuation processes; remediation time and technology; and establishment of specific contaminant targets and thresholds. Computer models can evaluate data and generate projections of ground GMPpaper 2010 - Wellfield Protection Report V5 11 -15 -10 Page 8 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper n water flow, contaminant travel, and drawdown characteristics within some confidence limits, but it still remains a policy decision of "how much risk is too much risk". The three - dimensional ground water flow model for wellfields employed as a predictor in this study was programmed with a 20 year planning horizon. Input such as that mentioned above was then used to define a 20 year risk management zone around each public water supply wellfield. All ground water within this zone has the potential to reach the wellhead within 20 years, and numerous pathways were modeled to illustrate this. Within this zone, three additional zones were established. Zone I is defined as that area closest to the wellhead which contains five percent of the total ground water within the 20 year planning zone that will generally reach the wellhead within one year. The rationale for this zone is one of sanitary hazard versus natural attenuation and risk limits for most contaminants related to sanitary systems. Zone 2 is defined as that area closest to the wellhead, but outside of Zone 1, that contains ten percent of the total ground water within the 20 year planning zone. The model indicates that water in this zone will generally reach the wellhead within 2 years. The establishment of zones 2 and 3 is predicated on travel times, natural attenuation, and remediation time concerns for contaminants in the regulated or hazardous products and wastes categories. Zone -3 is defined as that area within the 20 year planning horizon in which 25 percent of the ground water will reach the wellhead within approximately five years. Zone 4 is defined as the remainder of the 20 year planning zone and is the immediate Zone of Contribution for these wellfields within the planning horizon time frame. Significant contamination of ground water has occurred in every state of this nation, and is being detected with increasing frequency in urban and rural areas; in industrial as well as in agricultural regions, and is adversely effecting development and quality of life in many regions of the world (e.g., Love Canal). In Collier County, the water table is generally within six feet of the surface and the main potable water aquifers are recharged from infiltration through thin soils and semi - consolidated rock units. Natural attenuation of contaminants is not as effective as in other areas where there are thick soil horizons and the where the water table lies deeper beneath the surface. In addition, development in Collier County exposes the water table directly to land use pollutants via quarries, landscaping, stormwater retention /detention systems, accidental /incidental surficial pollution and poorly constructed and maintained wells. The only long term approach to maintaining an acceptable level of ground water quality is to reduce the possibilities for ground water contamination rather than to depend on remediation. This approach must be based on the acquisition and analysis of accurate hydrologic and geologic data, understanding of the nature and reactions of contaminants in the ground water system, knowledge of background water quality levels, and realistic projections of future demands. From this data can be developed a comprehensive ground water protection program that addresses overall water quality across the County as well as that in the zones of contribution for public water supply wellfields. 2.2 MODELING OF 2003 The purpose of the 2003 modeling and reporting by the PCD's consultant, Dr. M.L. Voorhees, was to update the methodologies and results of the initial Collier County regional three - dimensional ground water flow model, and the subsequent wellfield submodel transport simulations performed by Voorhees et al, August 1989. The 2003 report describes an updated computer model of the aquifer system in Collier County, Florida, with a concentration on the simulation of wellfield GMPpaper 2010 - Wellfield Protection Report V511 -15 -10 Page 9 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper protection areas and efforts in the determination of wellfield protection regions. The following is n largely extracted from the Voorhees 2003 report. The purpose of the 2003 Voorhees investigation in Collier County was as follows: (1) To update a wellfield protection computer model of the aquifer system in Collier County; (2) To describe the effects of future ground water withdrawals on ground water flow in the vicinity of each study wellfields; (3) To describe the one (1), two (2), five (5), and twenty (20) -year diversion area (i.e., protection zones or travel times) associated with the annual permitted allocation rate for each study wellfeld; and (4) Provide extensive software development and training on this software to enable County staff the ability to update wellfield protection zones frequently. The diversion area is defined as the area, in plan view, through which ground water moves within the aquifer system to a production well in a prescribed number of years. All analyses were performed assuming steady -state conditions. The term "Study Area," as it was used in this 2003 report, refers to a 2,220 square -mile area included in the model and enclosed by the regional model grid. In addition, seven separate study wellfields were investigated as follows: City of Naples (East Golden Gate) — SFWMD Permit No. 1100018W; City of Naples (Coastal Ridge) — SFWMD Permit No. 1100017W; Collier County Utilities — SFWMD Permit No. 1100249W; Immokalee — SFWMD Permit No. 1100013W; Florida Cities Utilities (now Florida Governmental Utility Authority) — SFWMD Permit No. 1100148W; Everglades City — SFWMD Permit No. 1100160W; and Orangetree — SFWMD Permit No. 1100419W. The extent of the 2,220 square -mile study area encompasses approximately the western two thirds of Collier County, the southern third of Lee County, and a small part of southern Hendry County in south Florida. The north boundary divides the topographic high about 7 miles north of Lake Trafford. The south boundary is south of the major portion of Lower Tamiami Canal. The east boundary is located far east in Big Cypress Swamp to minimize boundary effects on regional flow. The west boundary is the Gulf of Mexico. An extensive general description of the study area hydrogeology is provided by Knapp et al, 1986, Bennett, 1992, and Voorhees et al, 1989. The reader should review Voorhees et al, 1989, Section 3, and Bennett, 1992 for details associated with hydrogeologic data for the study area. The rock units from which most potable water is withdrawn in Collier County are grouped according to previously defined stratigraphic units and by their hydraulic properties. The sources of geologic and hydrologic data for Collier County, Florida as used in the model to the present are as follows: GMPpaper 2010 - Wellfzeld Protection Report V5 11 -15 -10 Page 10 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper /'* Information Source Canal system Collier County U.S. Geological Survey Bennett, 1992 Geologic structure Knapp et al, 1986 Lee County study (Voorhees et al, 1988) Bennett, 1992 Hydraulic aquifer Knapp et al, 1986 characteristics Lee County study (Voorhees et al, 1988) Collier County County utilities Bennett, 1992 Canal topology U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps Municipal pumping well Collier County topology South Florida Water Management District Burns and Shih, 1984 Knapp et al, 1986 County utilities Municipal wellfield South Florida Water Management District pumpages Collier County Knapp et al, 1986 County utilities Agricultural pumpage Knapp et al, 1986 Collier County Collier County Agricultural Extension South Florida Water Management District Hydrologic investigations Knapp et al, 1986 Burns and Shih, 1984 Jacob, 1983 Gee & Jensen, 1980 Swayze and McPherson, 1977 Bennett et al, 1992 Voorhees et al, August 1989 Calibration of the ground water model is critically important to modeling studies such as being described. For the 2003 modeling work the regional model calibration was performed by combining the calibration results from reports from Voorhees et al, 1989 and Bennett, April 1992 (SFWMD). Voorhees et al, 1989 calibrated a regional model to a course grid and used the regional model to establish boundary conditions for several wellfield submodels. The technique of computerized optimization was used to achieve calibration. Bennett, April 1992 used a coarse grid in manually calibrating a regional model, which extended in depth vertically to the Hawthorn aquifer. By GMPpaper 2010 - Wellfield Protection Report V5 11 -15 -10 Page 11 of33 Growth Management Plan Paper combining the calibrated parameters from these two studies and performing detailed grid optimization to place model nodes as close as possible near wells in a single regional model, the original Voorhees et al, 1989 study with wellfield submodels has now been replaced with a single regional model. This provided a unified, streamlined, and easier wellfield protection modeling update procedure for Collier County staff. The deeper Hawthorn aquifer is now included in this model, which is an update as it was not part of the 1989 study, and as in the SFWMD model, the Hawthorn aquifer is configured as a fixed head boundary condition. Due to artesian conditions and extensive confining units above the Hawthorn aquifer, pumpage in the Hawthorn is assumed to not require wellfield protection analysis. The theory associated with the delineation of wellfield protection zones is presented by Voorhees et al, 1989; Section 5 p29, and Section 11 p85. The reader is referred to that discussion for details of the procedure. The only departure in 2003 from that documented procedure is the initial placement of travel time particles at a production well over the entire producing aquifer, vertically. In the prior study by Voorhees et al, 1989 particles were placed at the vertical midpoint of the producing aquifer. The result of this procedural enhancement has been made possible by the availability of more accurate travel time delineation and more powerful computing resources. Running of the model and hence delineation of the wellfield protection zones can be determined very easily by data entry of a few values that include the following: (1) an exactly two character wellfield identifier for the well -- user selected; (2) an exactly three character well identifier -- user selected; (3) the SFWMD permitted wellfield averse annual allocation in MGD for the well -- obtained from utilities with confirmation from SFWMD; (4) the NAD83 Easterly and Northerly State Planar well coordinates in feet for the well -- based on GPS measurement by County or utility staff, (5) the aquifer from which the well pumps -- obtained from utilities; (6) the well pump capacity in GPM -- obtained from utilities with confirmation from SFWMD; and (7) comment regarding the well -- user selected. The item numbers coincide with the well data entry sequence for the software developed for this study. The wellfield protection pumpage for each well is then computed by the software developed for this project using the formula: where: Qi = Qwa(Qci/EiQci) /1440 (Eq 1) Qi is the wellfield protection pumpage for well in gallons per minute (GPM); Qwa is the SFWMD permitted wellfield average annual allocation in Millions of Gallons per Day (MGD); Qci is the pump capacity of well in the wellfield, gallons per minute (GPM); and EiQci is the summation of all well capacities in the wellfield. GMPpaper 2010 - Wellfield Protection Report V5 11 -15 -10 Page 12 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper n For this study these data were obtained from the various utilities by County staff and are presented in Appendix `B" with cross - references to the numbered items (1) through (7) listed above. For all wellfield protection simulations a conservative transport porosity of 0.15 was used to generate all ground water flow path lines. The methodologies used in the 2003 study are consistent with those previously applied by Voorhees et al, 1989 and the guidelines published for determination of wellhead protection areas (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987). The use of wellfield protection zones provides a consistent planning tool for the County and the extensive software development performed for the project provides a user - friendly system for County staff to update and change wellfield protection areas. Significant improvement of computational resources since the Voorhees et al, 1989 study provided improved accuracy for the determination of wellfield protection areas based on three dimensional ground water flow and the development of an integrated system which is more accessible by County staff. 2.3 MODELING OF 2004 The wellfield protection modeling undertaken in 2004 was carried out by Collier County staff, primarily Mr. Michael Lucas, Environmental Specialist. This modeling followed the methods described above and set up at that time on the county computers by the PCD's consultant, Dr. M.L. Voorhees. The data collection phase of the work took place between approximately May and September 2004, and the computer modeling was completed by November 2004. As described above the specially designed program suite comprises two linked computer codes: - a hydrogeological model, and - a freeware CAD program called IntelliCAD (a clone of AutoCAD). The wellfields covered in the 2004 modeling exercise included: Immokalee Wellfield Orangetree Wellfield Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate City Wellfield Everglades City Wellfield Collier County Utilities Wellfield - Golden Gate Wellfield City of Naples - East Golden Gate Wellfield City of Naples - Coastal Ridge Wellfield The results of the modeling provided the LDC required W -1, W -2, W -3, and W -4 protection zones for each wellfield. These zones were included in Collier County Ordinance No. 05 -27 as Sub Section 3.0. Amendments to Section 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields. 2.4 MODELING OF 2007 The necessary raw data for the 2007 modeling exercise was gathered from the public water supply wellfield owners and stakeholders in October and November 2006. The wellfield protection modeling undertaken in 2007 was carried out by PCD staff member Dr. Alister Burnett, Environmental Specialist. GMPpaper 2010 - Wellfield Protection Report V5 11 -15 -10 Page 13 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper The wellfields modeled in 2007 included: Immokalee Wellfield Everglades City Wellfield Orangetree Wellfield Collier County Utilities Wellfield Ave Maria Utility Co. Wellfield City of Naples - East Golden Gate Wellfield City of Naples - Coastal Ridge Wellfield Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate City Wellfield For the Everglades City Wellfield where there was no change in the input data from that used in 2004, the 2007 modeling resulted in exactly the same time path flowlines and, hence, the same one, two, five, and twenty year special treatment overlay Wellfield Protection Zones as the 2004 model. For the extensive City of Naples Coastal Ridge and East Golden Gate Wellfields, and the Immokalee Wellfield, although minor model input changes were applied because of minor well or pumping changes, the resulting Wellfield Protection Zones are unchanged from the 2004 modeling. For wellfields with new or significantly altered input data, new timeline flow path shapes files were generated resulting in new one, two, five, and twenty year Wellfield Protection Zones. This was the case for the Orangetree Wellfield, FGUA (Golden Gate) Wellfield, and Collier County Golden Gate Wellfield. The entirely new Ave Maria Wellfield input data was compiled and applied to the model, which then generated new one, two, five, and twenty year timelines; i.e., special treatment overlay Wellfield Protection Zones ST /W -1, ST /W -2, ST/W -3, and ST/W -4. A summary of the changes between the 2004 and 2007 modeling, which gave rise to the previous request for Amendments to the "Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map" located within the Collier County Growth Management Plan's Future Land Use Element, are listed below. Wellfield 2004 Modeling 2007 Modeling Immokalee 13 wells 13 wells -no change Orangetree 2 wells 4 wells — 2 new wells Ave Maria Utility Co. 0 wells 6 new wells Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate City 8 wells 8 wells - greater pumping Everglades City 3 wells 3 wells — no change Collier County Utilities (Golden Gate) 32 wells 34 wells - 2 new wells & greater pumping City of Naples (Coastal Ridge) 26 wells 26 wells — no change GMPpaper 2010 - Wellfield Protection Report V5 11 -15 -10 Page 14 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper Wellfield 2004 Modeling 2007 Modeling City of Naples (East Golden Gate) 23 wells 23 wells — no change Port of the Islands Not modeled Not modeled 3. MODELING OF 2010 LEADING TO 2010 LDC AMENDMENT REQUEST 3.1 STAKEHOLDERS The necessary raw data for the 2010 modeling was gathered from the public water supply wellfield owners and stakeholders in November 2009 and the wellfield protection modeling was carried out in early 2010 by PCD staff member Dr. Alister Burnett, Environmental Specialist. The wellfields modeled in 2010 included: Immokalee Wellfield Orangetree Wellfield Ave Maria Utility Co.Wellfield Port of the Islands Wellfield Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate City Wellfield Everglades City Wellfield Collier County Utilities Wellfield City of Naples - East Golden Gate Wellfield City of Naples - Coastal Ridge Wellfield The full listing of organizations and personnel that were the primary contacts for the 2010 modeling is provided as Appendix A. 3.2 METHODS The purpose of the 2010 modeling was, as before, to establish areas of increasing vulnerability surrounding each public wellfield that needed special protection from pollution. The methods used were exactly as described and used previously: collecting the relatively limited amount of input data; keying this data into the software; running the modeling software; generating the one, two, five, and twenty year particle flow path lines; drawing the shapes /polygons that surround each of these flow path shapes; and, copying and superimposing these zone shapes onto a base map of the county. These Wellfield Protection Zone maps then form the basis of the LDC content. 3.3 RESULTS An important issue that became clear with this modeling was that every wellfield experienced some change since the 2007 modeling. Many of the changes were relatively minor; e.g., one or two wells abandoned or new wells drilled, new pumps with changed capacities installed, SFWMD annual withdrawal allocation changes, revisions to provided well coordinates, etc. There was no wellfield with exactly the same Wellfield Protection Zone as for the 2007 modeling. Since 2007 the new shallow Port of the Islands Wellfield input data was compiled and applied to the model which then generated new one, two, five, and twenty year timelines; i.e., special treatment ovelay Wellfield Protection Zones ST /W -1, ST/W -2, ST /W -3, and ST /W -4. This new wellfield is included in Map 1 for the first time. GMPpaper 2010 - Wel yleld Protection Report V5 11 -15 -10 Page 15 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper A summary of the changes between the 2004, 2007, and 2010 modeling, which gives rise to this request for Amendments to the "Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Welliields and ASRs Map" located within the Collier County Growth Management Plan's Future Land Use Element, is listed below. Wellfield 2004 Modeling 2007 Modeling 2010 Modeling Immokalee 13 wells 13 wells -no change 16 wells — 3 new wells Orangetree 2 wells 4 wells — 2 new wells 4 wells — changed pumping Ave Maria Utility Co. 0 wells 6 new wells 6 wells — changed pumping Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate City 8 wells 8 wells - greater pumping 8 wells — changed pumping Everglades City 3 wells 3 wells — no change 3wells — changed pumping Collier County Utilities (Golden Gate) 32 wells 34 wells - 2 new wells & greater pumping 36 wells — 2 new wells City of Naples (Coastal Ridge) 26 wells 26 wells — no change 31 wells — 5 new wells City of Naples (East Golden Gate) 23 wells 23 wells — no change 23 wells — changed pumping Port of the Islands Not modeled Not modeled 3 new shallow wells Detailed model input data for each wellfield is attached in Appendix B. 4. REFERENCES Bennett, M.W., April 1992, A Three - Dimensional Finite Difference Ground Water Flow Model of Western Collier County, Florida: South Florida Water Management District Technical Publication 92 -04, DRE 312, 358p. Burns, W.S., and Shih, George, 1984, Preliminary evaluation of ground water monitoring network in Collier County, Florida: South Florida Water Management District Technical Memorandum, 46 p. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., 1987, Final Report, Wellfield Protection Zone Modeling, Lee County Florida, Prepared for Department of Community Development Division of Environmental Services, Fort Myers, Florida: Page 4 -8. Pollution Control Department, 1991, Collier County Environmental Services Division, Ground Water Protection Ordinance Technical Report, PC- OFR- 91 -05, 247p. de Marsily, Ghislain, 1986, Quantitative Hydrogeology: Academic Press, London, 440 p. GMPpaper 2010 - Wellfteld Protection Report V5 11 -15 -10 Page 16 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper Gee and Jenson, 1980, Big Cypress Basin water resources study No. 2201: contract report 77- 186, Gee and Jenson Engineers, Architects, and Planners, Inc., West Palm Beach, I I8p. Gethar, L.W., 1986, Stochastic subsurface hydrology from theory to applications: Water Resources Research, Vol. 22, No. 9, p. 1355 -145S. Hunter/HydroSoft, Inc., April 1989, Appendix Report - Collier County Three- Dimensional Ground water Modeling Study: Hunter/HydroSoft. HydroSoft, Inc., 1988, Three - dimensional model of ground water flow in Collier County, Florida: Data assimilation, model conceptualization, and parameters: Contract Letter Report 1, Hunter/HydroSoft, Inc., Sarasota, Florida, 47p. Jacob, P.G., 1983, Hydrogeology of the shallow aquifer south of Naples, Collier County: South Florida Water Management District Technical Publication 83 -3, 52p. Journel, A.G., and Huijbregts, Ch.J., 1978, Mining geostatistics: Academic Press, London, 600p. Knapp, M.S., Bums, W.S., and Sharp, T.S., 1986, Preliminary assessment of the ground -water resources of western Collier County, Florida: South Florida Water Management District Technical Publication 86 -1, Parts 1 and 2, 142p. Prickett, T. A., 1967, Designing Pumped Well Characteristics into Electric Analog Models: n Ground Water v. 5(4), National Water Well Association. Prickett, T.A., T.G. Naymik, and C. G. Lomiquist, 1981, A Random -Walk Solute Transport Model for Selected Groundwater Quality Evaluations: Illinois State Water Survey Bulletin 65p. Swayze, L.J., and McPherson, B.F., The effect of the Faka Union Canal system on water levels in the Fakahatchee Strand, Collier County, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water - Resources Investigations 77 -61, 19p. Hunter/HydroSoft, Inc., 1988, Interim InterTrans Users Guide: Hunter/HydroSoft, Inc. Voorhees, M.L., 1981, Advanced methods for the selection of urban runoff design storms: Doctoral thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana - Champaign, 207p. Voorhees, M.L., and Kirkner, R.A., 1987, Users guide for applied ground water flow with InterSat: HydroSoft, Inc., Sarasota, Florida, 132p. Voorhees, M.L., and Mades, D.M., August 1989, Three - Dimensional Simulation of Wellfleld Protection Areas in Collier County, Florida, 120p. Voorhees, M.L., Mades, D.M., and Ruskauff, Greg, 1988, Report on Lee County kriging analysis, water -level network optimization, and water budget: contract report, HydroSoft, Inc., Sarasota, 38p. Voorhees, M.L. March 2003, Update of Three - Dimensional Simulation of Wellfield Protection Areas in Collier County, Florida, 80p. GMPpaper 1010 - Wellfield Protection Report V5 11 -15 -10 Page 17 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper Walton, W.C., 1985, Groundwater supply and contamination: National Water Well Association. Walton, W.C., 1970, Groundwater resource evaluation: McGraw -Hill. GMPpaper 2010 - Wellfield Protection Report V5 11 -15 -10 Page 18 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper 101'\ GMP- FLUE Amendment Request APPENDIX A: TABLE OF OWNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS FOR THE 2010 WELLFIELD PROTECTION ZONE MODELING Oreanization Role Contact Person (s) Address of Contact Contact Telephone # Contact Email Collier County Project Dr. Alister 3301 Tamiami Trail East 239 732 -2502 ext 5087 AlisterBurnett@eolliergov.net Pollution Control Coordinator Burnett Health & Comm. Bldg. 239 732 -2502 ext 5388 RobWard @colliergov.net & Prevention Dept Supervisor Rob Ward 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34113 Independent Wellfield Model Dr. Michael C/o Hazlett- Kincaid Inc Consultant Program Voorhees 15 Rockhill Drive, 610 325 -2174 mvoorc @michaellvoorhees.com Designer Broomall, PA 19008 Dottie Joiner City Clerk Everglades Everglades City Scott City Everglades City Wellfield 102 Broadway Avenue 239 695 -3781 dsmallwood @cityofeverglades.c Owner /Operator E., Everglades City FL 239 253 -9714 om Tim Stevens 34139 Florida Golden Gate City Robert Dick FL Government Utilities Government Wellfield Severn Authority 239 455 -4704 rdick @stes.com Utility Authority Owner /Operator Trent) 4300 Golden Gate Pkwy 239 707 -4275 Naples, FL 34116 Immokalee Immokalee Water & Immokalee City ty ellfield Jerry Warden Sewer District 1020 Sanitation Road 239 658 -3630 jenywazden(a>IW- SD.com Owner /Operator Immokalee, FL 34142 Orange Tree Kimberly Orange Tree Utility Co Orange Tree Utility Co. Wellfield Retallic William Inc., 4500 Executive Drive # 110, 239 596 -4088 wmurchie@gmail.com Owner /Operator Murchie Naples FL 34119 Principal Environmental Golden Gate Specialist Collier County Utilities Wellfield Steve Lang Collier County, Water Administration 239 252 -6113 stevelang @colliergov.net Owner /Operator 4370 Mercantile Ave. Naples, FL 34104 East Golden Gate Dept of Public Works, City of Naples Wellfield Owner /Operator Bobb Reeder Utilities 380 Riverside Circle, 239 213 -3005 239 213 -3001 Fax breeder@naplesgov.com Naples, FL 34102 Ave Maria Water David Utilities Genson 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy, Dgenson @barroncollier.com Barron Collier Ave Maria Naples, FL 34142 Companies Water p Wellfield David Johnson Engineering, 239 262 -2600 dhofiman@johnsonengineering Utilities Owner /Operator Hoffman 2122 Johnson Street, Ft. 813 874 -0777 Myers, FL 34105 GMPpaper 2010 - WelNeld Protection Report V511 -15 -10 Page 19 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper GMP- FLUE Amendment Request Organisation Role Contact Address of Contact Contact Telephone # Contact Email persons Jennifer Drozd Water Use Regulation South Florida Water Use (Water Use Dept 561682-2055 jdrozd @sfwmd.gov Water Permitting Regulation) SFWMD, Gun Club 561682-2729 Management Authority Donna Road drickabu@sfwmd.gov District Rickabus West Palm Beach, FL (Water Use) Robert Dick (Severn Trent) 5726 Corporation Circle, 2397074275 rdick &tes.com Port of the Islands Ft. Myers, FL 33905 Port of the Islands Wellfield Ronald Hole Montes, 950 Encore 239 254 -2000 RonBensonghmeng.com Benson Way, Naples, FL 34110 (Hole Montes) Water Utilities City of Marco Marco Lakes Water Utility Bruce Department 50 Bald Eagle Drive, City 239 389 -5182 bweinstein @cityofmarcoislandc Island Owner /Operator Weinstein of Marco Island, FL om 34145 GMPpaper 2010 - WeViield Protection Report V511 -15 -10 Page 20 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper "�N h m � I p, 4 N r d O A ry w A p" A � w � w w 3 w a 0 N � F. A z w a a M M 0 N ro a ee '" M M M l0 M M M l0 y C7 w H M l0 l0 l0 H M H O /1 U G: b O Ln O � O Ln O Ln O O O Ln O � O Ln O O O O � 3 Q (7 M M M N N M M M N N N C.' :, "-� �4 -rl �4 "� �4 r4 •,_.{ �4 r4 -ri �4 r4 -.-I �4 •r-I ?4 •rI S4 •ri �4 •rl �4 •ri S4 CT O O O OIE� O O E O O O OIE� O E �Q aro aro aro L-aro aro aro aro aro aro aro aro Oy H H H H H H H H H H H 00 d' 61 Ol co M —1 0) CO O l0 CO O0 y _ A rl C r-i �' Ln f O7 0) OD Ln '' l0 N O Ol 00 l— 0) N M N A w 7 L `"' O O 0) M M a' Ln l� d' z o Q0 I'D Ln Q0 Ln Ln Ln M CO M M dl M N [-- N M M 00 6 _ O N Ln l0 M Ol l0 l0 1 O l0 C O Ln Ln Ln .H N CO 'l' M CO Q 4y. N N rl CO 61 Ol O O l0 l0 Ln z N N N O O O O O .--I H H W Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Lr) Ln Ln Ln w ..�. A ar M M M M M M M M M Cl) M v V, Q0 110 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M (4 M M M Q A r-i N M 0) N O N O N O N O i O I O O r O O O O O O O 3 � H H H H H H H H H H H 3 a) a) a) ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro � � � � ro ro ro H H H H 0 z z z z z z z z H H H H H H H H H H H co U) U] d 0 O O O O O o O N N N rl '--i ri H —A f— co m c-i H 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 M M 0 N ro a y d d d t �L 3 � ~ M 110 M M M A v V O O O O O 0 ur ca M N M M M caai a) � w w ai ro ro ai ro w 3 -1-1 3 -H 3 3 3 °ro °ro °ro °ro °ro aQ a a a a a H H H H H .. Ln z Un Ln Ln Ln z pMp y l0 O M Ln M '�•+ t�.i i` CO N N QQ lfl to Ln a � zw Ln Ln Ln Ln W •° Q A Q0 � Q0 Q0 Q0 W p tr 3 3� Cd 0 c N M N O H 3 O 3 r O H H H NN o a D a a 3 V. v t` ..O cC O 3 m b •� o W ._. `"i' p L>•, CC as O O M w 0 o aa) 4) a�i aa)i u 0 0 0 0 H H H H rA t) azi 0 Cn w W W w U) Cn co in C O .-i N M o � N U a U 3 3 3 3 3 3 a� 0 p a, A w C N Ln 4~ •� � N, w Q o � 3 •° 3 3� Cd 0 c U y b o 3 O NN F. Uy V. v ..O cC O 3 N y b •� o W ._. `"i' p L>•, CC as O O M w 0 a�i aXi rA t) azi 0 o � N U a T- N M to to h � 3 � W h cc N 3 o a �+ m Q) Y 4. bC i 3 a � "2 O E 3 yr1 E �, y d r �L 11-1\ ai 3 Q rs. w a� 3 N .y U U 3 4-a O f"r O p d rn rn a 'Z C) O O O O O o O 3 (� M M M M U u w N rt N N 3 3 3 3 r4 0 Q a° d a4 a° � a° E A: O C [� N oe A 110 N —A O O l0 �► M M N rl z 00 rn 110 r- Go L w (Y) O to rn O o N Q0 d+r v �.. Ln �r c zw Q0 1-0 110 Q O O O O 3 rpj M lfl co l0 m l0 N l0 Oo Q O O O O A rI N M N E H H E+ 3 O O O O A w ^' 0 0 0 0 d 3 r N rn b O O O O ci a� (1) a) �4 �4 �4 �4 41 +-) +-) +J ro ro ro ro �4 $4 �A �A O O O O C r d r V M M W O N a0 P. 5 Y d SL SL j �L d M � A ti lfl lfl l0 l0 l0 lfl CQ �-� C� V � ON N Ln V A y N N 5 -I N o 41 A + A aor roro roro Ldp �H u" O o o O O o cc O O o o O O 3 en o L. rw M Q0 I;r M R 00 N OD N zw a +'' u M 6 ( is r� u E uF-� �4 r u r4 uw airo a�ro mro a�ro a�ro �ro o 'a O O � 3 h � A OE� O r O ri O O O a Q a ro a ro a ro a ro a ro a ro H H H H H H CU 'T M N 00 N 00 l0 r-I N O rl N M M (D [� 6l M (N N N r-I N I zz N N N N N 3 3 0 U � M Ol 6l 01) O w O l0 00 M M rn m rn 00 N /b d' M 1b M zcc '-I -1 N N Ln Lr) LC) Ln w w O ^ 3 UQ LJ M �.o N �10 N l0 N l0 N l0 N l0 N w Q A r-I N M mot' to N 3 FC FC F:C A > � � 3 F 4J 4J 4J 4J 41 4J r-I -r-I u JJ 41 4J JJ 11 JJ y D D m ED A rI N M ro i ro I ro t ro ro ro _ a a VJ a (d Ln 0 o a) aD U 3 FC 3 FC 3 r� 3 FC 3 FC 3 w O v a 0 0 U L O C 0 0 0 C7 M � A 0 O O C� V � ON N Ln V en y N N 5 -I N o 41 A + A aor roro roro Ldp �H 3H Q/ _i L' M M 00 d ^ O -I N O zz en o L. rw M Q0 I;r M R 00 N OD N zw a +'' u M N m N 6l w. . A r-I N N O O � 3 h � A ^O w w :~ 3 0 SZ .�r y A ^ ri N a A -i � 3 3 0 U � � w w w O v a 0 0 U L O C 0 0 0 C7 h m Z ', d �L ll� tl 4, d �o s V M O a ~ a0 N v' v' O O O l0 M M O vui v w C �I rl -1 r-I N N l ^ y R O O O O O O i4 N W) ro� Vr-1 roro N N N M M en v O M 00 y A l0 N M N M N Q � O O O z O 0) i4 N i4 N i4 (1) Sa N Ln N N N rI N I i N 1 ri O 0) M N co O zw 4J 4J 4-J oa roas (0 (0 roro (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 3 H 3 H 3 H 3 H 3 H 3 H a OD N Q O O O A -1 (N M en � O v N M y Ln O T O ri �10 0) rn 6l Ol N N N ri ri r-I Z p l- r- � z Q0 � Q0 M i M r- M O M O 00 W [- Ln O Q0 v' 110 N 'll v' Ln OD co CC) co CC) 00 CQ N N N N N N 3 _H -1 � U M M M M M M �y CRJ � M Ol 61 61 6l 61 Ol U �4 �4 a Q AM w w v' Lf) co O rl Cl 3 O � O � O � O h A 'LS w w w w w w d 3 C O d h W A o r� M v' Ln CIO .-I � 3 3 3 3 3 3 F-4 r14 r14 4� rT4 w tl 4, d �o s V M O a ^ O O O 3 03 (� N N N N N N V C 7. to N S4 (1) i4 N W) ro� ro� roro aQ 3 H 3 H 3 H en v O M 00 y A l0 N M N M N Q � O O O z O 0) m Ol z Lr) Ln Ol co M OMO L Q ri O 0) M N co O zw M M Q0 M W rn rn M N 00 N . OD N Q O O O A -1 (N M N U C) U A Z7 3 C W W W C1r r1 r-I r-I N N N u 3 3 3 _H -1 � U u U w = co U) U] TS Z3 7S U �4 �4 a w w w tl 4, d �o s V M O a h m s sz m d ao co m 00 m co m 00 m o7 m m 07 ° vv. CJ W ° d' u" o O O O O O O O o o O O O ca py �O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 ccc� ° '� v� 3 -� 3 -� 3 •� 3 •+ 3 •� 3 •� 3 -+ 3 •� 3 -� 3 -� 3 -� 3 -� 3 -� O ri O OE� OE� O O O r4 O r4 O E~ O E~ OE� O r O r ro a Q a ro a ro a ro a ro a ro a ro a ro a ro a ro a ro a 11 a co a H H H H H H H H H H H H H M L N l0 N Ln Lo co .--I O r Ol "T M -i .--I O N Ln r l0 O co Ln OO y^+ (+') m O co M co ch O Ln O l0 O 00 O m (1) O M r-I a' N M lh iy. d' 07 � OD I' 00 co co Go co co O m m 0) Ol Z Z l0 l0 l0 Q0 Q0 l0 l9 to l0 l9 l0 l9 l9 en 7a l0 N 0-) N r-I 110 O N N r l0 6l M O M l0 O N O d' O W l0 6l -4 M l0 O N N N N N N N N r �yi CC a.i N Ln (+� Ln Ln 110 U-) OD Ln r Ln r Ln r Ln r r r Ln r Ln Ln Q I1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O M Ln Ln Ln Ln LO Ln Lr) Ln Ln Ln Ln Llj Ln `-� N N N N N N N N N N (N N N N c-1 O N O M O C' O Ln O l0 O r O 0') O O rl -i -1 N -1 M .-I C rl d 3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O A ^a U U U U U U U U U U U U U !.: U U U U U U U U U U U U U d 3 O r N M 'a' '-I N M C' Ln rl r-I -I rl rl ri r-I r-i rl r-i r--i rl rl C O N N O N N N N O N N N N 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 = C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 CD C7 C7 CD CD C7 C7 C7 % CD C7 C7 0 0 C7 0 0 0 CD C7 t7 C7 v� U U U U U U U U U U U U U C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C �l C C C C C C C ^+ O O O O O O O O O O O O O C U U U U U U U U U U U U U d G S4 i4 f4 S4 i4 i4 S4 S4 f4 f4 f4 S4 �A F N N N N w O N O N N N N N o O O O O O O O O O O O c U U U U U U U U ju ju JU JU JU i C O Y m O S O M M W N 0�4 a n 0 m C e 0 U y O 0. 0 0 i d .A. 5 a C4 14) 10-\ d &.. ^o ea '" s a, co O rn co rn 00 0) O 0') N m (30 rn co co O 00 00 00 OD CJ w A " r Ln U-) Ln Ln Lr) Ln rn L.() rn LO rn Ln rn Lf� rn Lr� rn U-) rn LO 0 O o O O O O O o o O O o o O O o 3 o. �Z ¢, CD r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (D ��. �n 3 (1) ro 3 a)ro 3 (2) 3 (1)(a 3 a)ro iz -r-+ (1) (0 3 (2) (0 3 -� 0) (a 3 -q a)ro 3 -H (2)ro 3 -H p C O r O r O r4 O r O r O Fi OE� O r Of� O r4 O r O r O O LQ aroaroaroaroaroaro aroaroaroaroaroaroaroaro :r H H H H H H H H H H H H H H I- 00 m Q0 Q0 O0 N N m N N [- lzr O 00 y �••\ (14 N Z' l0 l0 Lr) O 00 d> Q' m m QT r- m m h [- l- N N .� to N O O r-1 LO m m m d' N 1-1 O 6l (DO O 00 U-) Z G rn 0l 07 O OD 00 co 00 O7 r- r- r 00 Z Q0 �o Q0 I'D Q0 �o 1-0 � I'D Q0 is 00 U') (N N f i C Lr) C to Ln 00 :. _ 'ef 00 r-I r- ri 61 a-) (N co LC) r- N 00 N 00 N N N 00 M m 1-0 O Qw V1 0` r- 01 r-I N N [- r- r- r- co r- 6l O l0 N ;+ A O o 0 o O o 0 0 o O O o o O V M Ln � � � Ln � � L LO Ln Ln Ln � � Q°•� N N N N N N N N N N N (N N N �0 I- 00 0) O r-1 N m '3' to l0 r- 00 N .-1 -i .--i 1-1 N N N N N N N N N 3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O U A ,.� U U U U U U U U U U U U U U c: U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 3 to [- O m O rl N m a' Ln 110 r- 00 r1 r-i N N N N N N N (N N -i rl rl r-I r-I r-i � r-i rl rl rl � r-I r-I c a) 3 a) 3 a) 3 aJ 3 a) 3 a) 3 a) 3 a) 3 a) 3 a) 3 a) 3 a) 3 a) 3 a) 3 U U U U U U U U U U U U U (.D U U U U U U U U C7 C7 U U U U m U U U U U U U U U U U U U U IA A 41 4-) -W 4-) 4-) 4-) 4-) +0 +0 10 l) 4-1 ++ O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U T. i4 a� S4 4) i-I (1) i4 a) i-1 a) i4 S4 i4 S4 S4 S4 i4 S4 i-I -H -H a V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U U U U U U U U U U U U U ju m 0 N a 0 0 0 C7 s obi m r w w � N o A v 00 co co co cc) zzr co c N ' m 61 Ol 0) Y) m Ln 0) LO (n Ln O) L 61 p h WLf) Ln a-) H L A a.i 00 Q L 0) zz O o O O O O O o o O m O o o 0 O 0 3� a O O O o O O O o O N w 00 A N ,-1 3 A ^a a> 3 uw �ro a�ro �ro airo a�ro �ro a�ro airo �ro kn 3 -H 3 -+ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 A O O 5 O O O O r O r O rz O a a ro a ro a ro a ro a ro a ro a ro a ro a ro ro H H H H H H H H E- y^ r- m O O m O M N 1-1 d` N 000 y+ r-- N M r- O r1 O O M zz 00 co w 0') rn co o rn m O 7a r-I Ol r-i O0 r- r- aj y^+ 00 m dT lD w 07 Ln r-A O Lr) l0 l0 d' T) r- M O .--I v .� e w Lo w Ln Ln Lr) to M M G rl r1 rl CD A C) O O O O CD O O O O C) O uM in Ln u7 u7 N N N N N N N (N N N 3 0) N U O M U ri M U N M U M M U d' M U Ln M Ca M C] M Ca A ^O U U U { U U U U U U 3 r Ol O -A N M d' L r- N M M M M M M M M r-I r-I rl r-I r-I rl rl r-I .-1 r-I rl rl rl rl .-i rl rl r-I c 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 d uU CD U U CD CD CD CD CD y U U U U U U U U U O O O O O O O O O U U U U U U U U U d �'. 54 S-I i-I �-I �-I �-I i-I �-I �-I p r-1 r-I rl r-I r-I rl r-I r-I r-i O O O O O O O O O U U U U U U U U U w M w 00 N ao a 0 h 0 d C r 0 U w m 0 0 N E � N o A v 4, ^ a> u O 3 99 U L S4 H L 00 Q L 0) zz M 00 L ^ Ln A w v zw d> M O N A N w 00 A N ,-1 3 A ^a a> 3 r O O �.d M u � 3 A N is 'd C p; u ro U� .. ro O U M w 00 N ao a 0 h 0 d C r 0 U w m 0 0 N E y d r d Ci. i0-1.1 Y C s tl y r d m 3 O V M W rn a 0 C s 0 U O C m 0 0 N 52, ~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �°. Un Q v E V ca �� O O � O � O O O O O O O O O O O 3 M M M � M � M � M Ln M Ln M � M Ln M M M M C6� M �4 r! �4 r, s4 r4 u $- �-4 �4 E �A �j z-1 F! �4 r �4 r �4 r! �4 E� �4 r4 �w tn a�ro 3 a�ro 3 Oro 3 �ro 3 a�ro Oro Oro a�ro mro Oro Oro a�ro a�ro Oro �+ •� 3 3 3 •� 3 3 3 •� 3 3 3 3 oa 0r 0 0f� 0F� 0 0r4 01:� 0r! 0E~ 0E~ 0IE� 0F� 0E 0E~ :~d aro aroaro aro aro aro aro aro aro aro aroaroaro aro p H H H H H H H H H H H H E- 0 [- O Ol Un M O f-1 a-) l- Ln OMO y M M N M O Ln to l0 O M N M l0 M N 00 N 00 M M O N Q L �„i O O O 1-I N Ln f- CC) N m O LC7 rl l0 N Z ° I- 1` r- r- r- 1` 1` 1` t` OD N co Z �o �.Q k I k.0 �.o �.o �-o 110 -10 110 61 G) t` N N 00 1-1 -1 00 00 m M 1-1 M i. 00 O 1` l0 O 61 t` M N 'l' Ln - r-i Ln -10 Ln (10 Ln �10 1-0 LO Lr) Q0 ,-1 rn rn � ca 1- m 00 m ON �10 �.o -10 �.o t` 110 k.0 'Z W M M M rn M m M rn M rn M rn M m M m M rn M m M rn M m M (� O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N en N N N N N N N N N N co co Co 02) co co (30 m m 00 00 07 co CC) Q A N N (n C t!n l0 [- 00 CY) O N M M A u u u u u u u d 3 N M C Ln lD [- OD dl O r-i N M C' in ° O O O O O O O O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 3 3 N 3 N 3 N 3 N 3 N 3 3 N 3 N 3 N 3 N 3 3 N 3 A Z3) U) s ZT H C3 O ZS TS TS d -'-I rx -� -H rx -rl x rx rx z a '2 rz rx rx rx rx rx ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro G m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U I U U I U I U U U U U U U U U U Y C s tl y r d m 3 O V M W rn a 0 C s 0 U O C m 0 0 N 52, y s d sz r m �L M M w 0 a d `o, ~ N N N N N N N N N N = p, 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 O 0 0 r r o in c u" 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p �O Ln in Ln in in U-) in T) Ln L in O 0 in 3 M M M M M M M M M M M Ln Lr) M ur V v rl rl ri r-I ri ri .� .� rl r-I ri rl ri rl � 6 �4 ',4 is r4 �4 �4 �4 N to S4 �4 SA S4 r4 S4 P, 'vw a�ro a�ro mro 0ro a�ro mro a�ro a�ro roro a�ro a�ro a�ro a�ro 0ro � '� �n 3 -� 3 -� 3 -� 3 -�+ 3 -� 3 •� 3 -� 3 -� 3 -� 3 -� 3 •� 3 •� 3 •� 3 -� O Fi 0 r4 0r� 0 r Or� 0E� 0 r O O O Fi O 2 O r4 01� OF� a ro a ro a ro a ro a ro a ro a rt a ro a ro a ro a rt a ro a ro a ro H H H H H H H H H H H H H H (N r m in N m G' Lr) in m O 61 M 00 O O -A dl '-I Ol O Ol l0 m r m r m m m m m m O CY) m M M d' Ln m 0) O M a' M l0 r Z Z m l0 m l9 m Q0 m 119 m l0 m l9 m l0 m 0) Q0 0 410 l0 r l0 r l9 l9 m k.0 O a' m M m l0 'T d' m M pp y rl Ol --I M r O .-I Ln m r O in 61 r- C7 w `T 5 l0 Q0 in �10 r Q0 m m m m -i r N r M r d' r m r (D m U-) �'o zT ko l0 �T CSC a.i 61 m ON m 61 0) 61 m m dl 0) Ol Ol 61 Z W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N VM C 1:31 " m m m CO m m m m m m m m m m Ln l0 r m Ol O rl N M d' r m �, �, M N y 3 N N N N N N N l0 M 'a ;, rx rx rx rx rx a rz rz x rx rz o4 cz rx ,� d 3 I l0 r m m O r-I (N M d' r m l0 0) in rl N N N N N N N O O M M M M M M Cl) M M M M M M M M y N 3 O 3 N 3 N 3 N 3 N 3 N 3 N 3 N 3 N 3 N 3 N 3 N 3 O 3 A N N N N N N N N N N O O a7 N iT b ZS ZT b ZP ZT ZDI 0) 0) 0) -+ cx rx x cx cz rz rz x rx rx ,-+ � rx c� rz cz m 0 ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro o m cn m cn m m (1) m m cn m [n to m� U ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 s4 u u u u u u JU lu JU lu ju ju ju ju a M M w 0 a d `o, d N j rillill N y R ~ N N O O I` 00 01 E O O 3 a. Ln M Ln M (, U� a>, u w �4r �4 M a) ro m ro M l0 l0 u 3 a.a z aF a CO o o O O O o o 0 O N 00 y A.cw L O m �N r- kD z� Q0 Q0 z 7a co M 00 i. +� w m N Ln ca 1 (n rn z w M M W � aro mro v M " mro aro W ° m o0 p ar -1 r Ako 0 O O E~ O o N 3 M M cr M A a ro aro a ro a ro a ro Ow H H H H H Q 3 H H I Q0 M I O � � M M a � � O M O N to 00 y A w 3 3 A r- .-I l0 Ol m Ln Q0 N M 01 Zs N is l0 N �-i m OD I` in zo o o m o ro m o ro o 4J -H -P -H U m 5 m 5 ro a� ro a� O s4 o s4 M U 01 U 04 N z C 3 0 C7 O a I` 00 01 r Ol rn �.�y vii Ci W M M M l0 M l0 l0 u 3 a.a z 0 o 0 0 o o O O O o o 0 O 0 o 0 UU L Ln r rn u� rn rn �w �4r :4r4 aro mro aro mro aro 0ro (1) (0 (1) (0 p ar O O O 0 O O E~ O O ro aro a ro aro a ro a ro a ro Ow H H H H H H H H Ln O O M O N to 00 y A w N N N 61 0l in r- .-I l0 Ol m Ln Q0 N M 01 u� M N �-i m OD I` in zo 00 OD OD co z M 00 k.0 M A F, O r O r- 0l �10 in r- M r- r r r Q Cc N N N (N N N N N 00 co 00 00 00 00 co 00 A M M M M M M M M d c� M co Go co 00 co CC) OD co 00 m Q m m co m m A N M V Ln l0 [- 00 N O O O O O O O O A w w w w w w w w d 3 ^ v O N O M O IT O Ln O l0 O l� O CO O rl rl rl rl rl r-i .-I r-i rl rl rl r-� rl i r--I r-I 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) J-) 4-J 4 1 41 4J +J 4 J P c ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro C7 C7 C� C7 U U C7 C7 CL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) a) m (D m a) m a) m a) m a) m a) m a) 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 t j w v-- w w w w w w .. O O o o O o 0 0 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 -�j 4-3 -P 41 +J 4-J -P -P . , A .1-i -H •14 r� •� U U U U U U I U U z C 3 0 C7 O a r m b r j C� M W O N bap 0. n 0 d C tt 0 U d S 0 0 i V '~ QD co N co CO 3' V' 3' Q' co zT l0 rh y �/ W � i N L N � Ln �Y' N � N � N � L r Ln r � r r � f � N l— Ln A i+ V O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O CD O LC) � O O O O O O O O O O O 3 R �4 u u sad �4 �4 r u v w si r �4 ro �4 a) ro u a) (o u r a) (0 sa d�A a) (0 a) ro a) (0 a) (0 a) (0 a) ro ro ro a) ro a) ro a) 3- 3 3 °ro 3 °ro °ro °rt °ro °m °m °ro a �Qa a .4 11m a°rt a a a a "m qm �q(a H a H H a H H H H H H E H H H H 00 i. O 0o O r co d' r-I N co O Q0 r N a' O f-i d' N co M N �T 00 r-I 00 d r� .--1 l0 M 6l lfl M O 61 N m Ln O CO M <' co Ln M —i co M co —A co O 00 0) r CO r r m m O .—I O O O O m Z Z Q0 QQ Q0 110 r r d' Ln r-I d' r-1 lO —1 C' M C r Ln 0) M M 0) 1-1 r to Ln 00 L ar lO r r r co r m r O co O co r k.0 N 'T N v N r r d C0 " N 00 N m N co N OD N OD N 00 N co N m N N w 07 r i � 6l 6l � 61 61 6l 61 61 6l 61 6l Ol bl 6l A M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Ur M co co co co co co 00 00 OD 00 00 00 00 O �� co 00 co co co co co 00 00 00 co co co co r Q `� Q r-I r-I rl rl rl rl r-I rl rl rl rl r-I r-I .-� A m O —1 N M V' lO r 07 m O r-I M N 3 O C7 .—I CD rl CD rl C7 —4 C7 rl C7 r1 CD CD 1-i CD 1--I C7 N 0 N C7 N C7 N C7 ICI a CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w a� 3 61 O '-i N M 'r r CO m O rl M O N N N a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) o C7 C7 C7 C7 C� C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A CD CD CD CD C7 U C7 CD C7 CD 0 co U) m co U) IO U) co U) co U) U) In co a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) 04 R+ C4 f1, 04 CL 04 04 04 04 0l CL A O ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro (a ro ro ro C 2 2 Z 2 Z 2 2 Z Z 2 Z 2 Z Z d W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Cy O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U W W W W � W 1 � W 41 41 4J W W W W U U U U U U U U U U U I U I U I I JU M W O N bap 0. n 0 d C tt 0 U d S 0 0 i V d d obi d O� �•• ill N O N 42 W v" O 3 eep cl �oO O o 3 U � m m m a H ' 0 0� o c6 a d E� a ro o •� ,n 'a H � z4 (D a a) oMO +W ,H 4j d i ... (0 rn ro zz M > ,H 'n u) 0 O _ w -1 N N co zw O 00 co O zp �, w C7 w ON A O l— Q0 O H u U` Wes" M m r- . i d m _q A FN �, N (N co A a AN f--I rl d 3 � 3 3 r a w H a N H a 3 r N —4 w a� w 3 m +-) o 3 ro 3 0. u � d A ro ro ro d A � � U) m m H v7 H �+ P r-I lJ U o 0 0 O ro z -P „ �A �4 0 0 0 0 U � a +-q U d O� S. py N N N A a.i a o O o 3 U � m m m C S' c6 E� (00 Ei E� o •� ,n 'a cr a d z4 (D a a) +W +J 4j (0 ro ro M 0 ,H o u) 0 O _ w -1 N H co t O 00 co O zp �, z OMO L q� ter-, O l— Q0 O H o, Ln r- zw co m co W p d AN f--I rl N � 3 3 w a w H a H a H a 3 r N —4 w a w y 3 3 3 d A ro ro ro U) m m H H H �+ P J-J lJ U o 0 0 +J 4J -P �-4 �A �4 0 0 0 a a a m m M M m a n 0 m r 0 d 0 a O 0 N 0 ate' ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT CP- 2008 -1 UPDATED PROJECT INFORMATION BCC Transmittal Hearing March 22.2011 GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Manners • Landscape Architects January 10, 2011 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl 34104 Re: CP2008 -01; Golden Gate Estates Area Master Plan Amendment; Estates Shopping Center Dear Ms. Mosca: As one of the authorized representatives for the application, I wanted to provide to you n supplemental information related to the recent results of the November 2, 2010 straw ballot question concerning the proposed Estates Shopping Center. We also wanted to provide you with results from an on -line poll from the Naples Daily News (Collier Citizen). Both of the supplemental items demonstrate the high level of support for the proposed amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to permit construction of grocery anchored commercial project at the Northwest corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. On the straw ballot question, a total of 7,038 votes were cast in support of the proposed shopping center, which represented over 76% of the total certified votes on the question. There were 1,924 votes cast against the shopping center, which represented slightly over 21% of those voting on the issue. The on-line poll results were similar to that of the general election. Readers were asked to respond to a question regarding two proposed shopping centers in Golden Gate Estates. One located near Randall Blvd. and Immokalee Road and the other is the subject center located at Wilson Blvd. and Golden Gate Blvd. A total of 1,603 votes were cast in the poll and of those responding a total of 76% said they supported either the center at Golden Gate Blvd. and Wilson Blvd. or both centers. A total of 21% supported either center, or only the center at Randall Blvd. and Immokalee Road. We are requesting that staff include the election and poll results information in the agenda packets provided to the Board of County Commissioners for their upcoming U. Grady Minor K Associates, VA. Ph. 239 -947 -1144 • Fa: 239 -947 -0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 • LB 0005151 • LC 26000266 Bonitii Springs, hl, 34134 ��cw.gradymino�.corn Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Re. CP200 9-01; Golden Gate Estates Area Master Plan Amendment; Estates Shopping Center January 10, 2011 Page 2 of 2 transmittal hearing on this matter. Previously, we provided staff with back -up material which outlined the extensive public outreach effort associated with the proposed plan amendment. It would be appreciated if the election and poll results could be included in the public outreach section of the application materials. If you have any questions regarding any of the election or poll information, please feel free to contact Rich Yovanovich at 435 -3535 or me. Sincerely, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Director of Planning Election and Poll Results Transmittal.doc Page 2 of 218 n littp: / /naplesnews.com /polls /2010 /iul /,golden gate estates shopping centers /results/ Poll: Does Golden Gate Estates need the shopping centers? Response Percent Votes Only at Golden Gate and Wilson Boulevards 53% 862 Yes, both 23% 381 No, neither 12% 202 Only at Randall Boulevard and Immokalee Road 9% 158 Total Votes: 1603 GAPROJ - PLANNING \RCGMPA \Poll - Golden Gate Estates Shopping Ctrs.doc Page 3 of 218 Collier County -- Supervisor of Elections 2010 General Election November 2, 2010 Final Official Results - Updated 11/12/2010 EARLY VOTING TOTALS —100% ABSENTEE TOTALS -- 100% ELECTION DAY TOTALS - -100% WITH 94 OF 94 PRECINCTS REPORTING Provisional ballots included Federal ballots included GOLDEN GATE SHOPPING CENTER QUESTION Last Updated Nov 13 2010 10:12 AM Back NO Precinct: 551 Over Votes Total Number of Votes in this Precinct: 1241 Under Votes YES /Sl 931 (75.0 %) NO 266 (21.4 %) :a`; =''':. Over Votes 0 (0 %) Under Votes 44 (3.54 %) Precinct: 552 Over Votes Total Number of Votes in this Precinct: 1014 Under Votes YES /SI 735(72,4%) NO 265 (26.1%) Over Votes 0 (0 %) Under Votes 14 (1.38 %) `: Precinct: 554 Total Number of Votes in this Precinct: 1291 YES /SI 1,044 (80.8 %) I NO 224 (17.3 %) Over Votes 0 (0 %) Under Votes 23(l.78%)[ Precinct: 555 2(0.11%)1 Total Number of Votes in this Precinct: 1592 53(3.03%)1 YES /SI 1,081 (67.9 %) MEN NO 421 (26.4 %) ' Over Votes 0 (0 %) Under Votes 90 (5.65 %) Precinct: 590 Total Number of Votes in this Precinct: 2418 YES /SI 1,840 (76.0 %) NO 463 (19.1%)11`1 _,...: Over Votes 1(0.04%)l Under Votes 114 (4.71 %) , Precinct: 591 Total Number of Votes in this Precinct: 1747 YES/S] 1,407 (80.5 %) NO 285 (16.3%)1.: Over Votes 2(0.11%)1 Under Votes 53(3.03%)1 Back http:// www .colliervotes.coin/index.php ?id =185 &spanish =N Page 2 of 3 12/7/2010 Page 4 of 218 H M O Cl O O O O O H CO O H O O O O O .-I O O W n N Cu a O H W O z H H W O O O O O O O O O O O O O N OD N •-i N co -M t0 l0 m In r OD H .-1 r 'r LO .� N M 1n kv m N r O m r C v Lo H H W in C m m H IV m H O7 H H M H H N M O M m m N ki N y Page 5 of 218 M O Cl O O O O O H CO O z p a H W O F H U O w >+ N a H w z p N a p C) cx w H W o) C O M r LO N M m m O M un N l0 C N m N N O N 0 o z (N 0 N O O N m N N m N .-1 M to O N N to O C* O O H N M N O M O C. O H r In c \p m N 4' m d' r -v N m M l0 co cp M co N N Lo N O co u tf7 M o N v O k ko m r N �� a H H tD O a I� !1 , W a Y� �a � a o o .-� H H i W H �C 0 z a m w° ° WW F z O O U n H U 2 H U W c>~ w a F a W H A w a W H M H 0 W x a F � I H v) rj U ul H O a r7 aC m a H O F 1 P O z a n H a, w H O o H 2 W v) to W H 94 E to A W H "o m Z> H N O 41 N 41 W F z p N� H U H w a rn W O c m x F H 3 w W a O .-1 Q � � O U }i rt z o x N v z [q x U •.i N 'o G v x N -14 f 3 v s1 C s1 v TS C a X N H a O s4 N U v c1 N •,i O id ry a z 'O ld H v x vi N w a z at o ro a U 7 N m FC 4+ z b v m N Q .Q O m a z 11 v H ?, E x U •.1 a z �- » U N •14 �Si rt x v a z [ H N O u v h .,N1 3 v a z H I (w1 H a4 H 1-4 A u) u rZ1 > H H z W W W w a> Q w z U E 2 w a r •-� O u x O H 41 H N S JJ o Page 5 of 218 vw M If) m o m ri 4D o O m ul r N o .-+ 0 0 0 o m LO o N m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O (- N lD 61 Q` W C' W N M G• N Q1 h N r4 m N of (- lD m d' C -w M m lD O l0 O (- O d' m m O N tD U1 r-I N M •-4 O LO Ol m rn 14 m (- co m M to C' O (- of of -4 m co %D O M -T -4 ID r N O lD m r-1 ID .-i 4D ri N lD N O m lD to W M 1-1 N m to to m 1-1 0l of r- ! cM r-I N -4 N H .-1 M � !` .--1 171 M O N to C' O O O O O Cl M -4 O Cl (D O O O V O O Q, M w p o) to r-I r r-1 O N r- O LO Ol m 1` N O V r-1 .--1 v r- O H M of m m O 1 N H .-1 M LO N m .--1 171 M m ID O m -4 O m un Vi iD lD v d' 1- 1� N W r m ID of 11 1' a r� m .-� r- O N N M m h o• O T M (- N N M m N N M N C d• w N M 1-1 O r w N N lD M N O N [I' r- m of D' of C LD M M ID d• N 1-1 w a, O W m O m of lD M ri r N N N O m -4 lD N w lD C O W f O tD m r•1 N rl r-1 lD lD lD M M rl O f 1- N N ^ F W E-4 H w F z a H x D z D D U En H u a O v Q (l) a E m H U z U W a H O v U H H U w A v zo H w z a a z a. a w W v ro N x U z H N E. w x E S w r F D4 a. o v a 4Y. V o a 'U H N 9 O ro Q .-.. sa `.. H .� O a ,... WQ 4 -� z •... N W O •� m O � H FC N N 14 N � m H N v u o . O S4 .-1 H d' x O `� C L"+ H m 5 N N O. H z z W C r C of •-• H u N N N .� a m H z W S-I O 44 m F H •H o: u S1 16 O 4L S4 4 D: O O W H H 0 u) H u) FC ^I W .O Y a ri H { >+ W O 44 H H o O1 61 •H m N -H r-I u) W N 3 '-' -O -H > C7 v b1 •H m T i z a. w N v 3 `" x u X v u v v ro .� u •H u U v -H W H H 2 D'. O N v 3 "' cq C9 G a o U m h r1 -H 3 O:4-) a o 9 ro Q o h u v o a > o 5 -H a r-1 4 v a H 2 m G. U m Q x 3 F F� o > m a m Q H h d Cpl Page 6 of 218 In N O H O lD O O O O O O O O O O O O O to U1 N 1 r 0% r N lD Ol N M m r H 0) '4 r ID m O O w M m ,d N N In (D m r1 1P) O ,Ll N o LO M v 0 N N m V• N M to LO of 1p V. kD m V• c14 d' ID to O O M M H O O M r1 O O O O O O M r0 l0 0 -0 W H M d' m m r lD r W v m o vo' o O M m Cl) O N N m M d' lD M U) (T O H m ~ H O M r N r N V H N ID d M to r M N 0) m N Ol M 110 �o M M r M lf1 M N 0) N d C O r M N -4 .� D N 'w N O lD N W W El p E- H U p U 'n r 5 p H Z O W z H W E" O H U .-� F to O'h U N 2 H a cn U U [� U W E" to $ H F F v a a H w z a w y o U a a H w o rn c A w z a o H H N z H a a a H O 4 o rt w C m V d• H Q H m ' v C x o L4 a 41 2 H ° [� w 2 O Z -+ •0 W O �ZC. ^ rn 7 N G O N -r a V) W N N O O U w ^ NH [u O W H L N N N H W O H a W 5 �� 3 to U x a W h a W El W H U) o W W x v 41 (0 4J o w .0 .O c w S u Ski J ai h o o U o HU H +1 H W aD El > to F > F%l F > U) to Page 7 of 218 LO N O -1 N v N � v m .-4 N N M N O (D O O C) O O O O O O O (— N Ol a• O N 1i O N v N dl M a, m N to M �D !` r O v m N ko H r N H O H M O ri M m N m m N N t- N w v m '-1 M to M N cn N N O N to O O N M N to r-1 to m to ri to N .-4 m M m r-/ O O O .-I O M rl H N v m M H M M N M N N M M O v m m tD m Ol ON N N to O v O lD N M tD m to N 1-1 H H N ID H N N v 1-1 c- N O m O rl lD Dl v O M M t- lD to M N v H m v H N to M ,D v M v a> ID O M �D N M v O lD M N in H l0 Dl to H 01 N v O m to I- m M Dl 1 N N to H N l� v m m w r m M to to O N 1- to N N lfl v to M m v N M H E E z p p O z z N H U to ? U M C7 U U U y z O U M a 2 2 2 H FC 2 H � W z H O z H H v) A H u z FC U w U a a w v a a w c) a D, w v a a a a m a a U H a v U H F a c C) H F a a U H Da m nl D E H r-I 4. .... N y y Ol 4, O to h , -� Ol W O co '� .--i Ol O cn .-� a\ O z N .--i O H •-t F H rn H P — rn d) a o U u O x H x b z H ° u O x F ° s4 O x H ° I4 O x sa x 4j AJ m al N G 'd J-� s4 N >+ H 44 (v H 3 •.i to 34 I W H W Vi H 3 H cn W 44 H 3 H cn W £ D 4a a H 3 H ul to W 04 4-I v H 3 rd O a) (a F.) cn li o D: z a O V O > O 4) U H D: $ P4 a u o > co w Yt O z D. 41 o > n w >+ o z a O > w o w : o Page 8 of 218 CC) m N N M LO N N N M r r H N O O O O O Co O O p p O O O N N N N LO Q' Yfl N M M � (r) r � J.� r vi r °' r m ko m n LO rn rn r (n rn 1 ' r o m CD N m m c 1.0 ri u N If ko -V 1.0 M H N N M H N 1- N N N rl N m r LO .-i ri N N N m cM O O r N M to (Nj N Or 1' N M N C H N N (+) N c-4 N N N ,..( N 'y N .-I N M r r M N m M r O m N r (D o) w M H m p pp m lD H M (o M to M N l0 V M r to N M 10 to M H k o) N H H N c m N to r M r r to ll (\j m (N M %o V' Lr) N �n N N N U') N N N Ln y z ° n H N El O W z H a z • z z z , W U W O x U P 0 OV F 0 O U x x 0 2 (n (n W H W F N U z A 2 q z 0 z U h V h U h U h U w °' a w w a a o c w a d W a o w O o w o O o o C. a, O , arn a ° rn a rn rn OU 0 E. O o F O O F U ' H �\ (0 W H 3 H W U H 3 H Vl U W H H N U W H 3 H - U O W F to W O F a) N -) O W W O F (n 41 O. co W O F to N O to W p F (n N u) N 3 (n ?� z nH > S+ z Q > N z H > Yi 2 H W z H o > ' W Page 9 of 218 N N O r N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O Cl —4 C' 4N O r o (n ID r O W M N .-1 M Y' m r N C L O O1 C .--4 r e M .4 N O v m r V) H lD V' H r M H dl N H 01 N m H (•N'1 1 OH (51 O Cw 1 Ol O1 t0 N d• dt r N m r lD 01 O 01 O N ko C H (D H ID M 14 m N r-1 m N 01 ri .--� M N N ,y N H M O N O l0 1D Ol N lD ID tD O M ON r d' O m M -W N M r C T r O 1 In ,I ri rt .-i o LO N H O N O Ol O rl W N N r r M Cl) lD Ol V' H 11n r M M lD rn M m w H M r l0 N M rl ID W M d1 10 O a• M N P r-1 �D r O N U') 10 O O M W N 0) C O lD l0 r LP, V` M U1 C tin l0 u-1 LO .N M N M N tf) N N O un rH M r C' N M v C -V M • V 0 0 0 U S • U C) V rn U � U EA h U U U U U y w F-3 H U a M U a a N U [t] a H i4 H H ' w a a rn a a a v rn a H cn a ON a) +I c a H M c m > s4 x H (n m rn O .-a W O W H W O H ❑ -4 W O -.I 3 H Q H 41 O %4 wN H C) H O ro v rn c rn ❑ v m O a ❑❑ v M ❑ v m $a v w a D Sa x a 5 O N O x H $ O "a N 0 7l H o N 4 e) FL O m SA O X H m ro 71 a O m S4 O x H 4) H V •a • O U O 4a H H H (n U 44 H a H (n a W H a ro U c c a W H H 10 >, • a 44 �� a Q E cn 0 w O H (n a, 41 O - -1 to w o O x 4� 0 -- N ro M a) 0 o O x 0 aJ 0 4 Sa ro c aJ to o O 'm 4) 4+ O v >+ a) 0 0 2 H 7 N Z H > S-4 Z U > a d' U , III] Y. U , CL h Page 10 of 218 N N rt 0) N N C%) m ,--� O O O O O Cl O O O O Cl r CO r O N r O, H r r C) clq n m N 61 N .-1 l0 M O LO O M N O N t.f) N OD N O i N O O r M N p M L M '~ LD N N r N O O O a1 p� p� N N M O O O Cl O O O (vmj lm0 O N r m N r r-1 C' tf) .-i O lO ri 1 l0 rl �p p m H lO d ri N .O� r Ol O r-i Q1 M lO LO c LO <r cD u�i m m M W r l0 O O N O LO p N C M N co r r N M m O In c C` N r co M m M lO M In M H 14 O Ul c x O a c7 F 0 w F 0 w F ° o w H 5 V N F 5 p M F F p W H w n E E+ � F O V v N U H a v U V H N F w W a y W W H H U O E V w a U Z U a v rn H ° pa , m z FC w 0 a U i. (a q W W C4 a% a) a a m O U C.0 O U O fv O H -- O � N -11 w N a c u) Ea+ ,-i O M a) c ti 0 $ m a 0 o O H l x > a U 4a O U .. N x N � °i w o) (ry a m f+.e .-. M N d) X N 0 W U � O W u a O W H u Z W H 1- h a W 0 El 1 'a CS S4 a) U al 8: 4J a1 H 0 S 4 N 0 En 5 H o > ° Q > 0 O > O >, H o .Q � w Page 11 of 218 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 10—\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O H M -W � m ID C V' Le) l0 m N M Ol m N [� H L LO 'f cT M M to to w M (- C H H I O O O O O O O O O O ri ill N C m Ln 01 M r-1 l0 N r- m (O ID r1 N m .-( N m H (n LO Ln (T .-i N m H (n m d lD t0 M M (n C• iP Ln O1 tl1 O -1 lO N M C O w N CI' N N M r-I M 61 In H r-( .-1 N .-i Ln m 1- N r-4 in LO Ol N C H z z z W H ZO N O U O U O o U N U U H y U U LO E H U [] z 0 z H 4 U H F W U H in U U o U w U a c o w a N a ca W W a H a a a F a w z O a v) H z p a H o v) U U U N -4 vwi pj H w O •O r- O °i w ,� H G, p N o f, H W z .-� W p W v) •1 to z w .-a W O G ro D -'1 a 0 0 U H G+ O H 0 Q U a v o W C7 a) U U O a V) H O x H S4 :::s U O ca H O x F W U w O F U• H O W x F H U ro v O !n W H O W x H H Y v N a O (n �\ w a v — N ro 4 w a 01 s �-' i ro m W H Ul s O w "O H F w a `� r. v) H c (6 N a N UJ Y s '-' H N A •-I H a c Y 0 o 2 ro U .14 0 Y o H v E ro H a Y o O o C v H a Y o ro �:s a o o -1 a Page 12 of 218 C, 0 0 0 0 0 r M r N O O O O O O O O O O r .1 - r- C14 CZ LO ci m m 0) in CN 1 � n r m m N r m rn 1 N N m � N N m � O O O O O O O (D M H l0 r r-1 r '1 N 6l r N Ol LO r N to M M w N N N r-{ to C' d` l0 H N ON r r V' M U') M LO to LO C• C' N ri m m v 61 C u'] O M Ln v lD N r N M O1 m m N N rl \D LO to N H N M a% to O Ol O kl N M M M N M H E z H H O ° w c°> U) W U N U y F Ul H H U H M H H q U w C] H U W W W U U _ •'i WU U W a w w o Ol 3 o a o .-� b Q N z a H 41 z a 1 H c m `1 W O •rri U H v. b U)) ri r14 �° ~ N "i E. O .1 .1 U) O 4 11 H O u H O ro ,1 v U) L x V) a o\ N - s-I O x F k --I sa O x .-1 H H x � x F 4 SO sa x H S-t E Cu W _ W F H H p W v U N v V v JJ o H 4J S-i G H J� a o o y) N o q a) w FC a C-14 > o °w > U u a) E- N � o > N z o Page 13 of 218 N .+ O O m m C /r*7 (*1 N C N Un N N � O O O O O O O O O O m m m al C� N ID r m Cl %.0 r CD r4 m N N r m M N C' N CO a, 14 M N C N li r m O a) M C ,4 O S iO r M l0 O LO d• m M M m ri m m r-4 N LO m tO m v N O N V• N O N l9 m l0 m l0 (3) o r O Q' C4 N N N H m M N G' M LO m to m m M o r m m m c o r M O vn N o M N rn m v oo to vi M r r N Q\ C r-1 tO N N m r- al H r M 04 r N M r to m LO _; <F m LO H 'r m M N d' m N la r N N m Lo O H M m H Q\ N M la �a of Q\ of O la m N d' la O m -4 UO v lO M ul M w W F F H z z El z z 5 5 °o 0 o u O A o F F W F EO Uzi z H H H U w w w w a H w a a w w w O ,-� O ,� O O E. O F F O O rn c — m LO .-, m io rn m m O rn x F 2 S4 O x F H Z N O x F F Z N O x F H Z N O x F z O F �\ F H H 3 H W 44 H 3 H N w £ 4-I H 3 H cn W £ 4-1 H 3 H cn W 44 H 3 H Cn Q Z W H 3 V) W O ra Z W a 4j O fR W O 2 o Z W a u O > cn W ?+ O Z o Z W V O > cn W O Z Z W 4� O > cn W >+ O Z CQ 2 2 41 O > >+ 2 > >+ Page 14 of 218 io c r .-1 N ~ ~ O M O m N H � O O O O O O O O O O O In � m -Ir m l0 l9 N t"7 N M M H r..1 r 7, .--I O LO to ry N v' l0 M N r m r 1` M r m C 1-1 O M l0 r m m 1O Ol (Ii N M Q' M M N .--1 N (A M M LD ry LO d, is -4 d t0 O O Cl O O o O M o o N p N ko m .H lD r-1 r O p M m N 01 O r O ry N C' 'r O ul O O ONl V N r-I w M r D 'i m ko • N r O N N C m r- N r ry � M r o) m r 1-1 I- o N m ,-1 m ri W N r r, r N r F ,1 LO o C M N W a N l0 -4 H N a � V 2 2 2 E+ O z H U to 0 a Q z z z 1 1 z o W H E. Q H H O FA w ' H F H z H z a ° a 0 a ° QO o Lo H H H U U U • a F U F H U O z O H z Q z Q Z H H H H O W a U W a U W H a a w Q W a rz na K4 0 z w ° w ° o a H cr > H O m p U c z ° N 2 H W p W h El 00 H p O H O a Q,• w U H m H H U O F U r • co x O H O a Z a to O H a too d F N w \� O4-I 3 W O QH 4a H 3 H H Q W H H & H vl H 44 H H H W H H .a o U o w ° a o w o a N o \ w o Q a 4) o 3 to w p 4J 3 vl i Z m ' Z i1 Z W > o N Z H � N r" r, . v Page 15 of 218 Page 16 of 218 O M N V •--� M O O O O O p O O O N 01 N CD M O1 mO w C O O ko r N M r ap p� m O 14 d' l0 N N N N r O M l0 L1 01 M m N M H p O O p O O O O m o" ((n r N a' °' ° o N a r m p r ID O p N H cp M r NO m M N r C tD N m ul O � N N r m r H N N N � C W .W m � r � INs7 a M N N 01 iri N r M H 61 W v m M r C N 01 H p H a0 w 2 • •Z H a o A a U W7+ O U H H W H 44 w W O .7 _ Q o U U H W W w x H H rn c 1 N Z z a z ° Q a O z H W H O W N 41 .� o E H W C a M o H H 3 H u) � !n >4 Z a i rC H � [.3 a H U a a Pa !n to H 0 W -- O W N +j V w H E U H W W m N o N H H S - H v] >+ Z zo O F H Cl x W z U 0 z H d x ui H 0U' W 0 O CD i O W O V > — W o u W ac a l0 o H H 3 H cn N ' Z Page 16 of 218 Estates Shopping Center Public Outreach The Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Comprehensive Plan amendment proposes to amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to permit a phased grocery store anchored shopping center to be developed on a 41 acre site near the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. The Subdistrict will permit a maximum of 190,000 square feet of commercial space, including a required full - service major grocery store component and other uses commonly found in neighborhood and community commercial centers such as banks, restaurants, phased general retail and personal services. The grocery store will be a minimum of 27,000 square feet and be the first use to receive a certificate of occupancy. The site is central to the northern Golden Gate Estates area residential population, and is located at one of the significant commercial node within Golden Gate Estates. This central location makes the site ideally situated to provide convenient shopping and service opportunities currently not available in this area of Golden Gate Estates. In addition, the proposed development intensity of 5,500 square feet per acre is less than the intensity of approximately 6,000 square feet per acre utilized by staff in its analysis for the current neighborhood centers. In addition it should be recognized that approximately 50% of this site will remain open space and extensive buffering will shield it from neighbors. The property owner has worked diligently over the last four years to enlist the input of area residents in determining their support for a shopping center at this location and to determine what uses are needed to best serve the residents of Golden Gate Estates. An extensive public outreach effort has occurred, pending Board of Collier County Commissioner review. The outreach effort has included mail surveys, independent newspaper surveys, public meetings and numerous focus group efforts. A summary of the community outreach effort is described below: • Two Focus Group Input ( November 2007) The Petitioner invited a number of area residents to participate in two initial focus group meetings to share their ideas on what types of uses would be well received in a shopping center at this location. The participants identified several uses that were needed in their community such as a major grocery store, sit -down restaurant, hair salon, bank, etc. • Informal Meeting at fire station with Nearby Property Owners (January 15, 2008). Participants received an invitation by mail. Golden Gate Estates Civic Association Meeting at fire station (January 16, 2008). The meeting was advertised in the newspaper. Page 17 of 218 County NIM Meeting (February 19, 2008). The meeting was advertised in the newspaper and property owners within 1000 feet were sent a mailed notice. At the NIM it was clear that there was a tremendous amount of misinformation pertaining to the project. In addition, at that NIM, the nearby residents requested that there be more details presented as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process. The Petitioner voluntarily withdrew from the 2007 amendment cycle and resubmitted its petition as part of the 2008 amendment cycle. After the petition was resubmitted to the County as part of the 2008 cycle, the Petitioner then continued to present the petition and solicit information through public outreach meetings and presentations. Results of the Fathom analysis (described below) and a more detailed comprehensive plan petition which included a conceptual master plan were presented to the public in several public information meetings. The process is outlined below. As a result of the outreach, the petition and site design has become more detailed than is typically found in other comprehensive plan amendments. • Fathom Study Interview Meetings (February 2 -5 and February 28/29,2008) The Fathom study consisted of over 30 ninety minute interviews with project neighbors and area property owners to determine how a center should function and feel. • Mail Survey (March 4, 2008) A survey was prepared by the marketing and research firm of Dolly Roberts and mailed to more than 5,500 property owners by a professional independent print and marketing company in our defined market area, with a response rate of approximately 28 %. A highly respected independent accounting firm tabulated the results, in which 83% of the respondents indicated that they supported a community -sized shopping center at this location. Respondents also indicated their preference for prospective tenants to include a major grocer, post office, family restaurant, drug store, hardware store and bank. • Immediate neighbors meeting (November 5, 2008). The immediate neighbors were mailed a written invitation to the meeting. General area meeting (November 13, 2008). Notice of the meeting was advertised in the newspaper. • General area meeting in Spanish at Max Hasse Park (November 20, 2008). Notice of the meeting was advertised in the newspaper. ^ 2 Page 18 of 218 • General area meeting at Max Hasse Park (January 15, 2009). Notice of the meeting was advertised in the newspaper. • Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association meeting (January 21, 2009) • Collier County Fair, Community Outreach Booth (February 5 -15, 2009) • Homeowners Organization of Golden Gate Estates (February 25, 2009) • Collier Citizen newspaper independent poll (March 6, 2009) February 2 thru March 6`', 2009, Yes or No For a 40 acre 225,000 square foot shopping center at the Northeast corner of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. 2.365 total vote YES 65% NO 34% • County NIM (September 14, 2009). Residents within 1000 feet received a mailed notice and notice of the meeting was advertised in the newspaper. n • Meetings with representative of the First and Third group both prior to and after the September 14, 2009 NIM. After the BCC decided to place the straw ballot question on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot, the following additional outreach activities occurred: • MAY 2010 Launched website Launched Facebook page Direct mail to existing supporters - letter with brochure English version (2,000) May 12 Spanish version (620) May 25 • JUNE 2010 Sent brochure to all registered voters (12,401 English/ 2,681 Spanish) Presentation - Realtors Luncheon June 2 3 Page 19 of 218 • JULY 2010 Community Candidate forum (Golden Gate Community Center) July 12 Community Yard Sale (Max Hasse Park) July 31 • AUGUST 2010 Community Center Yard Sale (Max Hasse Park) Aug. 28 Presentation - Big Cypress Elementary Aug. 31 • SEPTEMBER 2010 Election Yard Signs notifying supporters & non - supporters of upcoming vote Sept. 10 Community Yard Sale (Max Hasse Park) Sept. 25 Yard Sale (Cypress Wood Presbyterian Church) Sept. 11 Direct Mail Postcard #1 Sept. 20 Registered voters 13,000 English/ 3,000 Spanish • OCTOBER 2010 Taped interview with Naples Daily News Oct. 1 Editorial Board — posted online Presentation - Sable Palm Elementary Oct. 12 Community Yard Sale at Cypress Wood Presbyterian Church Oct. 9 Direct Mail to all registered voters Postcard #2 Oct. 4 Postcard #3 Oct. 11 Postcard #4 Oct 18 Postcard #5 Oct. 25 Advertising Full Page ad Collier Citizen Oct. 22 Full Page ad Collier Citizen Oct. 29 Page 20 of 218 Naples Daily News Online Poll Readers were asked to respond to a question regarding two proposed shopping centers in Golden Gate Estates. One located near Randall Boulevard and Immokalee Road and the other is the subject center located at Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. A total of 1,603 votes were cast in the poll and of those responding 53% supported just the Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center and a total of 76% said they supported both the center at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard and the center at Randall Boulevard and Immokalee Road. • NOVEMBER 2010 Election Nov. 2 The following the straw ballot question was presented to the registered voters in Golden Gate Estates: Golden Gate Area Master Plan Amendment — Wilson Boulevard /Golden Gate Boulevard Shopping Center Should the Golden Gate Area Master Plan be amended to permit a ±40 acre commercial shopping center, consisting of up to 190,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area in single story buildings located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard, that may include outparcels, inline stores, drive - through shopping services, and whose first occupant must be a minimum 27,000 square foot supermarket? Yes No A total of 7,038 votes were cast in support of the proposed shopping center, which represented over 76% of the total certified votes on the question. 5 Page 21 of 218 GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects December 6, 2010 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Collier County Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl 34104 Re: CP2008 -01, Golden Gate Estates Shopping Center; Green House Gas Reduction Analysis Dear Ms. Mosca: As you are aware, the maximum commercial square footage proposed in the subject Golden Gate Estates Master Plan amendment application has been modified since the last Board of County Commissioner transmittal hearing. The application now seeks a maximum of 190,000 square feet of commercial uses. The original green house gas emission analysis was prepared by Keystone Development Advisors in November, 2009, n and used 210,000 square feet of commercial development to analyze the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and green house gas reduction. Rather than prepare an entire new report to reflect the reduction in maximum commercial development, we. will summarize the revised calculations in this correspondence as a supplement to the 2009 evaluation. The original report did understate the annual vehicle miles traveled attributable to employment due to an error in the calculation. The original calculation which had the math error was: 303 employees x 9.56 miles /trip x 5 trips/week = 11,945 (14,483 corrected)miles /week saved. The reduction in commercial square footage for the project results in a slightly lower number of full time employees from 303 to 269. The adjusted employment number equates to a weekly reduction in VMT with the proposed shopping center of- 269 employees x 9.56 miles /trip x 5 trips/week = 12,858 miles /week saved The revised annual reduction in VMT based on employment and the number of households in 2010 is 4,153,302 miles. There is also a significant reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions due to the annual employee trip reduction. The revised volume of fuel conserved due to Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239 - 947 -1144 • Fx: 239 - 947 -0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 • LB 0005151 • LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com Ms. lfIchele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Re. CP2008 -01, Golden Gate Estates Shopping Center; Green House Gas Reduction Analyse n December 6, 2010 Page 2 of 2 the annual trip reduction is 199,678 gallons. Using the figure of 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide produced per gallon of gas as provided by Collier County, the revised annual reduction in green house gas would be 1,956 tons. 199 678 savings in 127.10 based on the average fuel price of $2.71 /gallon would be $ ; Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, -� D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Cc: Richard D. Yovanovich Page 24 of 218 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.E.1 PUBLIC FACILITIES La. Potable Water Public facilities are not available in the immediate area and therefore the development of the parcel will require installation of a potable water well to be permitted consistent with the applicable provisions of the GMP, LDC and other jurisdictional agencies including FDEP and SFWMD and capacity will minimally meet the standards of the Florida Administrative Code. It is likely that the site will be developed with approximately 60,000 square feet of office space, 110,500 square feet of retail space and 19,500 square feet of restaurants. In this scenario, the following water demand may be anticipated: Water Demand: 11-11N Office: Retail: Restaurant: 60,000 sq. ft. x 0.15 gpd/sf = 9,000 gpd 110,500 sq. ft. x 0.10 gpd/sf. = 11,050 gpd 19,500 sq. ft. x 0.5 gpd/sf = 9,750 gpd Total = 29,800 gpd Assumed incidental use for irrigation near seating areas per health code requirements: 3,000 gpd New Subdistrict Generation = 32,800 gpd Existing Residential: 17 units x 250 gpd/unit = 4,250 gpd Net Impact = (New Subdistrict — Existing Residential) = (32,800 — 4,250) gpd = 28,550 gpd Data Source: Tables in Chapter 64E -6 F.A.C. Lb. Sanitary Sewer Public facilities are not available in the immediate area and therefore the development of the parcel will require installation of a private sector package sanitary sewer or septic system treatment system permitted consistent with the applicable provisions of the GMP, LDC and other jurisdictional agencies including FDEP and SFWMD. Exhibit V.E.1 Revised February 2011 Page 1 of 3 CP- 2008 -1 Page 25 of 218 It is likely that the site will be developed with approximately 60,000 square feet of office space, 110,500 square feet of retail space and 19,500 square feet of restaurants. In this scenario, the following water demand may be anticipated: Sewer Generation: Office: 60,000 sq. ft. x 0.15 gpd/sf = 9,000 gpd Retail: 110,500 sq. ft. x 0.10 gpd/sf. = 11,050 gpd Restaurant: 19,500 sq. ft. x 0.5 gpd /sf = 9,750 gpd Total = 29,800 gpd Existing Residential: 17 units x 200 gpd/unit = 3,400 gpd Net Impact = (New Subdistrict — Existing Residential) = (29,800 — 3,400) gpd = 26,400 gpd l.c. Arterial & Collector Roads Please refer to Exhibit V.E.Ic, the Traffic Impact Statement. Project Transportation Consultant, TR Transportation Consultants, Inc., has prepared a Transportation Analysis for the conceptualized development program for the subject property. The proposed subdistrict is expected to result in a significant capture rate from pass by traffic as well as mitigating (reverse) directional flows (opposite of the rush hour directional pattern). The result shall be a more efficient use of the roadway capacity. This shall be one result of the satisfaction of community commercial need in the Estates. Another result will be the shortening of the trip lengths taken on the roadway system which is presently necessitated by the lack of commercial availability and services in the Estates. The roadway link LOS for Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard is not ideal under 2013 background conditions, but all intersections and turning movements are shown to operate acceptably. Additionally, the shorter trip lengths as a result of the added commercial development in the Estates will improve the LOS conditions on Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road as well. 1. d. Drainage The proposed development will standards and other applicable including the SFWMD. Exhibit V.E.1 Revised February 2011 be designed to comply with the 25 year, 3 -day storm standards of the LDC and other jurisdictional agencies Page 2 of 3 CP- 2008 -1 Page 26 of 218 Le. Solid Waste The established Level of Service (LOS) for the solid waste facilities is two years of landfill disposal capacity at present fill rates and ten years of landfill raw land capacity at present fill rates. No adverse impacts to the existing solid waste facilities from the proposed project of 190,000 square feet of commercial uses. Solid Waste Generation: Office: 60,000 sf x 0.01 lb /sf /day x 1 cy /250 lbs = 876 cy /yr Retail: 110,500 sf x 0.025 lb /sf/day x 1 cy /180lbs = 5,602 cy /yr Restaurant: 19,500 sf x 0.051b /sf /day x 1 cy /300 lbs = 1,186 cy /yr New Subdistrict Generation = 7,664 cy /yr Existing Residential: 17 units x 25 cy /unit/yr = 425 cy /yr Net Impact = (New Subdistrict — Existing Residential) _ (7,664 — 425) cy /yr = 7,239 cy /yr Data source: "Solid Wastes: Engineering Principles and Management Issues ", Tchobangolous/Theisen and "Environmental Engineering and Sanitation ", Salvato. I .f. Parks: Community and Regional The proposed development will not significantly increase the population density and therefore will have no effect on the community and regional parks beyond those mitigated by the payment of associated impact fees. The site, as presently allowed by the Future Land Use Element, Density Rating System and the Land Development Code, may be developed with up to 17 dwelling units. Using the average County household occupancy rate of 2.39 people per unit, this could represent 40 -41 residents. Conversion to the proposed commercial subdistrict represents a slight reduction in the County population. The 2010 Annual Update and Inventory Report establishes two Level of Service Standards (LOSS) for Parks and Recreation. The Board of County Commissioners requires 1.2 acres of community park land per 1,000 residents and 2.7 acres of regional park land per 1,000 residents. If the subdistrict is approved, the County will be required to provide 0.05 acres less community park space and 0.11 acres less regional park land. In this case, the County would be required to account for an additional 0.22 acres of community park land and 0.49 acres of regional park land. In any event, these impacts are usually mitigated by the payment of impact fees during permitting. Exhibit V.E.1 Revised February 2011 Page 3 of 3 CP- 2008 -1 Page 27 of 218 Exhibit IV.13 Proposed Growth Management Plan Text a. Estates — Commercial District (VllQ1) Residential Estates Subdistrict — Single- family residential development may be allowed within the Estates — Commercial District at a maximum density of one unit per 21/4 gross acres unless the lot is considered a legal non - conforming lot of record. 2) Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict — Recognizing the need to provide for centrally located basic goods and services within a portion Northern Golden Gate Estates the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict has been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map at the NW corner of Golden Gate Bou the southern 180 feet of Tracts 142 and 106 of Unit 11 and the southern 255 feet of Tract 111 of Unit 11 of Golden Gate Estates totaling approximately 41 acres The Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict is intended to provide convenient shopping, personal services and employment for the central areas of Northern Golden Gate Estates. Commercial development in this Subdistrict will reduce driving distances for many residents assist in minimizing the road network required, and reduce traffic impacts in this area of Collier County. All development in this Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and limitations: a. Allowable Uses shall be limited to the following: Amusement and recreation Groups 7911 — Dance studios schools and halls excludinq discotheques 7991 — Physical fitness facilities 7993 — Coin - operated amusement devises 7999 — Amusement and recreation services not elsewhere classified, including only day camps gymnastics instruction, ludo /karate instruction sporting goods rental and yoga instruction (excludes NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges Waterslides etc.) 2. Apparel and accessory stores (no adult oriented sales) Groups 5611 — Men's and boys' clothing and accessory stores 5621 — Women's clothing stores Exhibit IV B - Amended Language 11- 2010.doc Page I of 11 Exhibit IV.B Page 29 of 218 5632 — Women's accessory and specialty stores 5641 — Children's and infants' wear stores 5651 — Family clothing stores 5661 — Shoe stores 5699 — Miscellaneous apparel and accessory stores 3. Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations Groups 5531 — Auto and home supply stores 5541 — Gasoline service stations, without repair 4. Automotive repair, services and parking (no outdoor repair /service. All repairs /services to be performed by authorized automotive technician.) Groups 7514 — Passenger car rental 7534 — Tire retreading and repair shops including only tire repair 7539 — Automotive Repair Shops Not Elsewhere Classified including only minor service, lubricating and diagnostic service 7542 — Carwashes as an accessory to convenience stores Ml 5. Building materials hardware garden supply, and mobile home dealers Groups 5231 — Paint glass and wallpaper stores 5251 — Hardware stores 5261 — Retail nurseries lawn and garden supply stores 6. Business services Groups 7334 — Photocopying and duplicating services 7335 — Commercial photography 7336 — Commercial art and graphic design 7338 — Secretarial and court reporting services 7342 — Disinfecting and pest control services 7352 — Medical equipment rental and leasing 7359 — Equipment rental and leasing, not elsewhere classified 7371 — Computer programming services 7372 — Prepackaged software 7373 — Computer integrated systems design 7374 — Computer processing and data preparation and processing services 7375 — Information retrieval services 7376 — Computer facilities management services 7379 — Computer related services not elsewhere classified 7382 — Security systems services 7383 — News syndicates 7384 — Photofinishing laboratories Exhibit IV B -Amended Language 11- 2010.doc Page 2 of 11 Exhibit IV.B Page 30 of 218 "-*N 7389 — Business services not elsewhere classified 7. Child day care services (Group 8351) 8. Communications Groups 4812 — Radiotelephone communications 4841 — Cable and other pay television services 9. Construction special trade contractors (office use only, no on -site equipment storage) Groups 1711 — Plumbing heatinq and air - conditioninq 1721 — Painting and paper hanging industry 1731 — Electrical work industry 1741 — Masonry, stone setting and other stone work 1742 — Plastering, drywall acoustical and insulation work 1743 — Terrazzo, tile, marble, and mosaic work industry 1751 — Carpentry work 1752 — Floor laving and other floor work not elsewhere classified industry 1761 — Roofing, siding, and sheet metal work industry 1771 — Concrete work industry 1781 — Water well drilling industry r-� 1791 — Structural steel erection 1793 — Glass and glazing work 1794 — Excavation work 1795 — Wrecking and demolition work 1796 — Installation or erection of building equipment not elsewhere 1799 — Special trade contractors not elsewhere classified 10. Depository institutions Groups 6021 — National commercial banks 6022 — State commercial banks 6029 — Commercial banks, not elsewhere classified 6035 — Savings institutions, federally chartered 6036 — Savings Institutions, not federally chartered 6061 — Credit unions, federally chartered 6062 — Credit unions, not federally chartered 6091 — Non - deposit trust facilities 6099 — Functions related to depository banking not elsewhere classified 11. Eating and drinking places (Group 5812 including only liquor service accessory to the restaurant use no outdoor amplified music or televisions) Exhibit IV B -Amended Language 11- 2010.doc Page 3 of 11 Exhibit IV.B Page 31 of 218 12. Engineering accounting research management and related services Groups 8711 — Engineering services 8712 — Architectural services 8713 — Surveying services 8721 — Accounting auditing and bookkeeping services 8741 — Management services 8742 — Management consulting services 8743 — Public relations services 8748 Business consulting services not elsewhere classified 13. Executive legislative and general government except finance Groups 9111 —Executive offices 9121 — Legislative bodies 9131 — Executive and legislative offices combined 9199 — General government not elsewhere classified 14. Food stores Groups 5411 — Grocery stores (minimum 27,000 square feet) 5421 — Meat and fish (seafood) markets, including freezer provisioners 5431 — Fruit and vegetable markets 5441 — Candy, nut and confectionery stores 5451 — Dairy products stores 5461 — Retail bakeries 5499 — Miscellaneous food stores including convenience stores with fuel pumps and carwash 15. General merchandise stores Groups 5311 — Department stores 5331 — Variety stores 5399 — Miscellaneous general merchandise stores 16. Home furniture furnishings and equipment stores Groups 5712 — Furniture stores 5713 — Floor covering stores 5714 — Drapery, curtain and upholstery stores 5719 — Miscellaneous home furnishings stores 5722 — Household appliance stores 5731 — Radio television and consumer electronics stores 5734 — Computer and computer software stores 5735 — Record and prerecorded tape stores (no adult oriented sales) 5736 — Musical instrument stores Exhibit IV B - Amended Language 11- 2010.doc Page 4 of I I Exhibit IV.B Page 32 of 218 17. Insurance carriers _Groups 6311 — Life insurance 6321 —Accident and health insurance 6324 — Hospital and medical service plans 6331 — Fire, marine, and casualty insurance 6351 — Surety insurance 6361 — Title insurance 6371 — Pension, health and welfare funds 6399 — Insurance carriers, not elsewhere classified 6411 — Insurance agents 18. Justice, public order and safety _Groups 9221 — Police protection 9222 — Legal counsel and prosecution 9229 — Public order and safety, not elsewhere classified 19. Meeting and banquet rooms 20. Miscellaneous retail (no adult oriented sales) Groups 5912 — Drug stores and proprietary stores 5921 — Liquor stores (accessory to grocery or pharmacy only) 5932 — Used merchandise stores 5941 — Sporting goods stores and bicycle shops 5942 — Book stores 5943 — Stationery stores 5944 — Jewelry stores, including repair 5945 — Hobby, toy, and game shops 5946 — Camera and photographic supply stores 5947 — Gift, novelty, and souvenir shops 5948 — Luggage and leather goods stores 5949 — Sewing needlework and piece goods stores 5992 — Florists 5993 — Tobacco stores and stands 5994 — News dealers and newsstands 5995 — Optical goods stores 5999— Miscellaneous retail stores, not elsewhere classified (excluding gravestone tombstones auction rooms, monuments swimming pools and sales barns) 21. Non - depository credit institutions Groups 6111 — Federal and federally- sponsored credit agencies 6141 — Personal credit institutions Exhibit IV B- Amended Language 11- 2010.doc Page S of 11 Exhibit IV.B Page 33 of 218 6153 —Short -term business credit institutions, except agricultural 6159 — Miscellaneous business credit institutions 6162 — Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents 6163 — Loan brokers 22. Offices and clinics of dentist (Group 8021) 23. Personal services Groups 7212 Garment pressing and agents for laundries and drycleaners 7221 — Photographic studios, portrait 7231 — Beauty shops 7241 — Barber shops 7251 — Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors 7291 — Tax return preparation services 7299 — Miscellaneous personal services, not elsewhere classified excluding massage parlors Turkish baths and escort services 24. Public finance taxation and monetary policy (Group 9311) 25. Real Estate Groups 6512 — Operators of nonresidential buildings 6513 — Operators of apartment buildings 6514 — Operators of dwellings other than apartment buildings 6515 — Operators of residential mobile home sites 6517 — Lessors of railroad property 6519 — Lessors of real property, not elsewhere classified 6531 — Real estate agents and managers 6541 — Title abstract offices 6552— Land subdividers and developers, except cemeteries 26. Schools and educational services not elsewhere classified (Group 8299 27. Security and commodity brokers dealers exchanges, and services Groups 6211 — Security brokers dealers and flotation companies 6221 — Commodity contracts brokers and dealers 6231 — Security and commodity exchanges 6282 — Investment advice 6289 — Services allied with the exchange of securities or commodities, not elsewhere classified Exhibit IV B -Amended Language 11- 2010.doe Page 6 of 11 Exhibit IV.B Page 34 of 218 28. Social services Groups 8322 — Individual and family social services (adult day care centers only) 8351 — Child day care services 29. Travel agencies (Group 4724) 30. Veterinary services for animal specialties (Group 0742) 31. Video tape rental (Group 7841 excluding adult oriented sales and rentals 32. United states postal service (Group 4311 excluding major distribution centers 33-Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ( "BZA ") by the process outlined in the LDC b. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the �..,` permitted principal uses and structures including but not limited to: a. Utility buildings b. Essential service facilities C. Gazebos, statuary and other architectural features c. The following uses shall be prohibited: 1. Amusement and recreation services not elsewhere classified (Group 7999, NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges Waterslides etc.) 2. Air and water resource and solid waste management (Group 9511) 3. Business Services Groups 7313 — Radio, television and publishers' advertising representatives 7331 — Direct mail advertising services 4. Correctional Institutions (Group 9223) 5. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) (Group 5813) Exhibit IV B -Amended Language 11- 2010.doc Page 7 of 11 Exhibit IV.B Page 35 of 218 6. Educational services Groups 8211 — Elementary and secondary schools 8221 — Colleges universities and professional schools 8222 — Junior colleges and technical institutes 8231 — Libraries 7. Health services Groups 8062 — General medical and surgical hospitals 8063 — Psychiatric hospitals 8069 — Specialty hospitals except psychiatric 8. Miscellaneous Retail Groups 5921 — Liquor stores 5961 — Catalog and mail -order houses 5962 — Automatic merchandising machine operators 9. Personal services Groups 7211 — Power Laundries, family and commercial 7261 — Funeral service and crematories 10. Social services Groups 8322 — Individual and family social services, excluding adult day care centers 8361— Residential care including soup kitchens and homeless shelters d Development intensity shall be limited to 190,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. e One grocery use will be a minimum of 27,000 square feet. With the exception of one grocery use no individual user may exceed 30,000 square feet of building area. f Development within this Subdistrict shall be phased and the following commitments related to area roadway improvements shall be completed within the specified timeframes: 1 Right -of -Way for Golden Gate Boulevard Expansion and Right -of -Way for the Wilson Boulevard Expansion will be donated to the County at no cost within 120 days of a written request from the County. 2 The applicant will pay its fair share for the intersection improvements at Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard within 90 days of County request for reimbursement. Exhibit IV B -Amended Language 11- 2010.doe Page 8 of 11 Exhibit IV.B Page 36 of 218 3. Until the intersection improvements at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard are complete, the County shall not issue a Certificate(s) of Occupancy (CO) for more than 100.000 square feet of development. The applicant must obtain a C.O. for a grocery store as part of this 100,000 square feet, and the grocery store must be the first C.O. obtained. g. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and the rezone ordinance must contain development standards to ensure that all commercial land uses will be compatible with neighboring residential uses. A conceptual plan, which identifies the location of the permitted development area and required preserve area for this subdistrict is attached. The preserve area depicted on the conceptual plan shall satisfy all comprehensive plan requirements for retained native vegetation, including but not limited to the requirements of Policy 6.1.1 of the CCME. A more detailed development plan must be developed and utilized for the required PUD rezoning. h. Development standards, including permitted uses and setbacks for principal buildings shall be established at the time of PUD rezoning. Any future PUD rezone shall include at a minimum: (1) Landscape buffers adjacent to external rights -of -way shall be: • 1St /3rd Streets- Minimum 30' wide enhanced buffer • Wilson Boulevard- Minimum 25' wide enhanced buffer • Golden Gate Boulevard- Minimum 50' wide enhanced buffer (2) Except for the utility building, no commercial building may be constructed within 125 feet of the northern property boundary and within 300' of the 3rd Street NW boundary of this subdistrict. (3) Any portion of the Project directly abutting residential property (property zoned E- Estates and without an approved conditional use) shall provide at a minimum, a seventy -five (75) feet wide buffer, except the westernmost 330' of Tract 106, which shall provide a minimum 20' wide buffer in which no parking uses are permitted. Twenty -five (25) feet of the width of the buffer along the developed area shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of fifty (50) feet of the buffer width shall consist of retained or re- planted native vegetation and must be consistent with subsection 3.05.07.H of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The native vegetation retention area may consist of a perimeter berm and be used for water management detention. Any newly constructed berm shall be revegetated to meet subsection 3.05.07.H of the LDC (native vegetation replanting requirements). Additionally, in Exhibit IV B -Amended Language 11- 2010.doc Page 9 of I 1 Exhibit IV.B Page 37 of 218 order to be considered for approval, use of the native vegetation retention area for water management purposes shall meet the following criteria: (4) There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained. The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro - period unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the existing vegetation. (5) If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management District the project shall provide a letter or official document from the District indicating that the native vegetation within the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water management requirements. If the District cannot or will not supply such a letter, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for water management. (6) If the project is reviewed by Collier County, the County engineer shall provide evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to facilitate the necessary storage of water in the water management area. a. Estates — Mixed Use District (VI)2— Neighborhood Center Subdistrict — Recognizing the need to provide basic goods, services and amenities to Estates residents, Neighborhood Centers have been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. The Neighborhood Center designation does not guarantee that commercial zoning will be granted. The designation only provides the opportunity to request commercial zoning. (VI) a) The Collier County Land Development Code shall be amended to provide rural design criteria to regulate all new commercial development within Neighborhood Centers. (III)(V)(VI) b) Locations Neighborhood Centers are located along major roadways and are distributed within Golden Gate Estates according to commercial demand estimates, (See Map 9). The centers are designed to concentrate all new commercial zoning, and conditional uses, as allowed in the Estates Zoning District, in locations where traffic impacts can be readily accommodated and to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial and conditional use development. Four Neighborhood Centers are established as follows: Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center. This center consists of all feuF three quadrants at the intersection of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards (See Map 10). The NE and SE quadrants of the Center consist of Tract 1 and 2, Unit 14, Tract 17, Unit 13 and the western half of Tract 18, Unit 13 Golden Gate Estates. The NE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is approximately 8.45 acres. The parcels within the NE quadrant shall be interconnected and Exhibit IV B - Amended Language 11- 2010.doc Page 10 of 11 Exhibit IV.B Page 38 of 218 ," share access to Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard to minimize connections to these two major roadways. The SE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is 7.15 acres, allows 5.00 acres of commercial development, and allocates 2.15 acres to project buffering and right -of -way for Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. Tlae NVV quadrant #- the - Oeete .a}a# ly 4.98 aGFes --in size and rnn6i6t6 of T-ra Gt 144 s Unit I! of r'- -- r t Fistates. The SW quadrant Gate of the Center is approximately 4.86 acres in size and consists of Tract 125, Unit 12 of Golden Gate Estates. Also revise as follows: TABLE OF CONTENTS, LIST OF MAPS Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict [Page 1 ] • add name of this inset map in FLUE where maps are listed. Policy 1.1.2: [Page 5] The ESTATES Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: 1. ESTATES - MIXED USE DISTRICT a. Residential Estates Subdistrict b. Neighborhood Center Subdistirct C. Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict d. Conditional Uses Subdistrict 2. ESTATES - COMMERCIAL DISTRICT a. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict • add the new Subdistrict in FLUE policy 1.1.2.2 that lists all Designations /Districts /Subdistricts. Exhibit IV B -Amended Language 11- 2010.doc . Page 11 of 11 Exhibit IV.B Page 39 of 218 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Diagrammatic Use Plan WE� .v _ . ��c ..! _ .emu "# ., +r'",t`sa^a �°diFS'" 4..... .'lA "Y�` '"•.t rr1. . �Jt'�"°. x '0 Estates Shopping Center Sub district Commercial Needs Analysis April 15, 2008 Revised and Updated 2 -1 -11 Prepared for Mr. Rich Yovanovich, Esq. Goodlette Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Mr. Wayne Arnold Q. Grady Minor & Associates, Inc. Prepared by Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 1415 Panther Lane, Suites 346/347 Naples, Florida 34109 (239) 254 -8585 Page 41 of 218 Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary ...................................................................................... ............................... 3 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................... ............................... 10 1.1 Purpose ..................................................................................... ............................... 10 1.2 Overview of Needs Analysis ...................................................... ............................... 10 1.3 Definition of the Market Area and Target Population ................. ............................... 11 1.4 Analysis Process ....................................................................... ............................... 15 2.0 The Supply of Commercial Space .................................................... ............................... 16 2.1 Estates Shopping Center Sub district's Market ......................... ............................... 16 2.2 Additions to Supply from the Development of Receiving Lands . ............................... 18 2.3 Functional Utility of the Project site ............................................ ............................... 19 2.4 Functional Utility of the competing sites ..................................... ............................... 20 3.0 Analysis of the Need for the Proposed Amendments to the FLUM for the Custom Trade Area 21 3.1 Overview ................................................................................... ............................... 21 3.2 Commercial Demand and the Allocation Ratio .......................... ............................... 21 3.3 Impact of the Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment .................. ............................... 25 4.0 Commercial - Office Uses ................................................................... ............................... 26 5.0 Conclusions for Custom Trade Area ................................................ ............................... 29 6.0 Analysis of the Need for the Proposed Amendments to the FLUM for the TAZ Area....... 29 6.1 Overview ................................................................................... ............................... 29 6.2 Commercial Demand and the Allocation Ratio .......................... ............................... 30 6.3 Impact of the Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment .................. ............................... 34 7.0 Commercial - Office Uses ................................................................... ............................... 35 8.0 Conclusions for TAZ Trade Area ...................................................... ............................... 38 9.0 Conclusions for Comparison between Custom Trade Area in relation to the TAZ Trade Area 38 APPENDIX1 ............................................................................................... ............................... 42 APPENDIX2 ............................................................................................... ............................... 51 APPENDIX3 ............................................................................................... ............................... 52 APPENDIX4 ............................................................................................... ............................... 53 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 2 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 42 of 218 Executive Summary o Crown Management Services, Inc. ( "Client ") is proposing an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan ( "Plan "). The proposal is for a 190,000 square foot grocery anchored shopping center on a 41 +/- acre site located at the Northwest corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard ( "Project ") in the Golden Gate Estates Area of Collier County ( "County "). The Client has engaged Fishkind and Associates, Inc. ( "Consultant ") to prepare commercial needs analysis. o In the context of amending the adopted Plan, the applicant must demonstrate the need to amend the plan. As part of the analysis, typically there is a comparison of: ■ The supply of existing, vacant, and potential land /square footage planned for various commercial uses; ■ The demand for commercial land /square footage based on projected households in the market o Based on the current character of the region and proposed commercial development, the Consultant has analyzed the market need for additional neighborhood and community retail development within a custom 10- minute drive time market surrounding the Project. This trade area will be referred to throughout this report as the Custom Trade Area. An additional analysis was conducted utilizing the TAZ zones geography and corresponding demographic data prepared by the Collier County Compressive planning department. A map showing the two geographies is located below. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 3 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 43 of 218 Banta Beach Rd SE Lok4r B e F L O R I D'' A a w arbg Bead, Rd 218 Vineyards 1! - 238 C 0:1 L LJ 1 E d Pine R" Rd tame 8nre ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT 3...Arm Ave NE m e89 OranWUee 399 217 z 396 88Q+Ave N£ S 58tn Ave N£ �i 68m A. NE Z I A3,d Ave NE W 35M Ave NE NE NE Re-40 BW Z 383 NE W 9m Ave NE NE NE 215 214 ` 213 212 2_16 1 235 234 9 Nq Ns F }r n 1•e G ) 224 223.1 s -GtBCn g - �. �w�18m Ayp S'AI 0.1 ca s at E H p2 sGolden Gate 129 ® i —u m f @ m 2223 Legend s Q Custom Trade Area TAZ Trade Area u M i9 Erpglade 222 Of Well Rd 4:::56 s sE 0 • Golden Gate Estates is located in Collier County primarily east of 1 -75. The majority of the Golden Gate Estates land and housing is east of CR 951. This area is semi -rural in nature and consists of lots ranging in size from 1.14 acres to over 5 acres. The sites that are currently 5 acres or more can be split to the minimum 2.5 acre site. The area east of CR 951 has very limited services for consumer support. This area of the county is expected to be the fastest growing in the future due to it affordability and supply of land for future development. o The metric utilized for the comparison of supply -to- demand is the allocation ratio. ■ The allocation ratio (supply /demand) measures the amount of additional acreage required in relation to directly utilized acreage. The additional acreage is required in order to assure proper market functioning in the sale, usage and allocation of land. The likelihood that certain lands will not be placed on the market for sale during the forecast horizon, or may be subject to future environmental or other constraints must be accounted for. Thus, the lands allocated in the FLUM should be considerably greater than those that will actually be used or developed. The Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis 4 Page 44 of 218 Consultant believes that to ensure proper flexibility in the Plan, this area should have a commercial allocation ratio of approximately 2.0 for the short -term. o Summary results of the retail needs analysis for each geography are shown in Table E1 and E2 below. Table E1. Demand for Commercial Sq. Ft. in Custom Trade Area General Commercial 2010 2020 2030 Market Retail Demand (sq.ft) Existing Supply Net GLA (sq.ft) Vacant Commerical Total Supply Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand 149,068 237,253 309,462 94,506 94,506 94,506 14,701 14,701 14,701 109,207 109,207 109,207 0.73 0.46 0.35 FLUM Potential Supply 12,932 212,932 353,882 Total Supply w/FLUM Potential 122,139 322,139 463,089 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w /FLUN 0.82 1.36 1.50 Table E2. Demand for Commercial Sq. Ft. in TAZ Trade Area General Commercial 2010 2020 2030 Market Retail Demand (sq.ft) 249,333 344,845 413,175 Existing Supply Net GLA (sq.ft) 94,506 94,506 94,506 Vacant Commerical 14,701 14,701 14,701 Total Supply 109,207 109,207 109,207 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand 0.44 0.32 0.26 FLUM Potential Supply 12,932 212,932 353,882 Total Supply w/FLUM Potential 122,139 322,139 463,089 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w/FLUN 0.49 0.93 1.12 o Table E1 above indicates that currently the retail allocation for the custom trade area is below the minimum desired level of 2.0. By 2030, the allocation ratio for the custom trade area is expected to drop to 1.50, which supports good planning and economic policy to have a sufficiently high ratio to accommodate the expected demand in a meaningful fashion. Table E2 above indicates that currently the retail allocation for the TAZ trade area which is bigger in size. By 2030, the allocation ratio for the TAZ trade area is expected to drop to 1.12. Regardless of the trade area, there is adequate demand for retail space in this area of the county. As the situation currently stands, the lack of Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis 5 Page 45 of 218 available retail choices creates a substantial impediment to proper market functioning. This market area can expect to increasingly experience: ■ Significantly higher than average travel costs for residents; ■ Impacted roadway networks needing higher than average operating and capital improvements; of which the burden of financing is apportioned County -wide; ■ Upward pressure on commercial land prices due to artificial restriction of supply; ■ Downward pressure on residential land prices due to a lack of support facilities. o Based on this analysis, there is a clear and compelling case for adding additional land with neighborhood and community commercial use to this market. Any ratio less than 2.0 justifies the addition of land to the inventory of the market. Below is the analysis inclusive of both the Randall Center and the Proposed Estates Shopping Center Sub District for each geography. Table E3. Demand for Commercial Sq. Ft. with Inclusion of Project (Custom Trade Area) General Commercial 2010 2020 2030 Market Retail Demand (sq.ft) Supply Net GLA (sq.ft) Proposed Project Max Retail (sq.ft) 149,068 237,253 309,462 109,207 109,207 109,207 0 190,000 190,000 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand 0.73 1.26 0.97 FLUM Potential Supply Total Supply WFLUM Potential Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand WFLUN Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis 12,932 212,932 353,882 122,139 512,139 653,089 0.82 2.16 2.11 C.1 Page 46 of 218 r-IN, Table E4. Demand for Commercial Sq. Ft. with Inclusion of Project (TAZ Trade Area) General Commercial 2010 2020 2030 Market Retail Demand (sq.ft) Supply Net GLA (sq.ft) Proposed Project Max Retail (sq.ft) 249,333 344,845 413,175 109,207 109,207 109,207 0 190,000 190,000 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand 0.44 0.87 0.72 FLUM Potential Supply 12,932 212,932 353,882 Total Supply w /FLUM Potential 122,139 512,139 653,089 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w /FLUM 0.49 1.49 1.58 o In 2020, the additional land in the custom trade area increases the allocation ratio from 1.36 to 2.16. For the TAZ area, additional land increases the ratio from 0.93 to 1.49. An allocation ratio of 2.16 or 1.49 provides a sufficient degree of flexibility for this market to meet future demand. It also would provide for sufficient supply as to limit the future applications for similar centers in the central Golden Gate Area, thus reducing the potential for commercial sprawl. The allocation ratios are more than reasonable with the inclusion of the Project in the FLUM. • Based on this analysis, there are insufficient lands designated for commercial uses in the market or the lands are not expected to be developed within the planning horizon of 2030. The under - allocation of suitable commercial land supports the need for the additional retail acreage proposed by the applicant. • Community and Neighborhood centers which are grocery anchored are most common as they provide goods and services to support a general trade area. Since the grocery use is the main catalyst and attraction to the center, grocery tenants pay significantly less in annual rent. In order for a developer to make the project financially and economically feasible, local tenant rents provides for the majority of the income to the owner therefore allowing sufficient cash flow for development financing. o Based on the economics of typical grocery anchored centers, it is not financially feasible to assume a grocery store can be a self sufficient facility on the site. As evidenced by the closure of several stand alone groceries, i.e. Albertsons on the Northeast Corner of Immokalee Road and Livingston Road and the Albertsons in Ft Myers. Considering the lack of standalone stores, and the fact they are not being developed more readily due to high land cost, it is unreasonable to assume this area can financially and economically support a standalone grocer. Also due to the limited services in the area, a grocery Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis 7 Page 47 of 218 cannot provide all the goods and services needed nor would the market expect one provider, they would expect a choice. o The Consultant has analyzed the demand for new office space in the County, on a per capita basis, as well as the implied need for additional office acreage within the custom trade area surrounding the Project site. o Using records provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser's office and information from the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department and County Clerk's Office the Consultant has determined there are 156,940 potential square feet of office space within the custom trade area surrounding the Project. o Also using updated records from the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, the Consultant has determined that, on average, the County needs 17.3 Sq. Ft. of office space per person. o Table E5 below shows the Consultant's population forecast for the market surrounding the Project for the custom trade area, followed by the TAZ Trade area. Additionally, Table E5 indicates the office needs associated with these historic and forecast population levels. Table E5. Historic & Forecast Population for Custom Trade Area Table E6. Historic & Forecast Population for TAZ Trade Area Without the Proposed Amendment witnout the rro osea Amenament Per Capita Total Office Per Capita Total Office Allocation Year Population Office Need Office Need Sqft Supplied Ratio Population (1990) 4005 17.3 69,388 156,940 2.26 Population (2000) 13684 17.3 237,081 156,940 0.66 Population (2010) 16100 17.3 278,935 156,940 0.56 Population (2015) 20212 17.3 350,182 156,940 0.45 Population (2020) 23917 17.3 414,379 156,940 0.38 Population (2030) 29119 17.3 504,499 156,940 0.31 Table E6. Historic & Forecast Population for TAZ Trade Area Without the Proposed Amendment Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 8 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 48 of 218 Per Capita Total Office Allocation Year Population Office Need Office Need Sqft Supplied Ratio Population (1990) 4005 17.3 69,388 156,940 2.26 Population (2000) 13684 17.3 237,081 156,940 0.66 Population (2010) 27138 17.3 470,175 156,940 0.33 Population (2015) 31618 17.3 547,791 156,940 0.29 Population (2020) 35136 17.3 608,741 156,940 0.26 Population (2030) 39408 17.3 682,766 156,940 0.23 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 8 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 48 of 218 o According to the Consultant's analysis there is an immediate need for office uses in both the custom trade area and the TAZ trade area surrounding the Project. Unless the proposed amendment is added to the FLUM, by 2030 the allocation ratio for office land is expected to drop to 0.31 in the custom trade area and 0.23 in the TAZ trade area. There is insufficient land within this market designated for office use or potentially available for office use, which reduces the amount of sufficient choices for a developer to accommodate the demand. o The Randall Blvd Commercial Center was approved in 2010 and utilized an analysis to estimate market need for shopping in the general area of the subject. The concluding analysis is found in Appendix 4 of this report. Even though this methodology is different than that used by the consultant, its conclusions are the same, in that there is need for both centers in the Golden Gate Estates area of Collier County. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 9 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 49 of 218 REVISED AND UPDATED Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Project Commercial Needs Analysis (February 2, 2011) 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this report is to present a commercial needs analysis for the proposed change to Collier County's Golden Gate Area Master Plan ( "Plan "). Crown Management Services, Inc. ( "Client ") is proposing an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan ( "Plan "). The proposal is for a 190,000 square foot grocery anchored shopping center on a 41 +/- acre site located at the Northwest corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard ( "Project ") in the Golden Gate Estates Area of Collier County ( "County "). The Client has engaged Fishkind and Associates, Inc. ( "Consultant ") to prepare commercial needs analysis. 1.2 Overview of Needs Analysis In the context of amending the adopted Plan the applicant must demonstrate the need to amend the plan. As part of the analysis typically, there is a comparison of: o The supply of existing land /square footage currently planned for various commercial uses o The demand for land /square footage based on projected population in the market Historically, these comparisons have focused their studies County -wide. This analysis studies the market for commercial retail demand around the project and portions of the County within a custom trade area based on driving distances from the site and adjacent areas unserved by retail uses. There are two related reasons for this type of analysis. First, consumers are assumed to maximize benefit over all goods and services consumed subject to their income. This type of analysis requires that travel costs are either explicitly or implicitly accounted for during the consideration of the consumers' income constraint. This analysis requires the Consultant to narrow the scope of the analysis from the county level down to a local market level. Second, the Consultant considers whether the choice of location is a Pareto improvement for consumers. ( Pareto improvement means that no consumers are made worse off, and at least one is made better off.) That is, the Consultant asks the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 10 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 50 of 218 question whether additional retail space makes at least one local market better off, without reducing the welfare of all others. An analysis of commercial retail space over the whole of a county may lead to the wrong conclusion of where to develop new space. That is, the county as a whole may appear to need more retail space to support the aggregate level of demand generated by its residents. With many County -wide choices of commercially -zoned lands available, the development of one site over another may lead to an oversupply in one location and an under supply in another. This is precisely the outcome the County wants to avoid. Therefore: • By narrowing the focus of this study to the local market, the Consultant determines if this market has a need for additional retail space; • The Consultant can replicate a competitive outcome, and. ensure that the welfare of all other local markets is improved or unchanged. 1.3 Definition of the Market Area and Target Population According to the Urban Land Institute', "A neighborhood center's typical size is about 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area, but in practice, it may range from 30, 000 to 100, 000 or more square feet." Neighborhood centers sell convenience goods, groceries and personal services to the immediate neighborhood community. The typical market area for a neighborhood center is a 10- minute drive time. "A community center's typical size is about 150,000 square feet of gross leasable area, but in practice, it may range from 100,000 to 500,000 or more square feet. Centers that fit the general profile of a community center but contain more than 250, 000 square feet are classified as super community centers." Community centers sell a wider range of products that includes apparel, hardware and appliances. The typical market area for a community retail center is a 20- minute drive time. Utilizing the above information as a guide, the proposed retail component of the Project is classified as a hybrid combination of both neighborhood and community serving. 11-IN 1 Beyard, Michael D., W. Paul O'Mara, et al. Shopping Center Development Handbook. Third Edition. Washington, D.C.: ULI -the Urban Land Institute, 1999. p.11 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 11 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 51 of 218 Community and Neighborhood centers which are grocery anchored are most common as they provide goods and services to support a general trade area. Since the grocery use is the main catalyst and attraction to the center, grocery tenants pay significantly less in annual rent. In order for a developer to make the project financially and economically feasible, local tenant rents provide for the majority of the income to the owner therefore allowing sufficient cash flow for development financing. Based on the economics of typical grocery anchored centers, it is not financially feasible to assume a grocery store can be a self sufficient facility on the site. As evidenced by the closure of several stand alone groceries, ie Albertsons on the Northeast Corner of Immokalee Road and Livingston Road and the Albertsons in Ft Myers. Considering the lack of standalone stores, and the fact they are not being developed more readily due to high land cost, it is unreasonable to assume this area can financially and economically support a standalone grocer. Also due to the limited services in the area, a grocery cannot provide all the goods and services needed nor would the market expect one provider, they would expect a choice. The project is proposed for 190,000 square feet of commercial retail space of which some of the ancillary supportive uses will be office in nature. These office uses desire a retail exposure, however do not impact the parking as heavily as more traditional retail uses might. These uses may include offices for real estate, insurance and mortgage companies, banks, governmental offices, federal, state and local, securities firms, etc. The inclusion of some office uses in this area will help to further support the area. The Consultant concurs with County Staffs assessment that analysis of a 10- minute drive time market area surrounding the Project would be supportive in terms of determining the need for additional retail development. This is because the region surrounding the Project is generally semi -rural in nature with a limited transportation network. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 12 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 52 of 218 Located below, is a map showing the 10- minute drive time with the addition of those sections of Golden Gate Estates located south of Golden Gate Blvd, hereafter called the "Custom Trade Area ". The map also illustrates 3 -mile trade area buffers surrounding the existing center at Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Blvd to the west, and the planned centers at Immokalee Road and Orange Blossom and at Big Cypress, to the north and north east respectively. As we can see from this map, the Estates Shopping Center Sub District serves the Central and southeastern units of Golden Gate Estates which cannot be effectively served by any other areas. (Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank) Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 13 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 53 of 218 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT YY Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 14 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 54 of 218 -, — = _ to o PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, COMMERICALAND - "x INDUSTRIAL ZONING Legend PUD PUD COMMERCIAL � Legend '' tCJ PUD INDUSTRIAL • �''' -- - Qz —Licu ter, s-aos F - INDUSTRIAL _ Y _ ;� •� • s cx =sx - COMMERCIAL P ti yYv -- < t fi _ �46�lauv7 O �K ClLWre, 1-6 3 6 files . Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 14 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 54 of 218 Although the Project is classified as a community center with a 20- minute drive time market area per the ULI guidelines above, the "Custom Trade Area" will be utilized for this analysis due to the semi -rural nature and limited roadway network of Golden Gate Estates. This Custom Trade Area consists of a 10- minute drive time surrounding the site and the addition of the units of Golden Gate Estates located along Everglades Blvd south of Golden Gate Blvd. The proposed center falls within the threshold of community serving centers and will sell a wider range of goods than a neighborhood center, therefore the Consultant has accounted for a portion of the trade area's community center expenditures in addition to neighborhood expenditures. Therefore, the need for additional retail development is based on an analysis of: o A 10- minute drive -time with the additional southeast GGE units market surrounding the Project; "Custom Trade Area" o The "Custom Trade Areas" need for additional neighborhood goods and services and a portion of community goods and services . Estimates of existing and projected housing units and households for the Custom Trade Area are provided for years 2010, 2020 and 2030 in Table 3. These figures were estimated using parcel data from the Property Appraiser and occupancy rates for the trade area from (- Site, Census -based Demographics package. 1.4 Analysis Process The process of determining the need for additional retail land is a four -step process, as outlined below. o Inventory existing supply of commercial space in the market area; • Inventory vacant commercial space and parcels designated as having the potential for commercial space by the Future Land Use Map (FLUM); • Project future housing units /households to determine future commercial land needs and compare against commercial land allocation ratios; • Determine impact of the Project's proposed commercial land on land allocation ratio within the market area. 2 See Appendix Al, 'Index of Sales by Center Type' for details Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis 15 Page 55 of 218 2.0 The Supply of Commercial Space 2.1 Estates Shopping Center Sub district's Market The analysis begins with the supply of existing, vacant, and potential commercial square feet in the market area. The site is located at the northwest corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard in the Golden Gate Estates area of the County. The Custom Trade Area, or market serving the Estates Shopping Center Sub district, is an aggregation of a 10- minute drive time radius surrounding the site and the addition of those units of Golden Gate Estates located east and south of the drive time radius surrounding the subject site (map in Appendix 2). Table 1 provides the current inventory of commercial space based on the Property Appraiser's ('PA ") data, as well as data provided by the Comprehensive Planning Department ( "CPD "). These data provide an estimate of 596,313 (rounded) square feet of existing, vacant, and potential commercial - retail space. This includes the approved 340,950 sqft Randall Blvd Commercial Sub district. Table 1. Current Supply of Vacant, Potential, and Existing Commercial - Retail Space in Mixed Use Project's Custom Trade Area Folio Acres Sqft* Description 37280040002 2.41 14,701 N. of E's Country Store Potential Commercial Folio Acres Sqft* Description 37745120001 16 340,950 Randall Blvd Comm. Subdst. 37280080004 2.12 12,932 E. of E's Country Store 40629000001 5.46 33,306 Everglades 40680004000 5.46 33,306 Blvd /Golden 40930760001 5.46 33,306 Gate Blvd 40930720009 5.46 33,306 Center 39.96 487,106 Existing Commercial Folio Acres Sqft Description 37221120101 5.00 42,000 Wilson Blvd Center 37169520009 4.19 15,000 Walgreen's (SW Quadrant) 37280040109 2.65 11,224 E's Country Store 37744040001 2.53 21,926 Randall Blvd 37745180009 1.14 4,356 Randall Blvd 15.51 94,506 Total Inventory 57.88 596,313 sumed 6.100 Sauare feet Der Acre (94.506 SQFT / 15.51) = 6,093, Rounded to 6,100 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 16 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 56 of 218 ^ The potential commercial includes the four separate corners that make up the Everglades Blvd /Golden Gate Blvd center. These parcels fall in the Neighborhood Center Sub district designation of the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. This neighborhood designation states the following; "The neighborhood center designation does not guarantee that commercial zoning will be granted. The designation only provides the opportunity to request commercial zoning ", The fact these parcels of land are located the furthest from the existing concentration of households, and are not of similar functional utility to the subject project, suggest the probability of commercial development is very limited before the end of the planning horizon used in this report. The inclusion of these sites increases the potential commercial supply by 27 percent, which is a substantial amount considering their inferior location and functional utility. Based on these factors, it is the Consultant's opinion these parcels not be included especially considering we have included the Randall Blvd Commercial Sub district. The reasoning for including the demand of existing households in this area is to account for limited population which currently resides there. Future households are anticipated to be located closer to the employment centers of Collier County, which ^ supports the increase in demand calculated in this report. Located below we have recalculated the allocation ratio assuming that none of the parcels within the Everglades Blvd /Golden Gate Blvd Center parcel are included. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 17 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 57 of 218 Table 2. Current Supply of Vacant, Potential, and Existing Commercial - Retail Space NOT INCLUDING THE EVERGLADES BLVD /GOLDEN GATE BLVD CENTER in Mixed Use Project's Custom Trade Area Folio 37280040002 Acres Sqft* Description 2.41 14,701 N. of E's Country Store Folio Acres Sqft* Description 37745120001 16 340,950 Randall Blvd Comm. Subdst. 37280080004 2.12 12,932 E. of E's Country Store 40629000001 5.46 33,306 Everglades 40680004000 5.46 33,306 Blvd / Golden 40930760001 5.46 33,306 Gate Blvd 40930720009 5.46 33,306 Center 18.12 353,882 Folio Acres Sqft Description 37221120101 5.00 42,000 Wilson Blvd Center 37169520009 4.19 15,000 Walgreen's (SW Quadrant) 37280040109 2.65 11,224 E's Country Store 37744040001 2.53 21,926 Randall Blvd 37745180009 1.14 4,356 Randall Blvd 15.51 94,506 otal 36.04 *Assumed 6,100 Square feet per Acre (94,506 SQFT / 15.51) = 6,093, Rounded to 6,100 The exclusion of four parcels located in the Everglades Blvd /Golden Gate Blvd Center reduces the total inventory by 133,224 sqft. The remaining inventory of 463,089 sqft of commercial inventory is considered reasonable within the planning horizon of 2030. 2.2 Additions to Supply from the Development of Receiving Lands County Staff has indicated two Rural Villages ranging in size from 300 to 1,500 acres are permitted in the Receiving Lands to the north and south of the Project. Portions of these Receiving Lands are within the periphery of the Custom Trade Area market surrounding the Project. According to the Collier County Future Land Use Element, these Rural Villages must include a Village Center and several Neighborhood Centers which would yield additional commercial development in the region. To date, landowners in these Receiving Lands have not given any indication of action or intent on initiating the lengthy permitting and review process necessary for development. However, the Consultant has not included potential commercial development within these Receiving Lands as supply for two additional related reasons: Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 18 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 58 of 218 o First, commercial development within Rural Villages is intended to be self - sustainable and serve the residents of the Village. According to the Collier County Future Land Use Element, "Rural Villages may be approved..... to reduce the need of residents of the District and surrounding lands to travel to the County's Urban area....... Village Centers shall be designed to serve the retail, office, civic, government uses and service needs of the residents of the village." o Second, development of Rural Villages in the Receiving Lands will generate a substantial increase in the number of households in the region. This information indicates the region's demand for commercial space would also substantially increase. Therefore, commercial development within the Rural Village would likely accommodate the incremental increase in demand generated by new, internal households and have a net neutral effect to the surrounding markets. 2.3 Functional Utility of the Project site Functional Utility is defined as: The ability of a property or building to be useful and to perform the function for �..� which it is intended according to the current market tastes and standards; the efficiency of a building's use in terms of architectural style, design and layout, traffic patterns and the size and type of roomsa. The Estates Neighborhood Centers were established as a means to direct new commercial development to areas where traffic impacts could be readily accommodated. The Project is located at the Northwest quadrant of the Wilson Boulevard /Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center. The Plan designates 4.98 acres for commercial development at this quadrant. The size of this parcel is not of adequate functional utility to develop a shopping center that fulfills a diverse set of commercial needs for the immediate area for three reasons: o Buffering /Setback Requirements — In order to preserve the rural character of the region, a buffer of 75 feet is required for projects abutting residential property which is consistent with the typical lot frontage of sites in this area. By minimizing developable area, this stipulation significantly reduces the ability of the 4.98 acre quadrant to accommodate commercial need in a meaningful fashion; o Utilities — There are no sewer /water connections available on the NW quadrant of the Neighborhood Center. New development must utilize a package plant 3 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fourth Edition © 2002, Appraisal Institute Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 19 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 59 of 218 system to provide utilities. This requirement minimizes developable area, thus even further reducing the ability of the 4.98 acre quadrant to accommodate commercial need in a meaningful fashion; o Financial Feasibility — A grocery store is proposed as part of the Project. It is not financially feasible for a tenant of this type, or any anchor tenant, to locate at this site without supporting periphery uses. The 4.98 acre size of the NW Neighborhood Center quadrant, coupled with the buffering and utility implications, does not provide adequate functional utility for a grocery store or other anchor tenant to be financially feasible. The Project is situated at the most optimum location for access at two arterial roadways in the center of Golden Gate Estates. The site's proposed 41 +/- acre size provides for adequate functional utility to develop a shopping center that fulfills a diverse set of commercial needs for the immediate area. 2.4 Functional Utility of the competing sites A review of sites within the Custom Trade Area reveals that no parcels are over 20 acres in size, which in the consultant's opinion, offers adequate physical and functional utility to accommodate a grocery anchored center, adequate buffers between residential uses, and additional land to accommodate central utilities. Access to the site is also considered, as no other sites offer similar ease of access from heavily traveled roadways. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 20 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 60 of 218 3.0 Analysis of the Need for the Proposed Amendments to the FLUM for the 11—IN Custom Trade Area 3.1 Overview As noted above, the need for amendments to the adopted FLUM revolves around whether or not the FLUM contains a sufficient degree of flexibility to satisfy the future projected level of demand for land. The applicant must demonstrate that the amount of land allocated in the FLUM to neighborhood and community retail uses is insufficient to accommodate future demand while providing for a reasonable degree of market flexibility. For this study, the supply of land with existing commercial - retail development, vacant commercial designated land and the supply of lands having the potential for commercial as designated by the FLUM were compared to the demand for commercial - retail land as generated by the projected households growth of the market area. The discussion below provides this analysis. 3.2 Commercial Demand and the Allocation Ratio Table 3 provides Fishkind & Associates, Inc's housing unit projection for the Custom Trade Area. Parcel data from the Collier County Property Appraiser formed the basis for the forecast. Table 3. Housing Unit Projection for Project's Custom Trade Area Sources: Collier County Property Appraiser; I -Site, Census -based Demographics Package; Fishkind & Associates, Inc. Occupied household growth data was used as the basis of projecting demand for commercial land. The housing unit projection above was used to project occupied households. According to I -Site Census -based Demographics Package, the occupancy rate within the Custom Trade Area is 94.9 %. Considering the foreclosures in this area, it is the consultant's opinion the occupancy rate should be lowered to 90 %. The household projection is shown in Table 4. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 21 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 61 of 218 Housing Housing Unit Year Units Growth GrowthNear 2010 5,026 2020 7,466 2,440 244 2030 9,090 1,624 162 Sources: Collier County Property Appraiser; I -Site, Census -based Demographics Package; Fishkind & Associates, Inc. Occupied household growth data was used as the basis of projecting demand for commercial land. The housing unit projection above was used to project occupied households. According to I -Site Census -based Demographics Package, the occupancy rate within the Custom Trade Area is 94.9 %. Considering the foreclosures in this area, it is the consultant's opinion the occupancy rate should be lowered to 90 %. The household projection is shown in Table 4. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 21 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 61 of 218 Table 4. Housing Unit and Household Projections Housing Year Units Households Growth Growth / Year 2010 5,026 4,523 2020 7,466 6,719 2,196 220 2030 9,090 8,181 1,461 146 Sources: Collier County Property Appraiser; I -Site, Census -based Demographics Package; Fishkind & Associates, Inc. This new information indicates that the market's demand for commercial space will also increase. The Consultant has developed a retail demand model to project the demand for retail space based on the number of households and their income and demographic characteristics in the relevant market area. The documentation for the model along with the model projections is rather voluminous. This information is reproduced here as Appendix Al. Table 5 provides the projected retail demand and compares demand to the supply of commercial space and land available to accommodate commercial demand in the future. The comparison of retail demand to current retail supply and available supply converts all vacant and potential acres and assumes full development within the market. For purposes of analysis, we have delineated the existing supply and the sites currently zoned commercial to determine the total supply of commercial square footage which is expected to be developed within the Custom Trade Area. Based on this demand, the current allocation ratio is near a one -to -one allocation. Below that analysis, we isolated the FLUM Potential Supply which is estimated at 12,932 in year 2010, 212,932 in 2020 (200,000 square feet developed of Randall Blvd Commercial Sub District) and 353,882 in 2030 which includes all of the 340,950 sqft of the Randall Blvd Commercial Sub District. With this added to the supply above, the supply -to- demand ratio increases from .82 in 2010 to 1.50 in 2030. It is the Consultant's opinion this FLUM potential be separately analyzed in order to illustrate its percentage of the total supply. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 22 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 62 of 218 Table 5. Demand for Commercial Sq. Ft. General Commercial 2010 2020 2030 Market Retail Demand (sq.ft) 149,068 237,253 309,462 Existing Supply Net GLA ( sq.ft) 94,506 94,506 94,506 Vacant Commerical 14,701 14,701 14,701 Total Supply 109,207 109,207 109,207 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand 0.73 0.46 0.35 FLUM Potential Supply 12,932 212,932 353,882 Total Supply WFLUM Potential 122,139 322,139 463,089 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand WFLUN 0.82 1.36 1.50 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. As noted in Table 1, the supply of existing commercial space totals 94,506 square feet. As shown by Table 5, based on the demand projection estimates there is sufficient demand for 149,068, 237,253, and 309,462 square feet of commercial space in the Custom Trade Area for the years 2010, 2020, and 2030 respectively. Also shown in Table 5, there are 109,207 square feet of total commercial square footage in existing and commercially approved projects. With the addition of the FLUM potential, including the phasing of the Randall Blvd Commercial Sub District, to include 200,000 sqft in 2020 and the total build out of 340,950 in 2030, the supply increases to 463,089. Therefore, the ratio of the total supply of land designated for commercial use, excluding the FLUM lands is 0.73, 0.46, and 0.35 and with the FLUM lands is 0.82, 1.36, and 1.50 for the years 2010, 2020, and 2030 respectively. The allocation ratio measures the amount of additional acreage required in relation to the directly utilized acreage to assure proper market functioning in the sale, usage and allocation of land. The additional acreage is required in order to maintain market level pricing and to account for the likelihood that certain lands will not be placed on the market for development during the forecast horizon, or may be subject to future environmental or other constraints. Thus, the lands allocated in the FLUM should be considerably greater than those that will actually be used or developed. Growth management practices suggest that the greater the time horizon of the comprehensive plan, the greater the allocation ratio needed to maintain flexibility of the comprehensive plan. Other factors that influence the commercial allocation ratio are the nature and speed of the developing area and the area's general exposure to growth trends in the market. It is the Consultant's opinion that to ensure proper flexibility in the Comprehensive Plan of an area like that of the Project, a commercial allocation ratio of a minimum of 2.0 is necessary in the short -term. As the time Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 23 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 63 of 218 horizon increases, the allocation ratio must increase as well. (Please refer to Appendix #3 fora detailed memo on the use of Allocation Ratios) Table 5 above indicates that currently the retail allocation is sufficiently below the minimum desired level of 2.0. By 2030, the allocation ratio is expected to be 1.50. As the situation currently stands, the lack of available retail choices creates a substantial impediment to proper market functioning. This market can expect to increasingly experience: ■ Significantly higher than average travel costs for residents; ■ Impacted roadway networks needing higher than average operating and capital improvements; of which the burden of financing is apportioned County -wide; ■ Upward pressure on commercial land prices due to artificial restriction of supply ■ Downward pressure on residential land prices due to the lack of access to support facilities. Figure 1 illustrates the trend of commercial allocation ratios. Figure 1. Commercial Allocation Ratio for Estates Shopping Center Sub District Project Source: FisnKina & Associates, inc. Based on this analysis, there is a clear and compelling case for adding additional land with neighborhood and community commercial use to this Custom Trade Area market. As noted here, this market's commercial ratio will reach 1.50 by 2030. It is just these Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 24 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 64 of 218 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w /FLUM Potential 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 2010 2020 2030 —4—Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w /FLUM Potential Source: FisnKina & Associates, inc. Based on this analysis, there is a clear and compelling case for adding additional land with neighborhood and community commercial use to this Custom Trade Area market. As noted here, this market's commercial ratio will reach 1.50 by 2030. It is just these Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 24 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 64 of 218 types of situations that make it good planning policy to have a sufficiently high ratio to /0—N accommodate the expected demand in a meaningful fashion. 3.3 Impact of the Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment As noted above, the proposal for the Project would add a maximum of 190,000 square feet of commercial - retail land to the market. The following Table 6 displays the impacts of adding this additional land to the inventory. In 2030, the additional land increases the allocation ratio from 1.50 to 2.11. An allocation ratio of 2.11 provides a sufficient degree of flexibility for this market to meet future demand. It also would provide for sufficient supply as to limit the future applications for similar centers in the central Golden Gate Area, thus reducing the potential for commercial sprawl. The allocation ratios are more than reasonable with the inclusion of the Project in the FLUM. This is illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2. Allocation Ratios with the Inclusion of the Proposed Additional Commercial Acreage for Estates Shopping Center Sub District Project Source: FIShKInd & Associates, Inc. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 25 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 65 of 218 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w/FLUM Potential and Project 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 2010 2020 2030 —+— Allocation Ratio Supply/Demand WFLUM Potential and Project Source: FIShKInd & Associates, Inc. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 25 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 65 of 218 Table 6. Analysis of Adding the Mixed Use Project's Proposed Land Use Plan Change to the Inventory of Commercial Space General Commercial 2010 2020 2030 Market Retail Demand (sq.ft) Supply Net GLA (sq.ft) Proposed Project Max Retail (sq.ft) 149,068 237,253 309,462 109,207 109,207 109,207 0 190,000 190,000 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand 0.73 1.26 0.97 FLUM Potential Supply 12,932 212,932 353,882 Total Supply w /FLUM Potential 122,139 512,139 653,089 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w/FLUN 0.82 2.16 2.11 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 4.0 Commercial -Office Uses The commercial office analysis utilized the same Custom Trade Area as the retail analysis because the office uses proposed cater to a wide market and are convenience oriented in nature. These office uses would include Real Estate, Insurance, etc, which accommodate the growing population of this affordable, lower density part of our community. Using records provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser's office and information from the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department and County Clerk's Office the Consultant has determined: o There are two planned unit developments within the custom trade area surrounding the Project. 1) The Wilson Blvd PUD on the Southeast Quadrant of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard has been approved to consist of 42,000 square feet of retail and /or office uses. To date, a 35,856 sqft retail strip center is complete. The bank is approximately 3,000 square feet and will compete with the Project in terms of office space. 2) The Snowy Egret Plaza CPUD is located at the southwest quadrant of the Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center. This CPUD consists of a single parcel owned by Walgreen Co. and is designated to comprise of 15,000 square feet of commercial development on 4.19 gross acres. Currently there is a 14,232 square feet Walgreens drug store on the site. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 26 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 66 of 218 o There is one vacant commercial parcel on the Northeast quadrant of Golden Gate and Wilson Boulevards, folio 37280040002. This parcel is 2.41 acres in size located adjacent and to the north of E's Country Store and is under the same ownership. o There are three parcels totaling 6.92 acres on the Southeast quadrant of 1St SW and Golden Gate Boulevard approved to consist of approximately 60,000 square feet of office space. The folio numbers for these parcels are: 37169480000, 37169440008, and 37169560108. Utilizing a County -wide average density of 11,000 square feet of office space per acre as determined by Property Appraiser Records, there are 156,940 potential square feet of office space within the Custom Trade Area surrounding the Project. Located below is a Table showing the parcels and their potential or approved square feet. Table 7. Current Supply of Vacant, Potential, and Existing Commercial- Office Space in Mixed Use Project's Market Folio Acres Sqft* Description 37280040002 2.41 26,510 N. of E's Country Store 37221120208 2.08 3,000 Liberty Gold LLC Potential Commercial Folio Acres Sqft* Description 37745120001 4.01 44,110 Randall Blvd Comm. Subdst. 37280080004 2.12 23,320 E. of E's Country Store 37169440008 2.34 20,000 CP 2005 -2 ** 37169480000 2.81 20,000 CP 2005 -2 ** 37169560108 2.34 20,000 CP 2005 -2 ** Total Office Supply 156,940 County Office Acreage 435 4,900,920 County Office Coverage Area 11,266 *Rounded to 11,000 ** Ordinance Number 08-44 is approved for 60,000 sqft of commerical office uses. When determining the demand for office uses, the Consultant utilized the Collier County Property Appraiser's database to determine the total square footage of all existing office uses as of 2010. This includes the total square footage of all office space regardless of its current occupancy. This total was then divided by the 2010 Collier County total permanent population as determined by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) to arrive at an implied per capita office need. Total square footage of office space was utilized in the per capita calculation because the comparison of supply -to- demand is done utilizing the total supply of office space — Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 27 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 67 of 218 assuming full occupancy. Table 8, indicates the total office development in Collier County, corresponding population, and per capita office need. Table 8. Collier County Per Capita Office Need Office Type 2010 Bldg Sqft 2010 Collier Pop. Per Capita One -Story Professional 1,075,840 Class A 4,163,144 Medical and Professional 502,737 Total 5,741,721 331,405 17.3 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. & Collier County Property Appraiser; BEBR Population Studies Through our analysis, the Consultant has determined that, on average, the County needs 17.3 Sq. Ft. of office space per person. This per capita estimate accounts for all office space currently existing in the county, including occupied and vacant space. In our opinion, the trade area analysis prepared below best illustrates need for office space in this area of limited support facilities. Within the Custom Trade Area the Consultant has determined that by the year 2030, the permanent population will reach approximately 28,253 persons. The Consultant's population forecast for the Custom Trade Area is shown in Table 9. Additionally, Table 9 indicates the office needs associated with these historic and forecast population levels. Table 9. Historic & Forecast Population for Custom Trade Area Without the Prouosea Amendment Population (2015) 20212 17.3 Population (2020) 23917 17.3 Population (2030) 29119 17.3 )urce: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. & Collier County 350,182 414,379 Office Sqft Supplied 156,940 156,940 156,940 156,940 156,940 504,499 156,940 Property Appraiser's 01 Comprehensive Planning; Collier County Clerk's Office Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Allocation Ratio 2.26 0.66 0.56 0.45 0.38 0.31 Collier Count F Page 68 of 218 Per Capita Total Year Population Office Need Office Need Population (1990) 4005 17.3 69,388 Population (2000) 13684 17.3 237,081 Population (2010) 16100 17.3 278,935 Population (2015) 20212 17.3 Population (2020) 23917 17.3 Population (2030) 29119 17.3 )urce: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. & Collier County 350,182 414,379 Office Sqft Supplied 156,940 156,940 156,940 156,940 156,940 504,499 156,940 Property Appraiser's 01 Comprehensive Planning; Collier County Clerk's Office Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Allocation Ratio 2.26 0.66 0.56 0.45 0.38 0.31 Collier Count F Page 68 of 218 According to the Consultant's analysis there is an immediate need for office uses in the Custom Trade Area surrounding the Project. Unless the proposed amendment is added to the FLUM, by 2030 the allocation ratio for office land is expected to drop to 0.31. There is insufficient land within this market designated for office use or potentially available for office use, which reduces the amount of sufficient choices for a developer to accommodate the demand. 5.0 Conclusions for Custom Trade Area Taking into account all developed, vacant and FLUM designated commercial land in the market; there is currently an insufficient degree of flexibility in the market's ability to accommodate future demand. The 2030 retail allocation ratio, including the Randall Blvd Commercial Sub District, Estates Shopping Center sub district and excluding the subject is estimated at 1.50 indicating a tight relationship between the demand for, and the supply of, retail space in the future. The 2030 office allocation ratio also indicates a tight relationship between the demand for, and supply of, office space. The commercial retail and commercial office components of this Project are designed to serve the community and neighborhood demand for commercial space. The location provides the access and visibility that are required for this type of development. The size and functional utility of the site offers the development of sufficient retail offerings which will limit future sprawl. The under - allocation of suitable commercial property supports the need for the additional commercial acreage. Based on the map located earlier in the report, we can see the central Golden Gate Estates area would not be served at all would it not be for this project. There is current demand for retail uses and the demand will continue to grow at a rate higher than supply, which is why this project fulfills sufficient commercial need. 6.0 Analysis of the Need for the Proposed Amendments to the FLUM for the TAZ Area 6.1 Overview Prior we prepared an analysis for the custom trade area which includes the southeastern units of Golden Gate Estates. The TAZ areas selected are those which intersect with the custom trade area. Located below is a map showing the custom trade area and the intersecting TAZ areas. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 29 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 69 of 218 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT The same analysis will be prepared for the TAZ area as was prepared for the custom trade area. 6.2 Commercial Demand and the Allocation Ratio Table 10 provides Fishkind & Associates, Inc's housing unit projection for the TAZ Area. The data for this projection is based on the TAZ updated report provided from the county for the specific TAZ area identified above. Table 10. Housing Unit Projection for Project's Custom Trade Area Housing Housing Unit Year GM A- W �. Q 8 2010 5M+Are NE Baml4 $Mh Rd SE 10,356 2,511 251 2030 58M Am Pic Q Z �S ......... ........:.... ... .......... 41M Aa NE -: m 4 t3td Aw ta;' 400 35M A. NE Oil wefi Rd are NE (V. sw NE F l O R I NR4AdM &ra 383 W NE NE t87' P 388 tptA.•NE 7A�_� NEN edxh Beach Rd 21t 213 212 -, t 1�ineyaMS �: f 23a 23a 235 234 G O" L L'i r E " Pine Ridge Rd >N 1 z23., 224 g6 c+engJ�°+18h Gr Ac SW 4.1 Csnai y e, � a Go" Gate � �. 2 r2 m . � 6 225 123 Legend _ a OCustom Trade Area TAZ Trade Area a+ at �eErg,g�Y -Ins . 48th A9 SE ai 5ft AK SE The same analysis will be prepared for the TAZ area as was prepared for the custom trade area. 6.2 Commercial Demand and the Allocation Ratio Table 10 provides Fishkind & Associates, Inc's housing unit projection for the TAZ Area. The data for this projection is based on the TAZ updated report provided from the county for the specific TAZ area identified above. Table 10. Housing Unit Projection for Project's Custom Trade Area Sources: Collier County Comprehensive Plannina: I -Site, Census -based Demographics Package; Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 6 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Mi Page 70 of 218 Housing Housing Unit Year Units Growth GrowthNear 2010 7,846 2020 10,356 2,511 251 2030 11,738 1,382 138 Sources: Collier County Comprehensive Plannina: I -Site, Census -based Demographics Package; Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 6 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Mi Page 70 of 218 Occupied household growth data was used as the basis of projecting demand for commercial land. The housing unit projection above was used to project occupied ^ households. According to I -Site Census -based Demographics Package, the occupancy rate within the Custom Trade Area is 94.9 %. Considering the foreclosures in this area, it is the consultant's opinion the occupancy rate should be lowered to 90 %. The household projection is shown in Table 11. Table 11. Housing Unit and Household Projections Sources: Copier county comprenensive riannrrry, I -Site, Census -based Demographics Package; Fishkind & Associates, Inc. This new information indicates that the market's demand for commercial space will also increase. The Consultant has developed a retail demand model to project the demand for retail space based on the number of households and their income and demographic characteristics in the relevant market area. The documentation for the ^ model along with the model projections is rather voluminous. This information is reproduced here as Appendix Al. Table 12 provides the projected retail demand and compares demand to the supply of commercial space and land available to accommodate commercial demand in the future. The comparison of retail demand to current retail supply and available supply converts all vacant and potential acres and assumes full development within the market. For purposes of analysis, we have delineated the existing supply and the site's currently zoned commercial to determine the total supply of commercial square footage which is expected to be developed within the TAZ Trade Area. Based on this demand, the current allocation ratio is near a one -to -one allocation. Below that analysis, we isolated the FLUM Potential Supply which is estimated at 12,932 in year 2010, 212,932 in 2020 (200,000 square feet developed of Randall Blvd Commercial Sub District) and 353,882 in 2030 which includes all of the 340,950 sqft of the Randall Blvd Commercial Sub District. With this added to the supply above, the supply -to- demand ratio increases from 0.49 in 2010 to 1.12 in 2030. It is the Consultant's opinion this FLUM potential be separately analyzed in order to illustrate ^ its percentage of the total supply. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 31 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 71 of 218 Housing Year Units Households Growth Growth / Year 2010 7,846 7,061 2020 10,356 9,321 2,260 226 2030 11,738 10,564 1,244 124 Sources: Copier county comprenensive riannrrry, I -Site, Census -based Demographics Package; Fishkind & Associates, Inc. This new information indicates that the market's demand for commercial space will also increase. The Consultant has developed a retail demand model to project the demand for retail space based on the number of households and their income and demographic characteristics in the relevant market area. The documentation for the ^ model along with the model projections is rather voluminous. This information is reproduced here as Appendix Al. Table 12 provides the projected retail demand and compares demand to the supply of commercial space and land available to accommodate commercial demand in the future. The comparison of retail demand to current retail supply and available supply converts all vacant and potential acres and assumes full development within the market. For purposes of analysis, we have delineated the existing supply and the site's currently zoned commercial to determine the total supply of commercial square footage which is expected to be developed within the TAZ Trade Area. Based on this demand, the current allocation ratio is near a one -to -one allocation. Below that analysis, we isolated the FLUM Potential Supply which is estimated at 12,932 in year 2010, 212,932 in 2020 (200,000 square feet developed of Randall Blvd Commercial Sub District) and 353,882 in 2030 which includes all of the 340,950 sqft of the Randall Blvd Commercial Sub District. With this added to the supply above, the supply -to- demand ratio increases from 0.49 in 2010 to 1.12 in 2030. It is the Consultant's opinion this FLUM potential be separately analyzed in order to illustrate ^ its percentage of the total supply. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 31 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 71 of 218 Table 12. Demand for Commercial Sq. Ft. General Commercial 2010 2020 2030 Market Retail Demand (sq.ft) 249,333 344,845 413,175 Existing Supply Net GLA ( sq.ft) 94,506 94,506 94,506 Vacant Commerical 14,701 14,701 14,701 Total Supply 109,207 109,207 109,207 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand 0.44 0.32 0.26 FLUM Potential Supply 12,932 212,932 353,882 Total Supply WFLUM Potential 122,139 322,139 463,089 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand WFLUN 0.49 0.93 1.12 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. As noted in Table 12, the supply of existing commercial space totals 94,506 square feet. As shown by Table 12, based on the demand projection estimates there is sufficient demand for 249,333, 344,845, and 413,175 square feet of commercial space in the TAZ Trade Area for the years 2010, 2020, and 2030 respectively. Also shown in Table 12, there are 109,207 square feet of total commercial square footage in existing and commercially approved projects. With the addition of the FLUM potential, including the phasing of the Randall Blvd Commercial Sub District, to include 200,000 sqft in 2020 and the total build out of 340,950 in 2030, the supply increases to 463,089. Therefore, the ratio of the total supply of land designated for commercial use, excluding the FLUM lands is 0.44, 0.32, and 0.26 and with the FLUM lands is 0.49, 0.93, and 1.12 for the years 2010, 2020, and 2030 respectively. The allocation ratio measures the amount of additional acreage required in relation to the directly utilized acreage to assure proper market functioning in the sale, usage and allocation of land. The additional acreage is required in order to maintain market level pricing and to account for the likelihood that certain lands will not be placed on the market for development during the forecast horizon, or may be subject to future environmental or other constraints. Thus, the lands allocated in the FLUM should be considerably greater than those that will actually be used or developed. Growth management practices suggest that the greater the time horizon of the comprehensive plan, the greater the allocation ratio needed to maintain flexibility of the comprehensive plan. Other factors that influence the commercial allocation ratio are the nature and speed of the developing area and the area's general exposure to growth trends in the market. It is the Consultant's opinion that to ensure proper flexibility in the Comprehensive Plan of an area like that of the Project, a commercial Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 32 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 72 of 218 allocation ratio of a minimum of 2.0 is necessary in the short -term. As the time horizon increases, the allocation ratio must increase as well. Table 12 above indicates that currently the retail allocation is sufficiently below the minimum desired level of 2.0. By 2030, the allocation ratio is expected to be 1.12. As the situation currently stands, the lack of available retail choices creates a substantial impediment to proper market functioning. This market can expect to increasingly experience: ■ Significantly higher than average travel costs for residents; ■ Impacted roadway networks needing higher than average operating and capital improvements; of which the burden of financing is apportioned County -wide; • Upward pressure on commercial land prices due to artificial restriction of supply • Downward pressure on residential land prices due to the lack of access to support facilities. Figure 1 illustrates the trend of commercial allocation ratios. Figure 3. Commercial Allocation Ratio for Estates Shopping Center Sub District Project source: F'Isrwna & Associates, inc. Based on this analysis, there is a clear and compelling case for adding additional land with neighborhood and community commercial use to this Custom Trade Area market. As noted here, this market's commercial ratio will be 1.12 by 2030. It is just these Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 33 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 73 of 218 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w/FLUM Potential 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 2010 2020 2030 —$--Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w /FLUM Potential source: F'Isrwna & Associates, inc. Based on this analysis, there is a clear and compelling case for adding additional land with neighborhood and community commercial use to this Custom Trade Area market. As noted here, this market's commercial ratio will be 1.12 by 2030. It is just these Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 33 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 73 of 218 types of situations that make it good planning policy to have a sufficiently high ratio to accommodate the expected demand in a meaningful fashion. 6.3 Impact of the Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment As noted above, the proposal for the Project would add a maximum of 190,000 square feet of commercial - retail land to the market. The following Table 13 displays the impacts of adding this additional land to the inventory. In 2030, the additional land increases the allocation ratio from 1.12 to 1.58. An allocation ratio of 1.58 provides a sufficient degree of flexibility for this market to meet future demand. It also would provide for sufficient supply as to limit the future applications for similar centers in the central Golden Gate Area, thus reducing the potential for commercial sprawl. The allocation ratios are more than reasonable with the inclusion of the Project in the FLUM. This is illustrated in Figure 4. Figure 4. Allocation Ratios with the Inclusion of the Proposed Additional Commercial Acreage for Estates Shopping Center Sub District Project oource: r isnrona & /-%ssociaies, inc. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 34 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 74 of 218 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w/FLUM Potential and Project 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 2010 2020 2030 - -*—Allocation Ratio Supply/Demand w /FLUM Potential and Project oource: r isnrona & /-%ssociaies, inc. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 34 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 74 of 218 7.0 Table 13. Analysis of Adding the Estates Shopping Center Sub District Proposed Land Use Plan Change to the Inventory of Commercial Space General Commercial 2010 2020 2030 Market Retail Demand (sq.ft) 249,333 344,845 413,175 Supply Net GLA ( sq.ft) 109,207 109,207 109,207 Proposed Project Max Retail (sq.ft) 0 190,000 190,000 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand 0.44 0.87 0.72 FLUM Potential Supply 12,932 212,932 353,882 Total Supply w/FLUM Potential 122,139 512,139 653,089 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w /FLUN 0.49 1.49 1.58 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. Commercial -Office Uses The commercial office analysis utilized the same TAZ Trade Area as the retail analysis because the office uses proposed cater to a wide market and are convenience oriented in nature. These office uses would include Real Estate, Insurance, etc, which accommodate the growing population of this affordable, lower density part of our community. Using records provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser's office and information from the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department and County Clerk's Office the Consultant has determined: o There are two planned unit developments within the custom trade area surrounding the Project. 3) The Wilson Blvd PUD on the Southeast Quadrant of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard has been approved to consist of 42,000 square feet of retail and /or office uses. To date, a 35,856 sqft retail strip center is complete. The bank is approximately 3,000 square feet and will compete with the Project in terms of office space. 4) The Snowy Egret Plaza CPUD is located at the southwest quadrant of the Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center. This CPUD consists of a single parcel owned by Walgreen Co. and is designated to comprise of 15,000 square feet of commercial development on 4.19 gross acres. Currently there is a 14,232 square feet Walgreens drug store on the site. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 35 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 75 of 218 o There is one vacant commercial parcel on the Northeast quadrant of Golden Gate and Wilson Boulevards, folio 37280040002. This parcel is 2.41 acres in size located adjacent and to the north of E's Country Store and is under the same ownership. o There are three parcels totaling 6.92 acres on the Southeast quadrant of 1St SW and Golden Gate Boulevard approved to consist of approximately 60,000 square feet of office space. The folio numbers for these parcels are: 37169480000, 37169440008, and 37169560108. Utilizing a County -wide average density of 11,000 square feet of office space per acre as determined by Property Appraiser Records, there are 156,940 potential square feet of office space within the TAZ Trade Area surrounding the Project. Located below is a Table showing the parcels and their potential or approved square feet. Table 14. Current Supply of Vacant, Potential, and Existing Commercial -Office Space in Mixed Use Project's Market Vacant Commercial Folio Acres Sqft* Description 37280040002 2.41 26,510 N. of E's Country Store 37221120208 2.08 3,000 Liberty Gold LLC Potential Commercial Folio Acres Sqft* Description 37745120001 4.01 44,110 Randall Blvd Comm. Subdst. 37280080004 2.12 23,320 E. of E's Country Store 37169440008 2.34 20,000 CP 2005 -2 ** 37169480000 2.81 20,000 CP 2005 -2 ** 37169560108 2.34 20,000 CP 2005 -2 ** (Total Office Supply 156,940 County Office Acreage 435 4,900,920 County Office Coverage Area 11,266 *Rounded to 11,000 ** Ordinance Number 08-44 is approved for 60,000 sqft of commerical office uses. When determining the demand for office uses, the Consultant utilized the Collier County Property Appraiser's database to determine the total square footage of all existing office uses as of 2010. This includes the total square footage of all office space regardless of its current occupancy. This total was then divided by the 2010 Collier County total permanent population as determined by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) to arrive at an implied per capita office need. Total square footage of office space was utilized in the per capita calculation because the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 36 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 76 of 218 comparison of supply -to- demand is done utilizing the total supply of office space — assuming full occupancy. Table 15, indicates the total office development in Collier County, corresponding population, and per capita office need. _ Table 15. Collier County Per Capita Office Need Office Type 2010 Bldg Sgit 2010 Collier Pop. Per Capita One -Story Professional 1,075,840 Class A 4,163,144 Medical and Professional 502,737 Total 5,741,721 331,405 17.3 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. & Collier County Property Appraiser; BEBR Population Studies Through our analysis, the Consultant has determined that, on average, the County needs 17.3 Sq. Ft. of office space per person. This per capita estimate accounts for all office space currently existing in the county, including occupied and vacant space. In our opinion, the trade area analysis prepared below best illustrates need for office space in this area of limited support facilities. Within the TAZ Trade Area, the Consultant has determined that by the year 2030, the permanent population will reach approximately 53,276 persons. The Consultant's population forecast for the TAZ Trade Area is shown in Table 16. Additionally, Table 16 indicates the office needs associated with these historic and forecast population levels. Table 16. Historic & Forecast Population for Custom Trade Area Without the Proposed Amendment Source: Fishkind tic Associates, inc. & uouier tounry rroperiy rjpprawei s viiIcc, %.vwci ww ny Comprehensive Planning; Collier County Clerk's Office Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 37 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 77 of 218 Per Capita Total Office Allocation Year Population Office Need Office Need Sqft Supplied Ratio Population (1990) 4005 17.3 69,388 156,940 2.26 Population (2000) 13684 17.3 237,081 156,940 0.66 Population (2010) 27138 17.3 470,175 156,940 0.33 Population (2015) 31618 17.3 547,791 156,940 0.29 Population (2020) 35136 17.3 608,741 156,940 0.26 Population (2030) 39408 17.3 682,766 156,940 0.23 Source: Fishkind tic Associates, inc. & uouier tounry rroperiy rjpprawei s viiIcc, %.vwci ww ny Comprehensive Planning; Collier County Clerk's Office Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 37 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 77 of 218 According to the Consultant's analysis there is an immediate need for office uses in the Custom Trade Area surrounding the Project. Unless the proposed amendment is added to the FLUM, by 2030 the allocation ratio for office land is expected to drop to 0.23. There is insufficient land within this market designated for office use or potentially available for office use, which reduces the amount of sufficient choices for a developer to accommodate the demand. 8.0 Conclusions for TAZ Trade Area Taking into account all developed, vacant and FLUM designated commercial land in the market; there is currently an insufficient degree of flexibility in the market's ability to accommodate future demand. The 2030 retail allocation ratio, including the Randall Blvd Commercial Sub District, Estates Shopping Center sub district and excluding the subject is estimated at 1.12 indicating a tight relationship between the demand for, and the supply of, retail space in the future. The 2030 office allocation ratio also indicates a tight relationship between the demand for, and supply of, office space. The commercial retail and commercial office components of this Project are designed to serve the community and neighborhood demand for commercial space. The location provides the access and visibility that are required for this type of development. The size and functional utility of the site offers the development of sufficient retail offerings which will limit future sprawl. The under- allocation of suitable commercial property supports the need for the additional commercial acreage. 9.0 Conclusions for Comparison between Custom Trade Area in relation to the TAZ Trade Area Above we have analyzed the commercial retail and commercial office demand for both the custom trade area and the TAZ trade area. The TAZ Trade area encompasses the Custom Trade Area and is the main source for planning in Collier County throughout the Comprehensive Planning Department. Analysis of both areas indicates a need for additional retail and office uses, Located below we have prepared summary comparing the findings from each trade area. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 38 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 78 of 218 Table 17. Comparison of Allocation Ratios between the Custom Trade Area and the TAZ Trade Area. General Commercial 2010 2020 2030 Market Retail Demand (sq.ft) TAZ Area Market Retail Demand (sq.ft) Custom Trade Area Total Supply 249,333 344,845 413,175 149,068 237,253 309,462 109,207 109,207 109,207 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand TAZ Area 0.44 0.32 0.26 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand Custon Trade Area 0.73 0.46 0.35 FLUM Potential Supply 12,932 212,932 353,882 Total Supply w /FLUM Potential (including Randall Center) 122,139 322,139 463,089 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w/FLUM Potential TAZ Area 0.49 0.93 1.12 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w/FLUM Potential Custom Trade Area 0.82 1.36 1.50 Estates Shopping Center Sub district 190,000 190,000 Allocation Ratio Supply and Demand TAZ Area 0.49 1.49 1.58 Allocation Ratio Supply and Demand Custom Trade Area 0.82 2.16 2.11 The comparison between both trade areas indicates a need for commercial retail uses. This area of the county is expected to experience the highest rate of growth over the next 20 years. The analysis above quantifies the demand based on the projected increases from the county. The practical consideration for this retail supply is also evident by the support of the residents during the straw vote done during the November election. Located below are graphs to illustrate the comparison in allocation ratios between the custom trade area and the TAZ trade area. The last graph shows the comparison of the allocation ratios including both the Randall Center and the Estates Shopping Center sub district. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis 39 Page 79 of 218 Figure 5. Commercial Allocation Ratio for Estates Shopping Center Sub District with existing commercial uses only. 0.80 General Commerical Existing 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 2010 2020 2030 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand TAZ Area Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand Custon Trade Area Figure 6. Comparison of Allocation Ratios for Estates Shopping Center Sub district with existing and FLUM uses. General Commercial w /FLUM 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 — 0.80 0.60 - 0.40 0.20 0.00 -- i 2010 2020 2030 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w /FLUM Potential TAZ Area Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w /FLUM Potential Custom Trade Area i Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 40 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 80 of 218 Figure 6. Comparison of Allocation Ratios for Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict with existing and FLUM uses. inclusive of Both Centers 2.50 �( 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 1 2 3 Allocation Ratio Supply and Demand TAZ Area { Allocation Ratio Supply and Demand Custom Trade Area Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 41 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 81 of 218 APPENDIX 1 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRCT MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS RETAIL DEMAND METHODOLOGY 1.0 Methodology The methodology employed in the analysis of the demand for retail space at this site is based on a consumer expenditures model. This model can estimate the aggregate market demand for retail space, the demand for retail space at a specific location, and the effective supply of competing retailers in the area. The net demand for retail space at the location being studied is determined as the difference between the site demand and the effective supply of competition. 2.0 Aggregate Market - Retail Demand Fishkind & Associates, Inc. ( "Fishkind ") has developed an in -house model to determine retail demand. This model estimates retail demand by square footage, shopping center type and store type. The model incorporates multiple data sources. These sources are census based ("- Site") local area households, local area household income data, and local area consumer expenditure profiles from the U.S. Department of Labor, Department of Revenue Gross Sales data, and Urban Land Institute shopping center tenant profiles, square footage requirements and average sales per square foot by store type from the publication Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. n The model operates by first determining retail household expenditures for market area households. Expenditures are determined through application of the results of the 2000 Consumer Expenditure Survey, conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor. This survey of over 30,000 households nationwide provides detailed information on average dollar expenditure amounts and the expenditure percent of household income, for all household expenditures. The income expenditure percentage is determined for the specific market area and then applied to the average local area household income and multiplied by the number of households to determine market area spending potential for retail store goods. Next, the historic Department of Revenue (DOR) Sales data (for the county in question) is indexed by tenant classifcation4, from the Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. The expected expenditures on retail goods are then applied to this county specific (DOR) index to determine an estimate of spending by major store type (tenant classification). The determination of sales by retail center (neighborhood, community, regional, super - regional) is determined through the construction of an index of surveyed sales by center type (also located in the Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers). Supportable square feet of a retail center is determined by applying the average sales per square foot of GLA, found in Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, to the expected sales by store type (tenant classification). In addition to determining the supportable square feet of retail 4 Tenant Classification are: general merchandise, food, food service, clothing and accessories, shoes, home furnishings, home appliances /music, building materials and hardware, automotive, hobby /special interest, gifts /specialty, jewelry, liquor, drugs, other retail, personal services, entertainment/community. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 42 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 82 of 218 space, Fishkind & Associates has determined the expected sales by DOR retail classification, which is a subset of the individual store types (tenant classifications). Provided below are income and expenditure data utilized in the analysis. Custom Trade Area - Households & Incomes Year HHs Median HH Income Total Income 2010 4,523 $59,839 $270,651,480 2020 6,719 $64,109 $430,762,613 2030 8,181 $68,683 $561,867,214 TAZ Trade Area - Households & Incomes Year HHs Median HH Income Total Income 2010 7,717 $58,527 $451,654,548 2020 9,991 $62,521 $624,670,106 2030 11,206 $66,788 $748,446,266 Source: Collier County PA; I -Site Census -based Demographics Package Note: HH Income figures are inflation adjusted; not nominal Note: Calculations in figure reflect rounding Income Expenditure Percentages INCOME EXPENDITURE % ON RETAIL 32.49% Source: I -Site, Census -based Demographics Package Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 43 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 83 of 218 For Project's Custom Trade Area Retail Expenditures and Square Foot Supportability Total Experditure SQFT Supportable 2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 GENERAL MERCHANDISE $1,264,511 $2,012,566 $2,625,100 8,904 14,172 18,485 FOOD $9,928,427 $15,801,854 $20,611,221 28,901 45,999 59,999 FOOD SERVICE $4,267,764 $6,792,474 $8,859,795 16,592 26,408 34,445 CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES $599,541 $954,216 $1,244,636 3,119 4,964 6,474 SHOES $48,837 $77,728 $101,385 253 403 525 HOME FURNISHINGS $2,328,478 $3,705,952 $4,833,875 11,966 19,045 24,841 HOME APPLIANCES /MUSIC $840,755 $1,338,126 $1,745,391 3,626 5,771 7,527 BUILDING MATERIALS /HARDWARE $3,184,524 $5,068,415 $6,611,010 19,678 31,319 40,851 AUTOMOTIVE $10,244,303 $16,304,594 $21,266,973 38,383 61,089 79,681 HOBBY /SPECIAL INTEREST WITH GIFT /SPECIALTY WITH GIFT /SPECIALTY GIFT /SPECIALTY $456,232 $726,128 $947,129 2,929 4,661 6,080 JEWLERY $68,498 $109,021 $142,201 167 266 347 LIQUOR WITH FOOD SERVICE WITH FOOD SERVICE DRUGS $494,890 $787,655 $1,027,381 1,260 2,005 2,615 OTHER RETAIL $488,314 $777,190 $1,013,731 2,407 3,830 4,996 PERSONAL SERVICERS $288,688 $459,470 $599,312 2,036 3,240 4,226 ENTERTAINMENT $773,823 $1,231,598 $1,606,441 8,848 14,082 18,368 TOTAL $35,277,585 $56,146,985 $73,235,581 149,068 237,253 309,462 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 43 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 83 of 218 na For Project's TAZ Trade Area Retail Expenditures and Square Foot Supportability Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute Distribution by Store Type DISTRIBUTIONS BY STORE TYPE Total Expenditures SOFT Supportable GENERAL MERCHANDISE 2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 GENERAL MERCHANDISE $2,115,041 $2,925,251 $3,504,879 14,894 20,599 24,681 FOOD $16,606,449 $22,967,891 $27,518,897 48,341 66,859 80,107 FOOD SERVICE $7,138,332 $9,872,816 $11,829,080 27,752 38,383 45,989 CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES $1,002,802 $1,386,946 $1,661,765 5,216 7,215 8,644 SHOES $81,686 $112,977 $135,363 423 585 701 HOME FURNISHINGS $3,894,651 $5,386,576 $6,453,907 20,015 27,682 33,167 HOME APPLIANCES /MUSIC $1,406,261 $1,944,958 $2,330,344 6,065 8,388 10,050 BUILDING MATERIALS /HARDWARE $5,326,487 $7,366,908 $8,826,634 32,913 45,521 54,541 AUTOMOTIVE $17,134,788 $23,698,621 $28,394,419 64,199 88,792 106,386 HOBBY /SPECIAL INTEREST WITH GIFT /SPECIALTY WITH GIFT /SPECIALTY GIFT /SPECIALTY $763,101 $1,055,423 $1,264,551 4,899 6,775 8,118 JEWLERY $114,572 $158,461 $189,859 279 386 463 LIQUOR WITH FOOD SERVICE WITH FOOD SERVICE DRUGS $827,760 $1,144,851 $1,371,699 2,107 2,914 3,491 OTHER RETAIL $816,763 $1,129,640 $1,353,475 4,025 5,567 6,671 PERSONAL SERVICERS $482,865 $667,836 $800,166 3,405 4,709 5,642 ENTERTAINMENT $1,294,309 $1,790,120 $2,144,826 14,799 20,468 24,524 TOTAL $59,005,866 $81,609,276 $97,779,863 249,333 344,845 413,175 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute Distribution by Store Type DISTRIBUTIONS BY STORE TYPE GENERAL MERCHANDISE 14.48% FOOD 15.27% FOOD SERVICE 10.73% CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES 4.48% SHOES 0.37% HOME FURNISHINGS 7.10% HOME APPLIANCES /MUSIC 3.67% BUILDING MATERIALS /HARDWARE 11.73% AUTOMOTIVE 23.35% HOBBY /SPECIAL INTEREST WITH HOBBY /SPECIAL GIFT /SPECIALTY 1.86% JEWLERY 0.56% LIQUOR WITH FOOD SERVICE DRUGS 0.87% OTHER RETAIL 1.44% PERSONAL SERVICERS 0.69% ENTERTAINMENT 3.40% Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 44 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 84 of 218 Index of Sales by Center Type INDEX OF SALES BY CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD *COMMUNITY GENERAL MERCHANDISE 1.0804% 17.7493% FOOD 50.1268% 47.9941% FOOD SERVICE 16.2423% 58.1773% CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES 1.7763% 26.9659% SHOES 2.1635% 25.4356% HOME FURNISHINGS 4.8325% 65.0722% HOME APPLIANCES /MUSIC 4.5826% 43.0018% BUILDING MATERIALS /HARDWARE 8.3074% 45.2640% AUTOMOTIVE 0.0000% 100.0000% HOBBY /SPECIAL INTEREST With Gifts and Specialty GIFT /SPECIALTY 7.06% 41.68% JEWLERY 2.0271% 11.8288% LIQUOR 34.2238% 65.7762% DRUGS 36.8476% 56.2922% OTHER RETAIL 11.3333% 54.8145% PERSONAL SERVICERS 22.9793% 49.1430% ENTERTAINMENT 8.7526% 34.4114% Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute "Note: Consultant has utilized only 50% of Community Center Sales Shown Above to Account for Projects Outside of the Trade Area that Will Capture a Portion of Retail Spending from Households within the Periphery of the Market. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 45 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 85 of 218 Median Sales per Square Foot of GLA Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 46 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 86 of 218 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY MED /SF MED /SF GENERAL MERCHANDISE $103.01 $148.87 FOOD 347.1 336.3 FOOD SERVICE 224.28 280.19 CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES 167.96 195.97 SHOES 165.39 198.66 HOME FURNISHINGS 147.35 204.32 HOME APPLIANCES /MUSIC 137.85 271.31 BUILDING MATERIALS /HARDWARE 143.3 169.9 AUTOMOTIVE n/a 266.9 HOBBY /SPECIAL INTEREST 163.15 201.46 GIFT /SPECIALTY 186.32 147.58 JEWLERY 280.09 445.74 LIQUOR 254.1 321.25 DRUGS 408.4 374.26 OTHER RETAIL 159.18 228.9 PERSONAL SERVICERS 127.73 158.14 ENTERTAINMENT 86.41 88 Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 46 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 86 of 218 Retail Demand Calculation Guide Calculated figures are highlighted in yellow. Please note, this guide reflects calculations for year 2010 retail demand only. Repeat the same steps below for each year covered in the analysis. Figure 1 Source: [-Site Census -based Demographics Package & Fishkind & Associates, Inc. Please note not all figures above are whole numbers, and as such may yield slightly different results if hand - calculated. Figure 1 above: Column `C' (Total Market Income) = Column 'A' (x) Column `B' Figure 1 above: Column 'E' (Income Available for Retail) = Column `C' (x) Column `D' Figure 2 A B c D E f %) Allocation Expenditures f$1 Total Market Income Exp. Income Avail. for Year HHs AVG HH Income Income %° Retail 2010 4,523 $59,839 $270,651,797 32.4198% $87,744,771 Source: [-Site Census -based Demographics Package & Fishkind & Associates, Inc. Please note not all figures above are whole numbers, and as such may yield slightly different results if hand - calculated. Figure 1 above: Column `C' (Total Market Income) = Column 'A' (x) Column `B' Figure 1 above: Column 'E' (Income Available for Retail) = Column `C' (x) Column `D' Figure 2 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute; Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 47 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 87 of 218 A B DISTRIBUTIONS BY STORE TYPE ALL CENTER TYPES f %) Allocation Expenditures f$1 GENERAL MERCHANDISE 14.48% $12,702,238 FOOD 15.27% $13,394,416 FOOD SERVICE 10.73% $9,414,700 CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES 4.48% $3,929,033 SHOES 0.37% $328,176 HOME FURNISHINGS 7.10% $6,231,130 HOME APPLIANCES /MUSIC 3.67% $3,223,329 BUILDING MATERIALS /HARDWARE 11.73% $10,292,805 AUTOMOTIVE 23.35% $20,488,659 HOBBY /SPECIAL INTEREST WITH GIFTS /SPECIALTY GIFT /SPECIALTY 1.86% $1,635,358 JEWLERY 0.56% $494,847 LIQUOR WITH FOOD SERVICE DRUGS 0.87% $761,443 OTHER RETAIL 1.44% $1,260,476 PERSONAL SERVICERS 0.69% $607,117 ENTERTAINMENT 3.40% 112L1_ .033 Total 100.00% $87,744,771 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute; Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 47 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 87 of 218 n Figure 2 above: Column `B' (Expenditures by Store Tenant Classification) = Column 'E' from Figure 1 allocated along the distribution in column `A' Figure 2. Figure 3 r1LJD0 r 10r r-U1tAL 11111 GKCJ 1 VVI 1 1-1 1711- 1 J /Jt'tG1AL I Y WI I H lilt- I S /SYLGIAL I Y GIFT /SPECIALTY I 7.06% I 41.68% I $115,421 I $ 340,810 I $456,231 JEWLERY I 2.03% I 11.83% $10,031 $ 58,467 $68,498 LIQUOR WITH FOOD SERVICE WITH FOOD SERVICE DRUGS A B C D E INDEX OF SALES BY CENTER Neighborho od Center Community Center Neighborhood Center 'Community Center $488,314 PERSONAL SERVICERS Allocation Allocation ( %) Expenditures ($) Expenditures ($) TOTAL GENERAL MERCHANDISE 1.08% 17.75% $137,231 $ 1,127,279 $1,264,510 FOOD 50.13% 47.99% $6,714,168 $ 3,214,258 $9,928,426 FOOD SERVICE 16.24% 58.18% $1,529,160 $ 2,738,603 $4,267,763 CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES 1.78% 26.97% $69,792 $ 529,749 $599,541 SHOES 2.16% 25.44% $7,100 $ 41,737 $48,837 HOME FURNISHINGS 4.83% 65.07% $301,117 $ 2,027,360 $2,328,477 HOME APPLIANCES /MUSIC 4.58% 43.00% $147,711 $ 693,044 $840,755 BUILDING MATERIALS /HARDWARE 8.31% 45.26% $855,061 $ 2,329,462 $3,184,523 AUTOMOTIVE 0.00% 100.00% $0.00 $ 10,244,303 1 $10,244,303 r1LJD0 r 10r r-U1tAL 11111 GKCJ 1 VVI 1 1-1 1711- 1 J /Jt'tG1AL I Y WI I H lilt- I S /SYLGIAL I Y GIFT /SPECIALTY I 7.06% I 41.68% I $115,421 I $ 340,810 I $456,231 JEWLERY I 2.03% I 11.83% $10,031 $ 58,467 $68,498 LIQUOR WITH FOOD SERVICE WITH FOOD SERVICE DRUGS 36.85% 56.29% $280,573 $ 214,316 $494,889 OTHER RETAIL 11.33% 54.81% $142,853 $ 345,461 $488,314 PERSONAL SERVICERS 22.98% 49.14% $139,510.89 $ 149,178 $288,689 ENTERTAINMENT 8.75% 34.41% $260,916.20 $ 512,907 $773,823 TOTAL $10,710,650 $24,566,934 $35,277,584 "Kerlects only ou 1-o oT total community center expenaltures Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute. In some instances figures may not match exactly due to rounding. Figure 3 above: Columns `C' & `D' (Expenditures by Store Center Type) = Expenditures by each tenant classification (each row item in Figure 2, Column 'B') allocated across the distributions in both Columns 'A' and '13' in Figure 3. Please note Column 'D' in Figure 3 above reflects a reduction of 50% of the calculated total for community center expenditures (see full report for further information). Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis 48 Page 88 of 218 Figure 4 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Uents of SnoppinQ Centers - uroan Lana Institute. In some instances figures may not match exactly due to rounding. Figure 4 above: Columns `C' & `D' (Square Feet Supportability) = Expenditures by center type (each row item in Figure 3, Column 'C' and Column 'D') divided by the respective median sales /sqft in both Columns 'A' and 'B' in Figure 4. Figure 4 above: Columns `E' (Total Site Square Feet Supportability) = Figure 4, Column `C' plus column `D.' 3.0 Determination of Expected Location Sales & Impacts to Competition The determination of sales is a multi part process. Sales to be made at the location of a proposed retail project are based on the constant sales per square foot measure used in the determination of the demand for retail space, and an estimate of excess spending at the existing and proposed retailers. Potential location specific expenditures are determined in accordance with Sections 3.1 and 3.2. From the potential expenditures and demanded space, a determination of "base -line" spending per square foot can be made for each store type. Spending per square feet of store space is Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 49 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 89 of 218 A B C D E NEIGHBORHOO D COMMUNIT Y NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY TOTAL SITE MED /SF MED /SF SSSf _F_T SUPPORTABILIT scCFT SUPPORTABILIT sSc FT SUPPORTABILIT Y Y Y GENERAL MERCHANDISE $103.01 $148.87 1,332 7572 8904 FOOD 347.1 336.3 19,344 9558 28901 FOOD SERVICE 224.28 280.19 6,818 9774 16592 CLOTHING &ACCESSORIES 167.96 195.97 416 2703 3119 SHOES 165.39 198.66 43 210 253 HOME FURNISHINGS 147.35 204.32 2,044 9922 11966 HOME APPLIANCES /MUSIC 137.85 271.31 1,072 2554 3626 BUILDING MATERIALS /HARDWARE 143.3 169.9 5,967 13711 19678 AUTOMOTIVE n/a 266.9 0 38383 38383 HOBBY /SPECIAL INTEREST 163.15 201.46 -- GIFT /SPECIALTY 186.32 147.58 619 2309 2929 JEWLERY 280.09 445.74 1 36 131 167 LIQUOR 254.1 321.25 -- DRUGS 408.4 374.26 687 573 1260 OTHER RETAIL 159.18 228.9 897 1509 2407 PERSONAL SERVICERS 127.73 158.14 1,092 943 2036 ENTERTAINMENT 86.41 88 3,020 5828 8848 TOTAL 43,386 105,682 149,068 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Uents of SnoppinQ Centers - uroan Lana Institute. In some instances figures may not match exactly due to rounding. Figure 4 above: Columns `C' & `D' (Square Feet Supportability) = Expenditures by center type (each row item in Figure 3, Column 'C' and Column 'D') divided by the respective median sales /sqft in both Columns 'A' and 'B' in Figure 4. Figure 4 above: Columns `E' (Total Site Square Feet Supportability) = Figure 4, Column `C' plus column `D.' 3.0 Determination of Expected Location Sales & Impacts to Competition The determination of sales is a multi part process. Sales to be made at the location of a proposed retail project are based on the constant sales per square foot measure used in the determination of the demand for retail space, and an estimate of excess spending at the existing and proposed retailers. Potential location specific expenditures are determined in accordance with Sections 3.1 and 3.2. From the potential expenditures and demanded space, a determination of "base -line" spending per square foot can be made for each store type. Spending per square feet of store space is Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 49 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 89 of 218 then applied to the estimate of existing store space to determine a total "base -line" sales n estimate. This "base -line" estimate will be less than the total potential expenditures. Therefore, an estimate of excess spending can be made from the difference between the estimated total expenditures and the "base- line" estimate. After the determination of "base -line" sales per square foot and excess sales per square foot, the proposed project needs to be added to the supply of retail space. At this point adjusted total sales can be determined from the "base -line" sales per square foot and the adjusted supply of retail space (existing plus proposed). The adjusted excess spending, as a result of the proposed retail project, is determined by the difference between the (adjusted) "base- line" expected spending and the estimate of total expenditures. An estimation of the expected sales for the proposed project is determined by the size of the project and the total estimated spending per square foot, which is the "base- line" sales per square foot plus the adjusted excess spending per square foot as a result of the project. n The final impact to sales per square foot of competing retailers in the market surrounding the proposed project is calculated as the difference between the excess sales per square foot, with and without the proposed project. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 50 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 90 of 218 APPENDIX 2 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT IMDUSTRAL �C � f , • a arts L'y Q as�wivr -COMMERCIAL .� reszux_�xsar, 3 6 Miles Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 51 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 91 of 218 APPENDIX 3 Letter to Mr. Mark Strain, Chairman of the Collier County Planning Commission explaining the 2.0 allocation ratio methodology. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 52 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 92 of 218 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Mark Strain Chairman Collier County Planning Commission FROM: G. Russell Weyer Senior Associate SUBJECT: Explanation of 2.0 allocation ratio DATE: October 2, 2008 VIA: E -Mail At your request, the following is an explanation of the 2.0 allocation ratio used in the data and analysis reports we provide to the County during Comprehensive Plan land use changes. The explanation begins with the data and analysis requirements in Rule 9J -5 (2). The rule states the following (with our emphasis added): "(2) Data and Analyses Requirements. (a) All goals, objectives, policies, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and their support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element. To be based on 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. Data or summaries thereof shall not be subject to the compliance review process. However, the Department will review each comprehensive plan for the purpose of determining whether the plan is based on the data and analyses described in this chapter and whether the data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner. All tables, charts, graphs, maps, figures and data sources, and their limitations, shall be clearly described where such data occur in the above documents. Local governments are encouraged to use graphics and other techniques for making support information more readily useable by the public. Page 93 of 218 (b) This chapter shall not be construed to require original data collection by local government; however, local governments are encouraged to utilize any original data necessary to update or refine the local government comprehensive plan data base so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. (c) Data are to be taken from professionally accepted existing sources, such as the United States Census, State Data Center, State University System of Florida, regional planning councils, water management districts, or existing technical studies. The data used shall be the best available existing data, unless the local government desires original data or special studies. Where data augmentation, updates, or special studies or surveys are deemed necessary by local government, appropriate methodologies shall be clearly described or referenced and shall meet professionally accepted standards for such methodologies. Among the sources available to local governments are those identified in "The Guide to Local Comprehensive Planning Data Sources" published by the Department in 1989. Among the sources of data for preliminary identification of wetland locations are the National Wetland Inventory Maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (d) Primary data sources such as United States Census reports, other government data documents, local computerized data, and original map sheets used to compile required maps need not be printed in their entirety within either the support documents or the comprehensive plan. Summaries of support documents shall be submitted to the Department along with the comprehensive plan at the time of compliance review to aid in the Department's determination of compliance and consistency. As a local alternative to providing data and analyses summaries, complete data and analyses sufficient to support the comprehensive plan may be submitted to the Department at the time of compliance review. The Department may require submission of the complete or more detailed data or analyses during its compliance review if, in the opinion of the Department, the summaries are insufficient to determine compliance or consistency of the plan. (e) The comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections. Resident and seasonal population estimates and projections shall be either those provided by the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, those provided by the Executive Office of the Governor, or shall be generated by the local government. If the local government chooses to base its plan on the figures provided by the University of Florida or the Executive Office of the Governor, medium range projections should be utilized. If the local government chooses to base its plan on either low or high range projections provided by the University of Florida or the Executive Office of the Governor, a detailed description of the rationale for such a choice shall be included with such projections." A variety of studies are used when we undertake a needs analysis within the State of Florida. They are basically broken down into three categories depending on the type of land use being studied. They are residential needs analysis, commercial needs analysis and a peculiar needs analysis that economically does not fit the standard residential and commercial models. Our analysis has evolved over time with input primarily coming from County Staff with regard to the analysis at hand. In looking at comprehensive plan changes, we first must collect the data that goes into the analysis. That data includes population estimates, existing inventory, approved inventory and potential inventory. 2 Page 94 of 218 With regard to population estimates, we generally try to use the population data that is used by the County when and where it is available. Our second source is the population data from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEER) at the University of Florida. Our third source is I -Site, Site Selection Software, produced by GeoVue, Inc. These estimates and projections are compiled by Applied Geographic Solutions, Inc. AGS uses historic Census data from 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000; USPS and commercial source ZIP +4 level delivery statistics; Census Bureau population estimates and projections at varying levels of geographic detail; Internal Revenue Service statistics on tax filers and year -to -year migration; as well as the Census Bureaus Current Population Survey. The next required data set pertains to the particular land use we are analyzing. We primarily utilize the Collier County Property Appraiser data to determine the existing inventory of that particular land use, the approved inventory of that land use and finally all of the lands on the Future Land Use Map that have potential for that particular land use. We have also used data sources provided by Collier County staff such as the commercial inventory list and the planned unit development list. We then use a variety of models from retail demand gravity models to office employment demand models to determine the current and future demand for the land use type in the designated market area. The future demand generally looks out to the Comprehensive Plan's horizon year, which is currently either 2030 or 2035 depending on the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and growth management plan horizon year requirements. It is at this point of the analysis that has caused an anomaly in determining a true economic supply and demand result. On the supply side, it is relatively easy to determine the amount of existing and approved supply from the property appraiser data. The difficulty lies in the vacant non - approved potential lands. The staff has required us to take all of those lands that have a commercial or residential overlay on them and include them as supply by putting a floor area ratio figure to the acreage. The issue becomes apparent when all of the lands that are not in the existing or approved category are included in the particular land use analysis. By putting all of the potential lands in the supply category, the assumption is that all of that land would be developed as that particular land use and nothing else. For example in the case of the Airport- Corradi parcel, there were 117 potential commercial parcels totaling 270.68 acres in the 20 minute drive time market (Table 1 on the next page). Those parcels represent a potential of 1,469,723 square feet of office space. 3 Page 95 of 218 Table 1. Current Supply of Vacant, Potential, and Existing Commercial -Office Space in Project's Market Existing # of Parcels 340 Acres 457.97 Square Feet 2,549,138 Vacant # of Parcels 523 Acres 1092.59 Square Feet 6,075,006 Potential # of Parcels 117 Acres 270.68 Square Feet* 1,469,723 Total # of Parcels 980 Acres 1821.24 Square Feet 10,093,867 Source: Collier County Property Appraiser 'Assumed 5,430 square feet per acre based on market average There are a number of flaws in the representation of total capacity (supply) which suggest a greater number of acres be designated in the Comprehensive Plan than would be indicated simply by an analysis of forecast demand. First, all of those vacant approved parcels and parcels designated by the Future Land Use Map ( "FLUM ") as having the potential to be developed as office, in reality, also have the potential to be retail space or some other commercial use. The same parcels are also counted as competing supply when a commercial needs analysis is performed for another commercial use. To include these lands in both retail and office analyses would be double counting the supply. These lands will actually be developed as the market demand dictates, with some lands used for office and the remainder for retail and other permissible uses. A general economic principal states that all markets are efficient and that supply for the most part is generated as demand dictates. It is a rare situation where supply generates demand. Second, though the lands in question are designated with a FLUM category, this does not mean that 100% of these lands are developable. Within these lands there may be wetland areas, conservation areas, water bodies, incompatible adjacent uses, policy setback requirements, drainage and road requirements and infrastructure or access constraints. As a result of these and other myriad conditions, the maximum density /intensity of lands designated through the FLUM does not represent the holding capacity of these lands. Typically, development thresholds are found to be from 50% to 75% of maximum allowable density due to the physical characteristics of the land. rd Page 96 of 218 Third, while lands are designated with a FLUM land use, there is no requirement they be used at all over the planning horizon. Many properties are held in land bank trusts, held by absentee owners, held in estate transfer litigation or held in family ownership with no intent or desire to use or sell the land. Florida and Collier County in particular have very large tracts of land held in long term family trusts where lands are not developed or are purposefully held off the market. In these and other similar instances, a land use designation on the FLUM does not assure the capacity allocated to these lands will be available to accommodate future growth within the planning horizon of the Comprehensive Plan. Fourth, even if all the lands designated were developable and available it would be inappropriate to limit supply to exactly the level of forecast demand, represented by a ratio of 1:1 where there is one acre of land supply allocated for every acre of land demand identified. Doing so would limit choices, limit market flexibility and constrain the market. Constraining supply will drive prices artificially high and decrease the attractiveness of the market due to price. For example in choosing a new home one does not typically look at only one house in the selection process. The selection process may involve multiple properties, perhaps a dozen or more. So too for commercial land investments, choice and flexibility are required in the selection process. Fifth, the supply of land is determined and allocated such that it will accommodate the forecast demand. The forecast demand is most often based on population forecasts provided by the University of Florida Bureau of Business and Economic Research ^ (BEBR). Research has shown the BEBR forecasts to be highly accurate in locations where the local economic structure does not change substantially over time. In locations where structural change does occur, the error rate for BEBR medium forecasts can be from 30% to more than 100% too low in terms of forecasting population levels over a 25 year forecast period. Rapidly growing locations, locations which benefit from major highway or interstate expansions, locations which benefit from enhanced airport facilities and locations which benefit from major employer locations are all examples of conditions which represent structural change and tend to result in faster population growth than is forecast in the BEBR projections. Collier County is subject to these structural change forces, and as such, it can be expected that BEBR forecasts will have a comparatively higher degree of error than in other locations across the State. This supports the need for additional flexibility in the allocation of developable land to accommodate a higher probability of population forecast error. Table 2 on the next page documents the analysis of forecast error findings. 5 Page 97 of 218 Table 2. Comparison of Long -Term Population Projections. 1975 BEBR Year 2000 projections for 2000 Actual Variance Counties Flagler 21,700 49,832 - 129.6 % with St. Johns 71,000 123,135 - 73.4% Structural Lake 143,300 210,527 - 46.9% Shift Marion 191,000 258,916 - 35.6% St. Lucie 149,800 192,695 - 28.6% Counties Desoto 36,700 32,209 12.2% without Highlands 81,400 87,366 -7.3% Structural Polk 471,300 483,924 -2.7% Shift Pasco 343,600 344,768 -0.3% Counties with Shift Total 576,800 835,105 - 44.8% Counties without Shift Total 933,000 948,267 -1.6% Source: Projections of Florida Population Bulletin 33, June 1975, U. FL and US Census 2000 These conditions have been well documented and supported in administrative hearings. In the course of the evolution of Florida's comprehensive planning process, allocation of land in the FLUM often exceeds the 1:1 ratio. In general, the allocation ratio of between 2.0 and 2.5 has been determined to be a reasonable level, has been supported in administrative legal hearings and has been implicitly adopted in comprehensive plans across the State. To account for the conditions described above, comprehensive plan FLUMs typically represent an allocation of acres for land use by category in excess of a 1:1 allocation ratio. The allocation ratio measures the amount of additional acreage required in relation to the directly utilized acreage over the course of development in the jurisdiction to assure proper market functioning in the sale, usage and allocation of land. For the reasons discussed, the additional acreage is required in order to maintain market level pricing, to account for the likelihood that certain lands will not be placed on the market for sale during the forecast horizon, and that the property will develop at historic average densities, not maximum allowable densities, or may be subject to future environmental or other constraints. Thus, the lands allocated in the FLUM should be considerably greater than those that will actually be used or developed. As a result of these discussions, analyses and rulings, growth management practices have evolved such that the greater the time horizon of the comprehensive plan, the greater the allocation ratio needed to maintain flexibility of the comprehensive plan. Other factors that influence the residential acreage allocation ratio are the nature and speed of the developing area and the area's general exposure to growth trends in the market as shown in the discussion regarding population forecasts and structural change. Fishkind believes that to ensure proper flexibility in the comprehensive plan of a rapidly growing county like Collier, a commercial allocation ratio in the range of 2.0 is necessary to maintain planning flexibility and to account for the multiple sets of conditions which might otherwise restrict land usage. N1 Page 98 of 218 Although the allocation ratio figure has fluctuated over time depending on who is reviewing the amendment at the state level, Fishkind's recent experience with the Florida Department of Community Affairs indicates that the DCA has seen and approved allocation ratios in the 1.8 to 2.4 range and in some cases even larger allocation ratios for longer forecast horizons. Otherwise, if allocation ratios are not used in the analysis, the likely outcome is the Comprehensive Plan will fail to adequately accommodate growth resulting in higher than normal land prices, constrained economic development and a less efficient pattern of growth which results from market inflexibility due to lack of investment choices. 7 Page 99 of 218 n MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Mark Strain Chairman Collier County Planning Commission FROM: G. Russell Weyer Senior Associate SUBJECT: Examples of 2.0 Allocation Ratio Acceptance DATE: October 2, 2008 VIA: E -Mail Mark, You have asked for specific examples where the Allocation Ratio measurement has been used elsewhere. Here is one example of a legal case and two other examples in Florida where is has been approved and accepted by both the local jurisdiction and in some cases the Department of Community Affairs. Panhandle Citizens Coalition Inc. versus Department of Community Affairs In the matter Panhandle Citizens Coalition Inc. (PCC) vs. Department of Community Affairs (DCA), a petition was filed by PCC to challenge DCA's finding that the West Bay Detailed Specific Area Plan (WB DSAP) was in compliance as an amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan. The findings of fact in this case include item #92 which reads: "In addition to projecting population growth and assessing capacity to accommodate growth an allocation needs ratio (or multiplier) is necessary to ensure housing affordability and variety in the market; otherwise, the supply and demand relationship is too tight, which may cause a rapid escalation of housing prices. Because the farther in time a local government projects growth, the less accurate those projections tend to be, actual need is ^ multiplied by an allocation needs ratio to produce an additional increment of residential land to accommodate this potential error." 1 Page 100 of 218 Finding #93 states: "Small Counties that experience above - normal growth rates may use allocation ratios as high as three more in order to realistically allocate sufficient buildable land for future growth. The County's allocation ratio of 2.2 before the WB DSAP and FLUM amendments was low from a long term forecasting perspective. When the WB DSAP amendments are factored into the allocation ratio, such growth would raise the allocation ratio to 2.3, which is still relatively low." Further, in finding #94 it is stated: "A land use plan should allow for sufficient inventory to accommodate demand and to provide some choice in order to react to economic factors." The Administrative Law Judge found the proposed land use amendments in compliance with section 163.3184 (1) (b) in part because the demonstration of need with respect to the allocation ratio indicated the allocation ratio of 2.3 was too low to properly accommodate projected future growth over the planning horizon. Acceptance of 2.0 Allocation Ratio in the case of Newberry Village Retail in Alachua County Newberry Village is a development of approximately 250,000 square feet of retail space in unincorporated Alachua County. A comprehensive plan change was required to allow for this use in the County. The applicant performed a commercial needs analysis as a requirement for their data and analysis portion of their application. The analysis is attached as Exhibit A. The Florida Department of Community Affairs found the plan amendment compliant with no requests for further data analysis. We have attached the notification of compliance as Exhibit B. City of Leesburg, Florida implicit Allocation Ratio The City of Leesburg, Florida has an adopted comprehensive plan where the implicit residential allocation ratio of 2.5 is embedded in the plan. The estimated land requirement projections are found in the approved 2003 Housing Element of the Leesburg Comprehensive Plan on page III -17. The Housing Element of the Leesburg Comprehensive Plan indicates an allocation ratio of 2.5 in the following passage: "Based on figures provided by the Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, a total of 8,295 dwelling units will be needed to serve the household population of the City by year 2010 ...... the City will be able to accommodate approximately 13,292 additional units, for a total of 21,031 residential units by 2010." 2 Page 101 of 218 Given the 2010 demand for 8,295 units and 21,031 unit capacity, the empirical allocation ratio found is 2.5 in the current and approved 2003 Leesburg Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. Allocation Ratios of other Florida Counties with updated Comprehensive Plans Allocation ratios are not only used in analyzing commercial comprehensive plan amendment changes. The ratios are also used in analyzing residential comprehensive plan amendment changes as noted here and in the City of Leesburg, Florida above. In reviewing a number of needs analysis reports submitted for residential comprehensive plan amendment changes around the state, Fishkind has discovered that there are number of counties across the state that have substantial allocation ratios that are embedded in their comprehensive plans. Fishkind has analyzed allocation ratios in counties across the state with recently updated comprehensive plans that have been approved by the Department of Community Affairs. As shown in Table 5.6.1, the future land use maps of these counties contain allocation ratios that are consistent with those suggested by Fishkind. Table 5.6.1. Allocation Ratios in other Florida Counties County Allocation Matio ®orecast Horizon (years) Hendry 5.38 15 St. Johns 3.18 15 Nassau 4.54 15 Martin 3.91 15 Indian Mi -er 4.61 ®i Source: Fishkind and Associates, Inc. The counties noted above have incorporated significant allocation ratios into their comprehensive plans to adequately accommodate growth and limit higher than normal land prices, constrained economic development and less efficient patterns of growth which result from market inflexibility due to lack of investment choices. K Page 102 of 218 EXHIBIT A Newberry Village Retail Needs Analysis Page 103 of 218 Newberry Village Retail Needs Analysis Prepared For: NewUrban WORKS Development Prepared By: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 12501 Corporate Blvd. Orlando, Florida 32817 (407) 382 -3256 October 25, 2005 Page 104 of 218 Table Of Contents Section Title Page 1.0 Introduction ............................................ ............................... 1 2.0 Current market Conditions ...................... ............................... 2 3.0 Community -Type Retail Allocation Ratio . ............................... 3 4.0 Need for Additional Community -Type Retail Zoning ............... 3 5.0 Conclusion ............................................. ............................... 4 Appendix 1 — Existing Competitive Supply Appendix 2 — Vacant Future Supply Appendix 3 — 20 Minute Drive Time Demographics Page 105 of 218 Newberry Village — Retail Needs Analysis 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose This report analyzes the need to amend the Alachua County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the proposed Newberry Village development. The development program calls for development of approximately 250,000 square feet of retail space in unincorporated Alachua County. 1.2 Overview of needs analysis In the context of amending the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Alachua County the applicant must demonstrate the need to amend the plan. Typically, this takes the form of a comparison of: • The supply of existing land currently planned for retail uses • The demand for retail lands based on market conditions The applicant must determine whether there is sufficient supply of retail land in the Plan to accommodate future retail space demand. The analysis was conducted based on a 20 minute drive time market area surrounding the project site, comparing demand and supply, both existing and future, within the project market area. The retail market study further considered both demand and supply for community -type retail space only. Figure 1 shows the 20 minute drive time market area. Hgure 1 — 20 Minute Drive Time Market Area FW*W LLLL LLr kr k Page 1 of 8 Page 106 of 218 r %li� mill t s x ».. " r i FW*W LLLL LLr kr k Page 1 of 8 Page 106 of 218 Newberry Village — Retail Needs Analysis 2.0 Current Market Conditions 2.1 Existing Supply The community -type retail supply in the market was determined using the US Shopping Center directory, listing community type retail centers in Alachua County. Based on a gravity model of retail shopping patterns, calibrated for local market conditions, Fishkind & Associates, Inc. determined the effective competitive retail square footage surrounding the site, applicable to the subject location. Of 1.6 million square feet of community type retail space within 20 minutes of the site, Fishkind determined 1.3 million square feet of this existing supply directly competes with community type retail space at the subject site. Appendix 1 lists the existing competitive community -type shopping centers within 20 a minute drive time of the site, the square feet associated with each center, and its competitive characteristics based on the market conditions. 2.2 Future Supply To determine future supply, Fishkind & Associates, Inc. examined all vacant commercial parcels within the 20 minute market area. Vacant commercial parcels as designated by the Property Appraiser were then checked for current zoning. Parcels with current zoning of Business (BR), highway oriented business (BH), and Automotive (BA) were determined to represent competitive vacant supply. The analysis showed there are 38 vacant parcels meeting the criteria for future competitive supply. The criteria include, vacant parcels having the required zoning, and of sufficient size to accommodate community -type retail space, meaning parcels generally greater than 10 acres and less than 30 acres in size. Parcels with proper zoning in excess of 30 acres were excluded, as these more appropriately accommodate regional -type retail demand. Parcels with proper zoning under 10 acres were excluded as these more appropriately accommodate neighborhood -type retail demand. Numerous parcels under 10 acres were also included in the analysis as these are parcels with adjacency allowing combined parcel sizes of approximately 10 acres or greater. The sum total of competitive sites is 215 acres. An additional 57.7 acres were added to the supply based on further planning analysis of properties which appear to qualify for community type capacity. The vacant competitive supply is 272.7 acres. At .18 FAR this translates to potential future community -type retail supply of 2.1 million square feet, within the Newberry Village market area. The combined existing competitive supply plus future supply equals 3.4 million Page 2 of 8 rrwr ter` ra Page 107 of 218 Newberry Village — Retail Needs Analysis square feet of Community -type retail space capacity in the Newberry Village market area, through year 2020. Appendix 2 shows the list of parcels designated for future community type supply. No representations are made as to the availability for sale or whether there is owner intention to develop the vacant lands at any time in the future. Because there is no assurance as to whether these lands will be developed, a market flexibility factor (allocation ratio) must be included to assure proper supply over the long term. 2.3 Community -Type Retail Space Demand The market analysis shows there are 76,090 households within the 20 minute drive time surrounding the site, as of 2005 (see appendix 3). Average household income is $45,260. This generates community -type retail demand of 1.6 million square feet of space as of year 2005. Household growth to year 2020 is expected to raise market area households to 96,208 households and 2.0 million square feet of demand by year 2020. 3.0 Community -Type Retail Allocation Ratio n rrw LK a The community -type retail allocation ratio in the Newberry Village market area is 1.7. This is determined by dividing the 3.4 million square feet of supply /capacity by the 2.0 million square feet of demand, through the planning horizon year of 2020. The addition of 250,000 square feet of retail space through the proposed Newberry Village retail land use change results in a marginal increase in the overall Plan allocation ratio from 1.7 to 1.8. Fishkind & Associates believes an allocation ratio of under 2.0 leaves insufficient flexibility to accommodate long term retail space needs. Table 1 shows the supply /demand calculation and resulting allocation ratio. Table 1- 2020 Summary Community Retail Market Conditions Vacant Community Retail Acres 272.7 Future Community SQ FT. Supply 2,138,043 Existing Competitive Supply 1,266,947 TOTAL SUPPLY 3,404,990 Proposed Newberry Village 250,000 Total Demand 2,045,865 Community Commercial Allocation Ratio 1.8 Page 3 of 8 Page 108 of 218 Newberry Village — Retail Needs Analysis 4.0 Need for Additional Community -Type Retail Zoning With the revised allocation ratio so low in the Newberry Village market area, there is a need for additional retail capacity to be allocated for the long -term. 4.2 Acceptable Over - Allocation Ratio The Department of community Affairs has indicated an acceptable over - allocation rate for future land use planning purposes is 2.0. Many communities have considerably higher allocations for retail land uses. The Newberry Village market area has a current allocation ratio of 1.7. The addition of 250,000 square feet of community -type retail space in the proposed project will increase the allocation ratio to 1.8, leaving the market below 2.0 and only slightly above the original County allocation. 5.0 Conclusion Newberry Village has petitioned Alachua County to revise the Comprehensive Plan to allow the inclusion of 250,000 square feet of additional community -type retail space in the Newberry Village market area. The current analysis of available community -type retail lands indicates a need for additional retail acres in the market area by year 2020, in order to provide proper long range planning flexibility. This report concludes there is an under - allocation of available community -type retail lands in the Newberry Village market area. The conversion of lands to retail uses will still provide the ability of the remainder of the site to reach 80% of the maximum residential density allowed under the existing zoning and land use. However, by including the mixed use component, needed additional retail capacity is provided while still achieving a high proportion of the maximum residential capacity. Based on this finding, there is justification to include the Newberry Village lands in the Future Land Use Map as inventory of future retail lands. Page 4 of 8 ra` Page 109 of 218 Newberry Village — Retail Needs Analysis APPENDIX 1 - Existing Competitive Supply FM*M Page 5 of 8 Lck 1k1ki ILK 1, Page 110 of 218 SITE % CENTER NAME GLA DIST COMPETING SF COMPETING NEWBERRY SQUARE 180,524 0.63 98.01% 176,939 NEWBERRY CROSSING 111,010 1.37 95.68% 106,217 OAKS SQUARE 119,000 1.37 95.68% 113,862 OAKS MALL PLAZA 105,252 1.55 95.12% 100,111 TOWER CENTRE 165,000 1.92 93.95% 155,018 CENTRAL PLAZA 132,000 10.00 68.97% 91,043 GAINESVILLE SHOPPING CENTER 186,173 10.08 68.73% 127,959 GAINESVILLE MALL 289,850 11.02 65.92% 191,077 WAL -MART PLAZA 177,766 11.33 65.00% 115,552 WINN DIXIE MARKETPLACE PLAZA 139,337 11.67 64.00% 89,171 TOTAL 1,605, 912 1,266, 947 FM*M Page 5 of 8 Lck 1k1ki ILK 1, Page 110 of 218 Newberry Village - Retail Needs Analysis APPENDIX 2 - Future Vacant Supply OBJECTID_1 ZONEDISTRI ZONEDEFIN PIN CALCACRES SQFT 200 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06041 - 003 -001 21.8 0.000000 89 BP Business and Professional (BP) 06041- 002 -005 9.3 0.000000 135 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331 - 002 -003 6.0 0.000000 142 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06800 - 028 -000 1.0 0.000000 277 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344- 005 -003 1.5 0.000000 278 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344 - 005 -005 4.0 0.000000 117 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344- 005 -003 1.5 0.000000 118 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344- 009 -000 1.1 0.000000 119 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345- 003 -000 0.5 0.000000 120 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345 - 004 -000 1.0 0.000000 121 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345 - 006 -000 6.2 0.000000 122 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345 - 010 -000 0.5 0.000000 354 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344 - 001 -000 8.6 0.000000 355 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345 -006 -000 6.2 0.000000 313 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 04350 - 005 -000 9.0 0.000000 132 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06038- 022 -000 10.5 0.000000 353 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345 - 006 -000 6.2 0.000000 59 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 04344- 001 -000 8.6 0.000000 205 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06233 - 006 -001 1.3 0.000000 100 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331- 002 -003 6.0 0.000000 101 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331 - 005 -000 2.9 0.000000 102 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331 - 006 -000 1.0 0.000000 315 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04350 - 005 -000 9.0 0.0000" 284 BF-I Highway Oriented Business (BH) 04345 - 006 -000 6.2 0.000 124 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344 -009 -000 1.1 0.000000 285 BA Automotive Oriented Business (BA) 04344- 001 -000 8.6 0.000000 286 BA Automotive Oriented Business (BA) 04345- 006 -000 6.2 0.000000 160 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 07251 - 017 -000 1.2 0.000000 10 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 06655 -002 -003 29.4 0.000000 116 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344 - 009 -000 1.1 0.000000 312 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344 - 009 -000 1.1 0.000000 314 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 04350 - 005 -000 9.0 0.000000 134 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06655 - 015 -000 4.9 0.000000 263 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06656 - 002 -008 3.4 0.000000 152 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331 - 002 -003 6.0 0.000000 153 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331 - 005 -000 2.9 0.000000 154 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331 - 006 -000 1.0 0.000000 316 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04350 -005 -000 9.0 0.000000 Page 6 of 8 err: L 215.0 Page 111 of 218 Newberry Village — Retail Needs Analysis Mae ILL le6 ar 1, Appendix 3 — Newberry Village 20 Minute Drive Time Demographics Page 7 of 8 Page 112 of 218 Site Location: Lat: 29.661634 Lon: - 82.430144 Prepared By: FISHKIND AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Household Trend Report Page A -1 10/25/05 SITENAME Newberry Village - TRADE AREA SIZE: 20 n11 n _ Traffic Settings: Heavy, Travel Speeds: 30,50,65,20,30,40 Population Population (1990) 143,256 Population (2000) 172,121 Population (2005) 174,990 Population (2010) 177,778 Pct. Population Growth ('90200) 20.15 Pct. Population Growth ('00205) 1.67 Pct. Population Growth ('05210) 1.59 Geographic Area Size 221.5974 Population Density (2005) 789.68 Daytime Marketplace (2005) Total Business Establishments 7,406 Total Daytime Employment 112,110 Households Households (1990) 57,054 Households (2000) 70,015 Households (2005) 76,090 Households (2010) 81,946 Married Couple Family With Children (2005) 11,417 15.0% Gender (2005) Male (2005) 85,523 48.9% Female (2005) 89,466 51.1% Race & Ethnicity (2005) Race: White (2005) 128,502 73.4% Race: Black (2005) 31,825 18.2% Race: Asian or Pacific Islander (2005) 7,914 4.5% Race: Other Race (2005) 3,122 1.8% Race: Two or More Races (2005) 3,627 2.1% Ethnicity: Hispanic (2005) 11,907 6.8% Age Distribution (2005) Age 0-4 (2005) 9,448 5.4% Age 5 -9 (2005) 8,564 4.9% Age 10 -13 (2005) 7,049 4.0% Age 14 -17 (2005) 8,516 4.9% Age 18 -24 (2005) 30,904 17.7% Age 2534 (2005) 40,035 22.9% Age 35-44 (2005) 19,947 11.4% Age 45 -54 (2005) 19,857 11.3% Age 55 -64 (2005) 13,756 7.9% Age 65 -74 (2005) 8,384 4.8% Age 75 -84 (2005) 5,839 3.3% Age 85+ (2005) 2,288 1.3% Source: AGS Report Created with iSITE, Version: 2005.01.16 Page 113 of 218 /1—\ Site Location: Lat: 29.661634 Lon: - 82.430144 Prepared By: FISHKIND AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Household Trend Report Page A -2 10/25/05 source: AGS Report Created with iSITE, Version: 2005 01.16 Page 114 of 218 SITE NAME Newberry Village TRADE AREA SIZE. Traffic Settings: Heavy, Travel Speeds: 30,50,65,20,30,40 VALUE % Median Age Median Age (2005) 31.31 Median Household Income Median Household Income (1990) 24,711 Median Household Income (2000) 34,389 Median Household Income (2005) 37,442 Median Household Income (2010) 41,571 Per Capita Income Per Capita Income (1990) 12,221 Per Capita Income (2000) 17,795 Per Capita Income (2005) 20,389 Per Capita Income (2010) 23,469 Average Household Income Average Household Income (1990) 30,686 Average Household Income (2000) 43,960 Average Household Income (2005) 45,268 Average Household Income (2010) 49,184 Median Disposable Income Median Disposable Income (2005) 32,082 Aggregate Income Aggregate Income ($MM) (2005) 3,567.80 Income Distribution (2005) HH Inc. $ 0 - $ 15k (2005) 20,657 27.1% HH Inc. $15 - $ 25k (2005) 10,641 14.0% HH Inc. $25 - $ 35k (2005) 8,865 11.7% HH Inc. $35 - $ 50k (2005) 10,143 13.3% HH Inc. $50 - $ 75k (2005) 10,976 14.4% HH Inc. $75 - $100k (2005) 6,092 8.0% HH Inc. $100k - $150 (2005) 5,471 7.2% HH Inc. $150 - $200k (2005) 1,608 2.1% HH Inc. $200K+ (2005) 1,637 2.2% Employment By Industry (2000) Employment Status: Total Labor Force 90,720 52.7% Employment Status: Employed 83,786 48.7% Industry: Agriculture (2000) 505 0.6% Industry: Mining (2000) 12 0.0% Industry: Construction (2000) 3,550 4.2% Industry: Manufacturing (2000) 2,804 3.3% Industry: Wholesale Trade (2000) 1,237 1.5% Industry: Retail Trade (2000) 9,348 11.2% Industry: Transport. and Warehousing (2000) 1,444 1.7% Industry: Utilities (2000) 714 0.9% source: AGS Report Created with iSITE, Version: 2005 01.16 Page 114 of 218 Site Location: Lat: 29.661634 Lon: - 82.430144 Prepared By: FISHKIND AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Household Trend Report Page A -3 10/25/05 sITENAME _ .Newberry,Vil,lage - TRADE AREA SIZE 20 RIIfi Traffic Settings: Heavy, Travel Speeds: 30,50,65,20,30,40 Employment By Industry (2000) Industry: Information Services (2000) 2,640 3.2% Industry: Finance and Insurance (2000) 3,076 3.7% Industry: Real Estate (2000) 1,635 2.0% Industry: Professional Services (2000) 4,721 5.6% Industry: Management (2000) 16 0.0% Industry: Admin. Services And Waste Mgmnt (2000) 2,296 2.7% Industry: Educational Services (2000) 18,924 22.6% Industry: Health Care and Social Assist. (2000) 13,505 16.1% Industry: Arts, Entertainment and Recreation (2000) 1,567 1.9% Industry: Food and Hospitality Services (2000) 7,821 9.3% Industry: Other Services, except public (2000) 3,815 4.6% Industry: Public Adminstration (2000) 4,156 5.0% Housing (2000) Housing Units (2000) 76,020 Housing Units, Occupied (2000) 70,015 92.1% Housing Units, Vacant (2000) 6,005 7.9% Housing Units, Owner- Occupied (2000) 33,624 48.0% Housing Units, Renter - Occupied (2000) 36,391 52.0% Median Rent (2000) 441 Median Home Value (2000) 99,302 Consumer Expenditures (2005, $ /HH) Total Consumer Expenditures (2005) 40,661.64 Total Retail Expenditures (2005) 17,708.70 Educational Attainment (2000) Education: Less than 9th Grade (2000) 2,903 3.1% Education: Some High School (2000) 6,492 7.0% Education: High School Graduates (2000) 15,973 17.2% Education: Some College (2000) 17,634 19.0% Education: Associate's Degree (2000) 9,039 9.7% Education: Bachelor's Degree (2000) 20,404 22.0% Education: Graduate School (2000) 20,408 22.0% Population, Age 25+ (2000) 92,852 53.9% Source: AGS Report created witn Isi it, version: zuuo.ui.io Page 115 of 218 EXHIBIT B Newberry Village Retail Comprehensive Plan Amendment Florida Department of Community Affairs Notice of Compliance Page 116 of 218 UA �4 9 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 'Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home' CHARLIE CRIST THOMAS Cs- PELHAM Govemor Seuetaty July 22, 2008 The Honorable Rodney J. Long Chairman. Board of County Commissioners Alachua County P.O. Box 2877 Gainesville, FL 32602 -2877 RE: Alachua County Adopted Amendment 08 -R1 Dear Chairman Long: The Department has completed its review of the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Ordinance Number 08 -10; DCA Amendment Numbers 06 -2 and 08 -R1) for Alachua County, as adopted on August 17, 2006 and June 10, 2008, and determined that it meets the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, for compliance, as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The Department is issuing a Cumulative Notice of Intent to find the plan amendment in compliance. The Cumulative Notice of Intent was sent to the Gainesville Sun for publication on July 23, 2008. The Department's cumulative notice of intent to find a plan amendment in compliance shall be deemed to be a final order if no timely petition challenging the amendment is filed. Any affected person may file a petition with the agency within 21 days after the publication of the notice of intent pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes. No development orders, or permits for a development, dependent on the amendment may be issued or commence before the plan amendment takes effect. Please be advised that Section 163.3184(8)(c)2, Florida Statutes, requires a local government that has an internet site to post a copy of the Department's Notice of Intent on the site within 5 days after receipt of the mailed copy of the agency's notice of intent. Please note that a copy of the adopted County Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and the Notice of Intent must be available for public inspection Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays, during normal business hours, at the Alachua County Growth Management Office. 10 SW 2`1 Avenue. Third Floor. Gainesville. Florida, 32601 -6294. 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD ♦ TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399 -2100 850.488 -8466 cpl • 850. 921 -0781 tfy • Webslte v..x do 3. >:a'. I, -,; • COMMUNITY PLANNING z51--4E8, 22 -%-pi 956 -488 -3369 •fj • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 89r488- 7956!p) 2f•6- �i2`%�3l`i Page 117 of 218 The Honorable Rodney J. Long July 22, 2008 Page 2 If this in compliance determination is challenged by an atTected person, you will have the option of mediation pursuant to Subsection I 63.3189(3)(a). Florida Statutes. If you choose to attempt to resolve this matter through mediation, you must file the request for mediation with the administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings. The choice of mediation will not atTect the right of any party to an administrative hearing. If you have any questions, please contact Ana Richmond, Planner, at (850) 922 - 1794. Sincerely, Mike McDaniel Chief, Office of Comprehensive Planning MM!ar Enclosure: Notice of Intent n cc: Mr. Scott Koons. AICP, Executive Director, North Central Florida RPC Mr. Steven Lachnicht, AICP, Director of Growth Management Mr. C. David CotTey Mr. Bradley Stith Page 118 of 218 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS CUMULATIVE NOTICE OF INTENT TO FIND THE ALACHUA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REMEDIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(S) IN COMPLIANCE DOCKET NO.08- Rl -NOI -0102- (A) -(I) The Department issues this cumulative notice of intent to find the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 06-26 on August 17, 2006 and the remedial amendment(s) adopted by Ordinance No. 08 -10 on June 10, 2008 IN COMPLIANCE, pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187 and 163.3189, F.S. The adopted Alachua County Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Department's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report, (if any), are available for public inspection Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays, during normal business hours, at the Alachua County Growth Management, 10 S.W. Tw Avenue, Third Floor, Gainesville, Florida 32601 -6294. Any affected person, as defined in Section 163.3184, F.S., has a right to petition for an administrative hearing to challenge the proposed agency determination that the Remedial Amendments are In Compliance, as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), F.S. The petition must be filed within twenty-one (2 1) days after publication of this notice, and must include all of the information and contents described in Uniform Rule 28- 106.201, F.A.C. The petition must be filed with the Agency Clerk, Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100 and a copy mailed or delivered to the local government. Failure to timely file a petition shall constitute a waiver of any right to request an administrative proceeding as a petitioner under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. If petition is filed, the purpose of the administrative hearing will be to present evidence and testimony and forward a recommended order to the Department. If no petition is filed, this Notice of Intent shall become final agency action. If a petition is filed, other affected persons may petition for leave to intervene in the proceeding. A petition for intervention must be filed at least twenty (20) days before the final hearing and must include all of the information and contents described in Uniform Rule 28- 106.205, F.A.C. A petition for leave to intervene shall be filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3060. Failure to petition to intervene within the allowed time frame constitutes a waiver of any right such a person has to request a hearing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F. S., or to participate in the administrative hearing. After an administrative hearing petition is timely filed, mediation is available pursuant to Subsection 163.3189(3)(a), F.S., to any affected person who is made a party to the proceeding by filing that request with the administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings. The choice of mediation shall not affect a party's right to an administrative hearing. Mike McDaniel, Chief Division of Community Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassce, Florida 32399 -2100 Page 119 of 218 APPENDIX 4 n Need for Commercial Space utilizing Estates as Market Area (With Inclusion of the Proposed Estates Shopping Center Sub district) 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Estates (2 Miles E of 951) Population 30,404 33,348 40,297 49,808 58,996 65,217 Community Demand (7.48 sqft/Per) 227,422 249,443 301,422 372,564 441,290 487,823 Neighborhood Demand (8.45 sqft /Per) 256,914 281,791 340,510 420,878 498,516 551,084 Total Trade Area Demand 484,336 531,234 641,931 793,441 939,806 1,038,907 Community sqft Supply Randall Commercail Subdistrict 100,000 340,950 340,950 340,950 Orange Blossom Ranch PUD 100,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Estates Shopping Center Sub District 100,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 Total Community sqft 300,000 730,950 730,950 730,950 Trade Area Supply Surplus/(Deficit),Commerical Supply 300,000 730,950 730,950 730,950 (484,336) (531,234) (341,931) (62,491) (208,856) (307,957) The data above is from the Randall Blvd Commercial Center market study and represents a different methodology than what the consultant in the above analysis. The Collier County planning department asked that this format be used as an alternative to estimate the demand for commercial space. The Estates Shopping Center sub district was included in the calculations to "�" illustrate the surplus of deficit commercial supply. Based on this methodology, there is a commercial need throughout the time horizon. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis 53 Page 120 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT FOR ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (PROJECT NO. F0801.31 -20) PREPARED BY: TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2726 Oak Ridge Court, Suite 503 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 -9356 (239) 278 -3090 REVISED December 6, 2010 Page 121 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, i NC. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IV. TRIP GENERATION V. TRIP DISTRIBUTION VI. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS VII. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY AND IMPROVEMENTS VIII. CONCLUSION Page 122 of 218 TRANSPORTATION .� CONSULTANTS, INC. n I. INTRODUCTION TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. has conducted a traffic impact statement for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment submittal for the +/- 41 -acre Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict site located along the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard between its intersections with 3'd Street NW and Wilson Boulevard in Collier County, Florida. This report has been completed in compliance with the guidelines established by the Collier County Transportation Planning Division for developments seeking approval for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The site location is illustrated on Figure 1. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would modify the existing land use designation on the subject site to allow a total of 190,000 square feet of commercial floor area on the subject site. However, pursuant to discussions with County Staff, this analysis was conducted based upon a total of 225,000 square feet of commercial floor area consistent with the analysis previously submitted for the proposed Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict. This report examines the impact of the development on the surrounding roadways. Trip generation and assignments to the area intersections will be completed and analysis conducted to determine the impacts of the development on the surrounding intersections. An initial methodology meeting was held with Collier County Staff on February 21, 2007 to discuss the parameters required as a result of this analysis. No methodology notes were created in 2007 since none were required at the time of this meeting, however, this Traffic Impact Statement is consistent with the items discussed at that meeting, such as trip generation, pass -by trip reduction and trip distribution. Page 1 Page 123 of 218 TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LOCATION MAP 1 \ CONSULTANTS INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Fi g ure 1 Page 124 of 218 n TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site currently contains vacant land and some single family dwelling units. 1" Street NW divides the subject site into two parcels. The site is bordered to the north by vacant land and additional single family dwelling units. To the east of the subject site is Wilson Boulevard. Golden Gate Boulevard borders the site to the south. To the west of the site is 3rd Street NW. Golden Gate Boulevard is an east/west four -lane divided arterial roadway to the south of the subject site. The intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard allows full turning movements under signalized conditions. Currently, the intersections of Golden Gate Boulevard with Yd Street NW and 1st Street NW allow full turning movements under unsignalized conditions. Golden Gate Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 45 mph and is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. The Level of Service n. Standard on this section of Golden Gate Boulevard from Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard is LOS "D ", or 2,350 vehicles. Wilson Boulevard is a north/south two -lane roadway that borders the subject site to the east. Wilson Boulevard's intersection with Golden Gate Boulevard currently provides full turning movements operating under signalized conditions. Wilson Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. Wilson Boulevard has a Level of Service Standard of LOS "E ", or 920 vehicles. 1st Street NW is a north/south two -lane local roadway that divides the subject site into two parcels. The intersection of 1st Street NW and Golden Gate Boulevard currently provides full turning movements under unsignalized conditions. 1" Street NW is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. Concurrency is not currently measured on 1st Street NW. Page 3 Page 125 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 3rd Street NW is a north/south two -lane local roadway that borders the subject site to the west. The intersection of 3rd Street NW and Golden Gate Boulevard currently provides full turning movements under unsignalized conditions. 3rd Street NW is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. Concurrency is not currently measured on 3rd Street NW. In order to gain a better understanding of the traffic conditions in the vicinity of the subject site based on the methodology meeting held with County Staff, AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were performed at the intersections of Golden Gate Boulevard with Collier Boulevard, 3rd Street NW, 1St Street NW, and Wilson Boulevard as well as the Wilson Boulevard /Immokalee Road intersection. These turning movement counts were performed during the peak season of the adjacent street in March based on the information contained within the 2006 FDOT Traffic Information CD, so no peak season adjustment was required. Figures 2A and 2B indicate the resultant 2007 peak season turning movements at the subject intersections. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict site will amend the current future land use designation on the subject site to allow commercial retail uses. The property owner has agreed to cap the maximum amount of retail uses at 190,000 square feet of floor area. However, as previsouly discussed this analysis was based upon a total of 225,000 square feet of commercial floor area consistent with analysis previously conducted for the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict. Table 1 summarizes the uses for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the subject site. Table 1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Pronosed Use Land Use � �'��' osec�.Uses Shopping Center 225,000 square feet Page 4 Page 126 of 218 LEGEND t- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4-(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC / N \ W E S N.T.S. 0 w J O m z O U) ?_J v o cD n k42 (46) M m N 4- 714 (645) (167) 147 �% + 1+ (878)255-Do. (18) 4 r-�* 0 w J O m z O U) J �i ZUVI FLAK 61�-ASUN TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 2A Page 127 of 218 � z F- z w r w w L w U) F- ' rn o v U) r) 1,112 (877) 2 (10) Of H M (n ..__._..._ .. __..._ ........_. ...._.._. �% r LEGEND t- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4-(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC / N \ W E S N.T.S. 0 w J O m z O U) ?_J v o cD n k42 (46) M m N 4- 714 (645) (167) 147 �% + 1+ (878)255-Do. (18) 4 r-�* 0 w J O m z O U) J �i ZUVI FLAK 61�-ASUN TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 2A Page 127 of 218 � *i z D I— w w L w r � ' rn o v 3 (6) N o M • 1 . , 1 1,112 (877) 2 (10) rnoo 4 -1,092 (881) 4 (4)_.._. r ♦ `► ..... ........... ..__._..._ .. __..._ ........_. ...._.._. �% _..._._. (18) 8 1* GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD (9) 0 (9)0 h (1,068) 395♦ 00 0 �-••� 1 1,052 �oN (22)6 Ni - (17) 1 o m LEGEND t- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4-(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC / N \ W E S N.T.S. 0 w J O m z O U) ?_J v o cD n k42 (46) M m N 4- 714 (645) (167) 147 �% + 1+ (878)255-Do. (18) 4 r-�* 0 w J O m z O U) J �i ZUVI FLAK 61�-ASUN TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 2A Page 127 of 218 � z z W I— w w Of w m o � f- M (n LEGEND t- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4-(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC / N \ W E S N.T.S. 0 w J O m z O U) ?_J v o cD n k42 (46) M m N 4- 714 (645) (167) 147 �% + 1+ (878)255-Do. (18) 4 r-�* 0 w J O m z O U) J �i ZUVI FLAK 61�-ASUN TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 2A Page 127 of 218 N W E S N.T.S. k13 (23J25) Cl It M ♦1,141 IMMOKALEE ROAD iJ + y 192 (2ANDALL (46) 61 BOULEVARD (810)237-11- M --c".) (61) 14 o v� 0 cl� VANDERBILT o BEACH ROAD C) N co k392 (144) `v ~ 864 (373) y r GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD LO 0 Q 04 J co Q w LM � p p J D7 m � Z W O J J J U LEGEND 41- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ♦(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC LUU ( /A r-. It /A u114 TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 2B Page 128 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. At the map amendment stage, a detailed site plan has not been prepared. Therefore, it is difficult to asses the access that will be provided to the subject site. Preliminary discussions with the County were held regarding access. It is understood that access is not specifically approved at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment stage, but rather at the Planned Development stage and even as much at the Site Plan Approval stage. Therefore, a "conceptual" access plan was developed in order complete the traffic impact analysis Access to the subject site must ultimately be approved by the Department of Transportation and the Board of County Commissioners. For this analysis, assumptions were made regarding the proposed access to the subject site. It was assumed access would be provided directly to Golden Gate Boulevard via a full access, to Wilson Boulevard via a full access and additional access drives on 3`d Street NW and 1St Street NW. The access points to 1St Street NW were shown to provide access to the subject site on both sides of the roadway. Again, this is a conceptual access n plan that will be further developed as the project proceeds through the re- zoning and site plan approval process. IV. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation calculations were performed for the proposed uses as a part of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the site. Upon approval of this Amendment, as conditioned, the Comprehensive Plan allocation on the subject site will allow a total of 225,000 square feet of various mixed commercial floor area. The site will be analyzed based upon the use that indicates the highest trip generation in order to perform a "worst case" analysis on the County Roadway network. The resultant trip generation for each use was determined by referencing the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) report, titled Trip Generation, 7th Edition. A comparison of the 8t1i Edition to the 76' Edition of the ITE report, included in the Appendix, indicates that the total weekday P.M. peak hour trip generation would increase by a total of 25 vehicles (in and out) and the peak direction would only increase by one (1) vehicle during this same time period. Therefore, the trips generated for the project based on the 7 t Edition trip Page 7 Page 129 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. generation, as previously utilized in the studies submitted to Collier County in January 2008, remained in this report as the resultant change to the 8th Edition would make no appreciable difference in the analysis conducted herein. Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) was utilized in order to perform the necessary trip generation on the subject parcel. According to the land use description for the shopping center use, "A shopping center is an integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed, owned and managed as a unit. A shopping center's composition is related to its market area in terms of size, location and type of store. A shopping center also provides on -site parking facilities sufficient to serve its own parking demands. " The retail floor area proposed as a part of this development will function most similarly as a shopping center based on the ITE land use description. Table 2 indicates the trip generation of the retail use proposed as a part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the site. The trip generation equations utilized to calculate the trip generation can be found within the Appendix of this report for reference. Table 2 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Trin Generation ' A M Peak Hour° ' P M Peak I3our Daily Land Use Ini, Out Total In, Out Total �2 Shopping Center 155 100 255 513 557 1,070 11,504 225,000 s . ft. ITE estimates that a shopping center use of comparable size may attract a significant amount of its traffic from vehicles already traveling the adjoining roadway system. This traffic, called "pass -by" traffic, reduces the development's overall impact on the surrounding roadway system but does not decrease the actual driveway volumes. Collier County allows a maximum "pass -by" traffic reduction of 25% for shopping centers. However, as a part of the methodology meeting held with County Staff, there was discussion on the fact that the site would primarily serve the Golden Gate Estates area, Page 8 Page 130 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. which is currently lacking in commercial goods and services A retail center in this area would attract a higher percentage of "pass -by" trips due to the fact that there are very few commercial services available to the residents within a five mile radius of the subject site. Therefore, a "pass -by" rate of 35% was approved for the site by Staff in the methodology meeting. In addition, a greater pass -by reduction is reasonable (beyond the 25 %) for the subject site due to the significant amount of commuter traffic experienced during the peak hours of the adjacent street along Golden Gate Boulevard. For this analysis, the "pass -by" traffic was accounted for in order to detennine the number of "new" trips the development will add to the surrounding roadways. Table 3 summarizes the pass -by reduction percentages utilized. Table 4 summarizes the development traffic and the breakdown between the total project trips and the net new trips the development is anticipated to generate after the pass -by reduction is applied. It should be noted that the driveway volumes are not reduced as a result of the "pass -by" reduction, only the traffic added to the surrounding streets and intersections. Table 3 Pass -by Trip Reduction Factor Estates Shnnninu Center Subdistrict Table 4 Trip Generation — New Trips Estates Shounin2 Center Subdistrict Percentage Tr><p t Land Use Reducion Weekday PM Peak Hour Shopping Center 35% Table 4 Trip Generation — New Trips Estates Shounin2 Center Subdistrict Page 9 Page 131 of 218 Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Daily , Dand Use Total � Y)- Total Trips 155 100 255 513 557 1,070 11,504 Less Retail Pass -by -45 -45 -90 -187 -187 -374 4026 ' (35% ass -b) New Traffic 110 55 165 326 370 696 7,478 (Total Tri s —Pass -b Traffic Page 9 Page 131 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. The Level of Service analysis and the intersection analysis at Golden Gate Boulevard/Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road/Wilson Boulevard performed within this report is based solely on the new trips generated as a result of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the subject site. The intersection analysis at the intersections surrounding the subject site was performed based on the total trips. V. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The new trips based on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment indicated within Table 4 were then assigned to the surrounding roadway system based on the anticipated routes the drivers will utilize to approach the site. The resultant traffic distribution is indicated in Figure 3 as approved within the methodology meeting held with Staff. Based on the traffic distribution indicated within Figure 3, the new development traffic was distributed to the surrounding roadway network. Figure 4A and 4B indicates the n site traffic assignment to the conceptual site access plan utilized in this analysis and previously described. The assigmnent was also carried to the external intersection beyond the site boundary and within the Study area. The new site related traffic was assigned to the significantly impacted roadway links as a part of the net new project trips graphic identified as Figure 4C. Furthermore, an assignment of the pass -by traffic generated as a result of the subject site can also be found within the Appendix of this report for reference. Page 10 Page 132 of 218 VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD IMMOKALEE ROAD ♦ 5% ♦ !— 5% 100% 0 41% W 0 4-30%-10- DROP OFF m GOLDEN GATE w BOULEVARD 4% AREAS J J O 0 4-5%-1111- PINE RIDGE ROAD 10% DROP OFF TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS 200% 5% DROP OFF TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS 100% A -40 %—► 0 Q W J O 00 Z O co J i 100% 10% DROP OFF TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS + 15% DROP OFF 20% TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS 4-30% _110. 4-15% 1000% IDS, OIL WELL ROAD I * 10 % OF THE PROJECT TRAFFIC WAS ASSUMED TO TERMINATE AND ORIGINATE BETWEEN COLLIER BOULEVARD AND THE SITE ALONG GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AND BETWEEN IMMOKALEE ROAD AND THE SITE ALONG WILSON BOULEVARD. LEGEND 4-20 %—► PERCENT DISTRIBUTION TRANSPORTATION PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION CONSULTANTS, INc. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 3 Page 133 of 218 41% ♦ 2% DROP OFF TO RESIDENTIAL 4% AREAS D W J O m U) W 0 Q J W W * 10 % OF THE PROJECT TRAFFIC WAS ASSUMED TO TERMINATE AND ORIGINATE BETWEEN COLLIER BOULEVARD AND THE SITE ALONG GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AND BETWEEN IMMOKALEE ROAD AND THE SITE ALONG WILSON BOULEVARD. LEGEND 4-20 %—► PERCENT DISTRIBUTION TRANSPORTATION PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION CONSULTANTS, INc. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 3 Page 133 of 218 z� z 00 M {� M O O �N. I ' S (10) `�° 15 (64) ♦35 (198) N ° jk52 (145) ° 4-57(155) . (�? _. . _ - -`► x-15 �70) -- - -- �% ` - .... (30) 101 1* (115) 351 GOLDEN GATE (6 0) 161 BOULEVARD (1 -75) 51 ♦ ° (60) 16♦ {203)30-lo- (0) 01 ° (0) 0 -.�, o w w F- U) ry co E w w U) T 0 Q w J O m z O U) CD M O � N (71) 151 4 (60) 15 0 0:!t' Zo k7 (34) N,n° I ♦40 (120) -,41 i►_�►1" 0 (0) (40) 5 (122) 20 -Do- N "t ° (41)5 0 Q w .J Z) O m z O J J LEGEND A- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ♦(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC .-. TRANSPORTATION SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT CONSULTANTS INc. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Fi g ure 4A Page 134 of 218 w w w w Of U) o � U) 00 M {� M O O �N. I ' S (10) `�° 15 (64) ♦35 (198) N ° jk52 (145) ° 4-57(155) . (�? _. . _ - -`► x-15 �70) -- - -- �% ` - .... (30) 101 1* (115) 351 GOLDEN GATE (6 0) 161 BOULEVARD (1 -75) 51 ♦ ° (60) 16♦ {203)30-lo- (0) 01 ° (0) 0 -.�, o w w F- U) ry co E w w U) T 0 Q w J O m z O U) CD M O � N (71) 151 4 (60) 15 0 0:!t' Zo k7 (34) N,n° I ♦40 (120) -,41 i►_�►1" 0 (0) (40) 5 (122) 20 -Do- N "t ° (41)5 0 Q w .J Z) O m z O J J LEGEND A- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ♦(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC .-. TRANSPORTATION SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT CONSULTANTS INc. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Fi g ure 4A Page 134 of 218 LEGEND ,f- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ♦(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT CONSULTANTS, INc. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 4B Page 135 of 218 LEGEND -4— 000 AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC ♦(000) PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC re-% n rr 1lt � INC I INCvv rmujr-k., I I r-\t,r iv TRANSPORTATION ON SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED ROADWAYS Figure 4C CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Page 136 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. VI. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS In order to determine which roadway segments surrounding the site will be significantly impacted, Table 1A, contained in the Appendix, was created. This table indicates which roadway links will accommodate an amount of project traffic greater than the 2 % -2 % -3% Significance Test. The new project related traffic from Table 4 was compared with the corrected 10 -month Level of Service Standard for Peak Hour — Peak Direction traffic conditions in order to determine the project impact percentage. Based on the information contained within Table 1A, Golden Gate Boulevard from Collier Boulevard to Everglades Boulevard, Wilson Boulevard from south of Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road, and Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard to Pine Ridge Road are shown to experience a significant impact as a result of the added project traffic associated with the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Comprehensive Plan Amendment in accordance with the Collier County 2 % -2 % -3% Significance Test. Therefore, Level of Service analysis is only required on these roadway links as a result of the proposed development. In addition to the significant impact criteria, Table IA also includes a buildout consistency analysis on the Collier County Roadway network. The Collier County TIS Guidelines require analysis of the adjacent roadway network based on the buildout of the project or the five (5) year planning window, whichever is longer. It is likely that this project will be constructed prior to the end of the year 2014 due to the need for commercial services in the Golden Gate Estates. Therefore, it was necessary to analyze the surrounding roadway network based on the 2015 traffic conditions. The total volume indicated within the 2010 Collier County Concurrency Spreadsheet reflects the current remaining capacity on the adjacent roadway network. The remaining capacity was subtracted from the 10 -month service volume on each roadway in order to determine the 2010 peak season, peak hour, peak direction traffic volume on the adjacent roadway network. The appropriate annual growth rate for these roadways was taken by Page 15 Page 137 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. comparing information from the 2006 Annual Inventory Update Report (AUIR) to data in the 2010 AUIR. An example of the calculations to determine the annual growth rates can be found within the Appendix of this report for reference. These annual growth rates were then used to factor the 2010 peak season, peak hour, peak direction traffic volume to 2015 peak season, peak hour, peak direction background traffic conditions. The resultant 2015 peak season, peak hour, peak direction traffic volume was subtracted from the Level of Service Standard in order to determine the remaining capacity in the year 2015. The project generated traffic was then subtracted from the remaining capacity in order to determine the remaining 2015 capacity after the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict traffic is added to the surrounding roadway network. Figure 5 indicates the results of the capacity analysis along Collier Boulevard, Golden Gate Boulevard, and Wilson Boulevard. VII. PROJECTED CONSISTENCY AND IMPROVEMENTS Based upon the information contained within Table IA and Figure 5, a Level of Service deficiency is projected on Golden Gate Boulevard east of Wilson Boulevard based upon the 2014 traffic conditions both with and without the proposed development traffic. Several road improvements are shown in either the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) or the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan in this area of Golden Gate Estates that will specifically address this deficiency. Golden Gate Boulevard is shown on the 2030 Needs Plan as a 4 lane roadway from Collier Boulevard to Everglades Boulevard. A parallel facility is planned (the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension) but funding for the segment between Collier Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard has not been identified. The Developer has committed to provide the right -of -way along the project frontage to accommodate the future widening of Golden Gate Boulevard, should it be necessary in the future. In addition, the Developer has also committed to provide the necessary right - of -way to develop intersection improvements at the Golden Gate Boulevard/Wilson Boulevard intersection, which will improve the capacity of the link due to the added Page 16 Page 138 of 218 IMMOKALEE ROAD 0.5 %- 532 (521) [495] 4 n °A VANDERBILT 0 BEACH ROAD o Q -186 -186 w w ( -219) ( -202) O [ -297] [-241] m 892 11.0% 5.5% U) (881) GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD J J [855] 4.0% U' 94 (72) 378 t(345) 378 378 [20] (334) (306) PINE RIDGE ROAD 3.0% [267] [230] [115] 4.7% 6.3% 11.2% 1.5% 0.7% 0 w J O m z O J G LEGEND OIL WELL ROAD 0.5% 532 (510) [458] -8.0% 1.6% 532 (497) [412] 0.7% 13.0% 000 2015 REMAINING CAPACITY (000) 2015 REMAINING CAPACITY W/ AM PROJECT TRAFFIC [000] 2015 REMAINING CAPACITY W/ PM PROJECT TRAFFIC 0.0% PROJECT IMPACT PERCENTAGE . ir; nl TRANSPORTATION 2015 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS CONSULTANTS, INc. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 5 Page 139 of 218 0 cc Q -186 -186 w ( -219) ( -202) 1.6% [ -297] [-241] m 892 11.0% 5.5% U) (881) o [855] 4.0% U' 000 2015 REMAINING CAPACITY (000) 2015 REMAINING CAPACITY W/ AM PROJECT TRAFFIC [000] 2015 REMAINING CAPACITY W/ PM PROJECT TRAFFIC 0.0% PROJECT IMPACT PERCENTAGE . ir; nl TRANSPORTATION 2015 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS CONSULTANTS, INc. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 5 Page 139 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. capacity created at the intersection. The impacts to the Long Range Transportation Plan as a result of this amendment would be minimal since the parallel corridor of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension is included in that plan and will accommodate a large volume of east/west commuter traffic in the Estates area. Additionally, the Developer has also committed to provide the necessary right -of -way at no cost to the County for the future widening of Wilson Boulevard along the frontage of the project site. The proposed Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict development is the first commercial development of its kind proposed within the Golden Gate Estates area. Therefore, it is likely that the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict development will have a positive impact on the traffic conditions in the area. The Developer has committed, through the Text of the Growth Management Plan Amendment, to include a Grocery Store in the first 101-. 100,000 square feet of development that is constructed on the site. The nearest grocery shopping opportunity for residents of Golden Gate Estates is along Collier Boulevard to the north and south of Golden Gate Boulevard, a distance of approximately six (6) miles. n The addition of a grocery store and other neighborhood commercial uses in this area would significantly shorten trip lengths that are related to this purpose as well as potentially reduce traffic volumes on Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard due to the fact that the retail trip would be intercepted prior to reaching these roadways. In addition, further analysis of the future traffic conditions in this area will be required at the re- zoning and SDP phase for the proposed development. Intersection analysis was performed as a result of the added Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict traffic. Based on the methodology meeting, intersection analysis was required on Golden Gate Boulevard at its intersections with Collier Boulevard, 3'd Street NW, the site access, 1St Street NW, and Wilson Boulevard as well as at the intersections of Wilson Boulevard with the site access and Immokalee Road. It should be noted that the intersection analysis was completed based on the assumption that the existing through lane capacity currently in place on Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard would remain (four lanes on Golden Gate Parkway and two lanes on Wilson Boulevard). n Page 18 Page 140 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. In order to perform the required intersection analysis, it was necessary to determine the 2014 background peak hour turning movements at these intersections. Therefore, the background turning movements indicated within Figures 2A and 2B were factored by the appropriate annual growth rates over a seven (7) year period. The calculation to determine the background turning movements is indicated below: 2014 Turning Movement = (2007 Turning Movement) * (1 + AGR)(2014 -2007) 2014 Turning Movement = (1,112 veh)* (1 + 0.0242)(7) 2014 Turning Movement= (1,112 veh)* (1.182) 2014 Turning Movement =1,372 vehicles The above illustrated calculation was applied to all of the turning movements indicated within Figures 2A and 2B in order to determine the 2014 background turning movements. It should be noted again that the access to the subject site assumed as part of this analysis is conceptual and has not yet been approved by the Collier County Department of Transportation or the Board of County Commissioners. The Growth Management Plan Amendment process does not specifically identify turning movements permitted at site access drives to projects within the Sub - district. This will be further analyzed and access determined in the re- zoning and SDP process The resultant 2014 background turning movements are illustrated within Figures 6A and 6B. The site traffic indicated within Figures 4A and 4B was then added to the 2014 background turning movements in order to determine the 2014 buildout turning movements at the area intersections. The resultant 2014 buildout turning movements are indicated within Figures 7A and 7B. It is important to note that the pass -by traffic assignment contained within the Appendix of this report was subtracted from the volumes within Figure 4B prior to adding those volumes to the 2014 background turning movements at the Collier Boulevard /Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard/Immokalee Road intersections. This was done in an effort to back out the pass -by traffic at the external intersections because the pass -by traffic is already Page 19 Page 141 of 218 r. F- w w F- U) � o o z � � > w > w w J J O m O 00 Z U) O O m >_J to W M M O Loo 1 _ l^ (0) 0 _ O O M h co X3 L _ r � N �5 (10) o o = k5 (10) Mvv I k51 (56) M 1,372 -(.1_ ,0..8._9..._) .. . -... �_y lk x' 0 (0) .._v.- 4-1,367 ,367 (1,097) v ° ? -0-864 (781) ' � 5 (15) 1,382 (1,11 5 5 _._.... -- ........- , -- - -`► 21 10 GOLDEN GATE ( ) o (0) � 1 BOULEVARD (1.5)5 1 � (197) 174 (1,257) 439♦ M (1,276) 469♦ (1,241) 459♦ j (1,038) 301 ♦ ° 1`^ (26) 10 N (20) 5 N - (21) 5 N o �� r > z Z) w w O w m U O U) E— J V r LEGEND 4- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ♦(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 2U14 BACKGROUND TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 6A Page 142 of 218 > z Z) w w O w m U O U) E— J V r LEGEND 4- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ♦(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 2U14 BACKGROUND TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 6A Page 142 of 218 LEGEND 4- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ♦(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 2U14 BACKGROUND TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 6A Page 142 of 218 N W E S N.T.S. k17 (29) r_:;: -c,, ♦1 456 (710) IMMOKALEE ROAD `j + y •245 (287) RANDALL (59) 10 fl� BOULEVARD (1,033)302♦ � -rn (78) 18 &00 � vrn 0 m VANDERBILT o BEACH ROAD u- rn c� rno M k463 (170) I .......... .... .1 1 1. 1,021 (441) GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD N co 0 i 00 W LO W J O -- m O m W Z J O J O J U LEGEND 4- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4-(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 2014 BACKGROUND TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 6B Page 143 of 218 r07 70, Lu Lu U) Lu Lu c/) uj 0 m z 0 U) N.T.S. I � V) W ui w Lli w c() co 0 co F_ z 0'^ LO Lr) (71) 15-*f (60) 15NI! coo 00 M cl) �10 (20) 00 Cy) LO 0) 1 k20 (74) 58 (90) ce) 1 LO 0 407(1,287) N cy) 52 (145) 4-1,424 (1,252) LO "t 4-904(901) 4*' (15) 05(5) 4/ j� 5 (10) (551) 20 1* (115) 35 GOLDEN TE GA (75) 21 1 1* (237) 179 (1,432) 490♦ BOULEVARD C:' (1,336) 485 (1,444) 489-0- C") — (1,160)321-10- cy) (26) 10 (20) 5 (62) 10 r07 70, Lu Lu U) Lu Lu c/) uj 0 m z 0 U) � V) LEGEND ♦ 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4— (000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 2014 BUILD-OUT TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 7A Page 144 of 218 2U14 BUILU -OUT TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 7B Page 145 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. accounted for within the 2014 background conditions. However, the intersections surrounding the site were analyzed as if no pass -by traffic reductions were taken. The appropriate lane arrangements and the turning movements indicated within Figures 7A and 713 were inputted into the HCS+ software in order to perform the necessary intersection analysis at the previously mentioned intersections. The lane arrangements utilized in this analysis can be found in graphical format in the Appendix. It should be noted that no truck factors were applied to turning movements into and out of the subject development at the site access intersections. The results of the intersection capacity analyses can be found within Table 5 below. Table 5 Intersection Analysis Results Estates Shovvin2 Center Subdistrict Page 24 Page 146 of 218 O>G4 LOS (Dela InterSechon/Approaeh Y -. AM PeakHour P1VI Peak Hour ,�. Background, Buldout': � Background Bu�ldout, LKsee) LOS C LOS B LOS C Collier Blvd @ Golden Gate Blvd (221.7 sec (19.7 sec) 21.5 sec LLOS B LOS B LOS B EB Left (1(13.5 sec (11.2 sec) (13.1 sec) WB Left LLOS A LOS B LOS B Golden Gate Blvd (88.5 sec (12.3 see)13.7 sec NB Approach LOS A LOS B LOS B LOS C @ 3`d St N W (9.9 see) (10.1 sec) (14.4 sec) (15.8 sec LOS C LOS C LOS B LOS C SB Approach (15.7 sec) (16.2 sec) (13.1 sec) ]] (15.3 sec) Golden Gate Blvd @ Site Access LOS B __ LOS B with Si gal 14.8 see 15.6 sec LOS B LOS B LOS B LOS B EB Left (12.8 sec (13.7 sec (11.2 see)13.8 sec) LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B Golden Gate Blvd WB Left (8.4 sec) (8.5 sec) (12.0 sec ) (13.5 sec) NB Approach LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C a Ist St NW (9.9 sec ) (10.0 sec) 14.1 sec) (15.8 sec LOS C LOS C LOS B LOS C SB Approach (15.1 sec) (16.0 sec) (13.1 sec) (16.0 sec) LOS C LOS C LOS C LOS C Golden Gate Blvd @ Wilson Blvd (25.1 sec ) (26.0 sec) (20.8 sec) (22.9 sec) A LOS A Wilson Blvd @ NB Left -- (8.7 sec) __ (8.5 sec) EB Approach __ LOS B LOS C Site Access (14.3 sec ) (16.4 sec) LOS B LOS B LOS C LOS C Inunokalee Rd @ Wilson Blvd (18.0 sec) (18.1 sec) (23.2 sec) (23.4 sec) Page 24 Page 146 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Based on the results of the intersection analysis listed above, all intersections and turning movements at the subject intersections are shown to operate acceptably. Based on the conceptual access plan analyzed as part of this report, the site access driveway to Golden Gate Boulevard was analyzed both with and without a traffic signal. The analysis of this intersection without a traffic signal showed Level of Service deficiencies on the site access approach to Golden Gate Boulevard during only the PM peak hour, but no Level of Service deficiencies on the public roadway. Regardless, this intersection is shown to function acceptably after the addition of a traffic signal, which is approved, would be installed at the sole expense of the Developer. Therefore, beyond the potential additional traffic control improvements to the site access intersection to Golden Gate Boulevard, no additional intersection improvements will be required as a result of the proposed Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, as previously noted, the Developer has agreed to n stipulations as part of the text of the Growth Management Plan Amendment that state the following: Development within this Sub- district shall be phased and the following commitments related to area roadway improvements shall be completed within the specified timeframes: 1. Right -of -Way for Golden Gate Boulevard Expansion and Right -of -Way for the Wilson Boulevard Expansion will be donated to the County at no cost within 120 days of a written request from the County. 2. The applicant will pay its fair share for the intersection improvements at Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard within 90 days of County request for reimbursement. 3. Until the intersection improvements at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard are complete, the County shall not issue a Certicate(s) of Occupancy (CO) for more than 100, 000 square feet of development. The applicant must obtain a C.O. for a grocery store as part of this 100,000 square feet, and the grocery store must be the first C. 0. obtained. Page 25 Page 147 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Specific site related turn lanes and improvements to the Golden Gate Boulevard/Wilson Boulevard intersection will be analyzed further at the re- zoning and SDP phase of the proj ect. VIII. CONCLUSION The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict development is not anticipated to create any Level of Service deficiencies in the vicinity of the subject site. However, Golden Gate Boulevard east of Wilson Boulevard is projected to operate below acceptable Level of Service conditions in 2015 both with and without the trips from the proposed development. Collier County has plans to widen Golden Gate Boulevard between Wilson Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard but funding for this improvement is not currently identified in the 5 -year work program. The Developer has agreed to provide right -of -way along the project frontage and commit to proportionate fair share payments for intersection improvements at the Wilson ^ Boulevard /Golden Gate Boulevard intersection in order to mitigate any Level of Service deficiencies. Additionally, the Developer of the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict has agreed to phase the project until specific improvements have been completed. Furthermore, with the addition of a commercial development such as the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict in this area, significant impacts to trip lengths will occur based on the fact that residents in the area will travel much shorter distances to obtain the same goods and services that are now only available on Collier Boulevard or along Immokalee Road. Therefore, the proposed development will provide a significant benefit to the public within the Golden Gate Estates area. Page 26 Page 148 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Based on a conceptual access plan for the project, intersection analysis was performed as a part of this report at the Golden Gate Boulevard intersections with Collier Boulevard, 3rd Street NW, the proposed site access, 1st Street NW, and Wilson Boulevard along with the Wilson Boulevard intersections with the site access and Immokalee Road. These intersections and approaches are shown to operate acceptably after the addition of the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict development related traffic after the addition of a traffic signal at the site access driveway to Golden Gate Boulevard. Turn lane analysis will be performed in depth at the SDP phase for the proposed development. Page 27 Page 149 of 218 APPENDIX Page 150 of 218 TABLE IA & 2A Page 151 of 218 N tD f0 W r lD 11 II U U W M > > v o m Ill a V > 9 L LL lL LL yy z F W W J a > > 1p V m m W p U m y y !� y p p t I I LU y In uj I I I C S IL 1 } t Y Y> Z Z a } >> U } F- O ~ LL Q a oN O y 10 1aO d 1J LO O N J N U Q a N 7 _ j E E ro n u O U 7 O ' U C`O Uo I "5 `v s a 0 o ° `W `= o 0 a o o t N ai vi W 3 d ui 3 ui 3 ui vi z d vi z vi 3 dl Z W W w I� Q Q LL O w le V Q d QI i ^ I p p C'/ t7 N N I 1 t INn h V mm i t n t7 n w W Z 10 U Z aO W tp 10 N N N N a o' a a I rn t M n I i I N IMn m t I N IL a w U LU Z LU Z 1 I 1 I I 1I I I 1 h Ion N E U � U W UI z m rn rn 1a00 LL m ~ J a r WI 0 0 0 o aZ r p Q l o l o o 0 0 o F 0 0 0 0 0 I I o 0 0 0 0 I I i Z Q d' CY [\j fV fV lV N N LV N N N a U U W o 0 1 1 I I I 1 V N Q J I N a K O Z Q o F_ QC, Z i z U LL al Z Y Z r> Y Y Y Z Z Z y y } } w a 5 g M p W W a U y a o e e oe e°_ N O O m r O O N M y ^ o o O N 0 6 O O 0 6 O v o CO d f' a ¢ o v vi IL 0 rL v v al LL I N LL C' U z v U Z lu LU C aI °a I r N N n N I V a n U' M O W S N tl M N d d �- M 0 0 K O O y Q O O O O N N N O O G O O N Ip ton a Ion Ion Ion M M M O O O N N J Z o N Q M N N N N N M M N O •- M y N Y a y p O DD a J J J Z Z Q J cp O O J JJ J J J J V 7 7 N N N J J to f0 J J N N J N J N N N V .l K F z S S W CL a ul N tD f0 W r lD 11 II U U > > v o m Ill a V > 9 L LL lL LL m a > > 1p V m m v F_ F_ la" Fa- 0 a U W m M D .0 19 m a m U U U ro F- d oN O y 10 1aO d 1J LO O Z V a N 7 _ j E E ro n u O U 7 O ' U C`O Uo I "5 `v s a 0 o ° `W `= o 0 a o o a i i ai vi W 3 d ui 3 ui 3 ui vi z d vi z vi 3 > > 0 0 x x Q Q ° > m m Ill a > m X j o m IY CL 1p v la" Fa- 0 a E � a 0 Ix 0 c7 W> Page 152 of 218 F- W NV M N J Z cn `O M LU 93 ca U v N NQ y � N N W Q LV V W F- _3 LL V (q �a<z F- a t-W CL n- W Cl) O W W G 0— N Q ww a O N N I T N ( � F• 1 Z 0 O r � � W U x < m LL l O W F W W U � u w LL N _ 0 O Ix i E ~ a 0 o e o a U of Z T- a. W W 0 M d m It O O m x a a a J J 0 0 F I- o 0-1 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 a 0 I 0 0 0 0 M N r N O �- O O M O) O N V O N 7 V O U) M O W h 1.- V• O O O O O (D CD J r M r V O O Or O O O O V' W O V r r jI M r M r v r !� O O M ti M r i o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 o e o M CD co N O O OD co to M O N V' O V' V' 7 m M n M o o tD m v, to o 0 0 Lq (q cD 1 r CV r (p O 0) — O O O d' co O CY) r r jl M U.) M r co co m W CD m M r M L r 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 h tO N O V O M O r N 1-- O O O C) 1 r N . q O (O N r O O CO N O (R N N 1 O O O O O O r 'ct O O O O r O O O O I O r (0 N - M m (v) (D r O N N I N r m r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v o 0 0 0 O N N n O O O O V d' r O V' 1-- O O N (D N r O O N O N N N I o O o O o CG M O O C; o 0 r O r O 0 I (D 1 i N N F' r N r N ( 0 Z 0 O r LLI 2 M uJ V) V) U x ° O N O O O O i O C) 'I 0) 1 F- � u w LL N _ O 0 F• 0 o e o e U M r N LO (O N w u N n ^2 ( Z Lu Q H o U. O U.) ^o Z O Cl) u! 4kI U' 2 N M r M N M r r r Z U c II II m LL Z) Z) O C O o m u W Z � a F u u o co E? U) LL = Cl) LL F Z C F w u. w IL -, u Z Z IL 3 IL F T- a. W W 0 M d m It O O m x a a a J J 0 0 F I- o 0-1 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 a 0 I 0 0 0 0 M N r N O �- O O M O) O N V O N 7 V O U) M O W h 1.- V• O O O O O (D CD J r M r V O O Or O O O O V' W O V r r jI M r M r v r !� O O M ti M r i o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 o e o M CD co N O O OD co to M O N V' O V' V' 7 m M n M o o tD m v, to o 0 0 Lq (q cD 1 r CV r (p O 0) — O O O d' co O CY) r r jl M U.) M r co co m W CD m M r M L r 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 h tO N O V O M O r N 1-- O O O C) 1 r N . q O (O N r O O CO N O (R N N 1 O O O O O O r 'ct O O O O r O O O O I O r (0 N - M m (v) (D r O N N I N r m r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v o 0 0 0 O N N n O O O O V d' r O V' 1-- O O N (D N r O O N O N N N I o O o O o CG M O O C; o 0 r O r O 0 I (D 1 i N N r r N r N ( Z Z 0 O r o 0 o e o N M V C"? ;` N (D M (D ;: O O M N o M M N 0 O r 0 C r 2 M uJ V) V) CO O N O O N O O O O i O C) 'I 0) 1 F- w w w w O 0 0 o e o e 0 0 M r N LO (O N I000 00 000 00 -I N 0 M V M r t) O O r N N N z x F w :) w z O0 0 O o 0 0 O V. v C r- u) O r N Cl) o I.D V N 0 to d' N 0 tO M N O O M N o M M N 0 O r 0 C r 0 C r 0 m f` M o n (D M O N O O N O O N O O N O O O O i O C) 'I 0) 1 F• ( Z u! 4kI U' 2 N M r M N M r r r M r M r V' � V. � V' CO F0 W r W r ` (O � i 7 r < W i U) 1 w W U o a a o o C O m N m ) m ca O O O E O CD c D (D (m v C C� O �i S 0 ` w CO o Z 0 u) 0 u) 0 ul ° 0 a. 0 La ° o ul o ul 0 V) 0 Z 0 LL 0 C6 0 Z 0 ui U ' Q Q w ED N = 00 U Uo m d) N CD C V m 0 m 0 E m m 5 mO 0 O7 o m 0 (6 CA N W Page 153 of 218 SUPPORTING INFORMATION GRAPHICS Page 154 of 218 I- 1 I` N.T.S. 'j' LU`14 LANE ARRANUEMENTS rl TRANSPORTATION AT ANALYZED INTERSECTIONS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Page 155 of 218 2014 LANE AKKANULIVILN 15 �j TRANSPORTATION AT ANALYZED INTERSECTIONS �-( CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Page 156 of 218 LEGEND ♦ 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4-(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION PASS -BY SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Page 157 of 218 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT RESULTS Page 158 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC, DATE: March 1, 2007 DAY: THURSDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:D0 AM 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS COLLIER BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY 15 MlN 11 11 1 tR BOULEVARD BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND E) LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL I LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THE 7:00 AM 0 79 107 186 26 86 0 112 0 0 7:15 AM 0 86 121 207 7 69 0 76 0 0 7:30 AM 1 0 93 105 198 34 35 0 69 0 0 7:45 AM 0 95 93 188 10 38 0 4g p p 8:00 AM 0 107 88 195 23 41 0 64 0 p 8:15 AM 0 75 94 169 25 61 0 88 0 0 8:30 AM 0 124 93 217 27 61 0 88 0 p 8:45 AM 0 101 82 1 183 23 49 0 72 0 0 121AL: 0 760 783 1 1,543 175 440 0 615 11 0 0 ND GHT TOTAL WESTBOUND I LEFT THRU RIGHT -, TOTAL INTER - SECTION TOTAL 0 0 372 0 106 478 776 0 0 212 0 1D9 321 604 0 0 157 0 96 253 520 0 0 123 D 81 2D4 440 1 D D 96 0 76 172 431 0 0 133 0 104 237 492 0 0 120 0 67 187 492 0 0 99 0 69 166 423 0 0 1,312 0 708 2,020 4.178 HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS COLLIER BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY BEGIN 0 353 428 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY 0 0 SECTION TOTAL Page 159 of 218 HOUR L.ULLIt:K OULEVARD GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY BEGIN LEFT NORTHI }OUND THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT SOUTHBOUND THRU RIGHT -� TOTAL LEFT EASTBOUND THRU RIGHT TOTA�I INTER - SECTION 7:DOAM 0 353 426 779 77 228 LEFT THROES RIGHT TOTAL i 7:15 AM 0 381 407 788 74 183 0 0 305 257 0 D 0 0 864 D 392 1,256 2,340 7:30 AM 0 370 38D 750 92 175 0 267 0 0 0 362 7:45 AM 0 401 368 769 85 201 0 286 0 0 0 0 0 509 0 7 866 1883 8:00 AM 0 407 357 764 98 212 0 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 472 448 0 0 328 316 B00 7Frt 1,855 ,000 BEGIN 0 353 428 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY 0 0 SECTION TOTAL Page 159 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 4v 0 .-► 0 J 0% 0 J 0 0 Note: Percents ( %) represent movement volumes divided by the total Intersection traffic COLLIER BOULEVARD 1,050 45% 1 745 1 DATE: 305 DAY: THURSDAY 1 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM 0 228 77 +j 1 It* 745 1 DATE: March 1, 2007 DAY: THURSDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM INTERSECTION: COLLIER BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE 1,092 PARKWAY 392 0 \=1 �I 864 1,256 j 1,759 75% 503 Page 160 of 218 ■ r* 0 353 426 1 t 1,092 779 T 1,871 80% 392 0 \=1 �I 864 1,256 j 1,759 75% 503 Page 160 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: March 1, 2007 DAY: THURSDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS COLLIER BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY HOUR COLLIER BOULEVARD 11 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND , F WESTBOUND SECTION COLLIER BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY LEFT THRU RIGHT ITOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL I LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL 15 MIN COLLIER BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY INTER - BEGIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND � EASTBOUND WESTBOUND -� SECTION I LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT .TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL I LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 0 137 243 380 37 66 0 103 0 0 0 0 64 0 57 121 604 4:15 PM 0 98 307 405 23 75 0 98 0 0 0 0 116 0 60 176 679 4:30 PM 0 148 299 447 23 93 0 116 0 0 0 0 119 0 26 145 708 4:45 PM 0 122 315 437 20 46 0 66 0 0 0 0 69 0 42 111 614 5:00 PM 0 118 313 431 24 95 0 119 0 0 0 0 109 0 24 133 683 5:15 PM 0 123 383 506 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 37 82 588 5:30 PM 0 151 36B 519 43 51 0 94 0 0 0 0 92 0 41 133 746 5:45 PM 0 147 372 519 70 56 0 126 0 0 0 0 127 0 42 169 814 TOTAL: 0 1,044 2,600 3,644 240 482 0 722 0 0 0 0 741 0 329 1 1,070 5,436 HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS COLLIER BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY HOUR COLLIER BOULEVARD 11 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND , F WESTBOUND SECTION FLL11T THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT ITOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL I LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL I LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 0 505 1,164 1,669 0 486 1.234 1,720 0 511 1,310 1,821 0 514 1,379 1,893 0 539 1,436 1,975 103 280 0 383 90 309 0 399 67 234 0 301 87 192 0 279 137 202 0 339 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 368 0 185 553 413 0 152 565 342 0 129 471 315 0 144 459 373 0 144 517 2,605 2,684 2,593 2,631 2,831 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR COLLIER BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL FLL11T THRU RIGHT I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 5:00 PM 0 539 1,436 1,975 1 137 202 0 339 11 0 0 0 0 373 0 144 517 2,831 Page 161 of 218 DATE: March 1, 2007 TRANSPORTATION DAY: THURSDAY CONSULTANTS, INC. COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM INTERSECTION: COLLIER BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY 41111111111111111 0 �a� 0 0 0% ,e.♦ 0 mw� 0 0 01 Note: Percents ( %) represent movement volumes divided by the total intersection traffic COLLIER BOULEVARD 1,022 36% I 339 1 202 137 1 q* 1 575 g 2,550 90% 683 1 I ? r' 0 539 1,436 t 1,975 L144 0 �e 373 517 2,090 '+ 74% 1,573 Page 162 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Page 163 of 218 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 3RD STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 3RD STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD LEFT THRU RIGHT HOUR BEGIN LEFT NORTHBOUND THRU RIGHT 3RD TOTAL STREET SOUTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL GOLDEN GATE EASTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL BOULEVARD WESTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT 3RD STREET INTER - SECTION TOTAL 7:00 AM 18 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 25 3 0 24 27 INTER. 15MIN 3 1,117 1,578 7:15 AM 23 0 7 30 2 0 20 22 7 375 6 386 2 1,023 2 1,027 1,467 BEGIN 28 NORTHBOUND 6 34 SOUTHBOUND 8 36D 5 373 2 871 EASTBOUND B75 WESTBOUND 7:45 AM SECTION 0 LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL, LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM 3 0 0 3 1 0 9 10 3 99 2 104 1 319 2 322 439 7:15 AM 4 0 2 6 1 0 6 7 1 87 4 92 0 287 0 287 392 7:30 AM 5 0 4 9 0 0 3 3 2 103 0 105 0 241 0 241 358 7:45 AM 6 0 1 7 1 0 6 7 2 106 0 108 1 265 1 267 389 8:00 AM 8 0 0 8 0 0 5 5 2 79 2 83 1 230 1 232 328 8:15 AM 9 0 1 10 0 0 6 6 2 72 3 77 0 135 0 135 228 8:30 AM 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 3 1 65 7 73 0 174 0 174 252 8:45 AM 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 87 4 93 0 160 1 161 H 258 TOTAL: 41 0 8 49 4 1 36 41 15 698 22 1 735 3 1,811 5 1,819 1 2,644 Page 163 of 218 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR 3RD STREET HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 3RD STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT HOUR BEGIN LEFT NORTHBOUND THRU RIGHT 3RD TOTAL STREET SOUTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL GOLDEN GATE EASTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL BOULEVARD WESTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL INTER - SECTION TOTAL 7:00 AM 18 0 7 25 3 0 24 27 8 395 6 409 2 1,112 3 1,117 1,578 7:15 AM 23 0 7 30 2 0 20 22 7 375 6 386 2 1,023 2 1,027 1,467 7:30 AM 28 0 6 34 1 0 20 21 8 36D 5 373 2 871 2 B75 1,303 7:45 AM 25 0 2 27 2 1 18 21 7 322 12 341 2 804 2 808 1,197 8:00 AM 23 0 1 24 1 1 12 14 7 303 16 326 1 699 2 702 1,066 Page 163 of 218 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR 3RD STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT' TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM 18 0 7 25 3 0 24 27 8 395 6 409 2 1,112 3 1,117 1,578 Page 163 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 1,154 ~♦ 8 Milt 1,563 99% 395 409 6 WV Note: Percents ( ?A) represent movement volumes divided by the total Intersection traffic 3RD STREET 38 2% 1 27 1 I 0 3 1 4 11 DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 7,00 AM -9-.00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM INTERSECTION: 3RD STREET & GOLDEN GATE 7 BOULEVARD L3 1,112 1,117 1,522 96% 405 Page 164 of 218 '`1 1 r, 18 0 7 1 1 8 25 33 2% L3 1,112 1,117 1,522 96% 405 Page 164 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6 :00 PM Page 165 of 218 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY OUR 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS 3RD STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - GIN 3RD STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD SOUTHBOUND 3RD STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD SECTION [4:00 LEFT 3RD STREET 11 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TOTAL 3RD STREET INTER - HOUR BEGIN TOTAL GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND INTER - 15 MIN BEGIN SECTION NORTHBOUND L 10 877 7 SOUTHBOUND TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL EASTBOUND LEFT THRU WESTBOUND TOTAL SECTION 4:00 PM LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL I LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 3 0 1 4 0 0 5 ' 5 4 252 4 260 1 270 1 272 541 4:15 PM 1 0 1 2 2 0 4 6 6 271 10 287 3 272 2 277 572 4:30 PM 5 0 3 8 0 0 1 1 2 286 6 294 6 183 0 189 492 4:45 PM 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 2 6 259 2 267 0 152 4 156 427 5:00 PM 1 0 2 3 0 0 3 3 3 320 3 326 2 117 2 121 453 5:15 PM 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 7 344 1 352 3 104 1 108 463 5:30 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 441 6 448 1 135 1 137 587 5:45 PM 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 6 364 4 374 1 134 0 135 512 1216L: 14 0 10 24 3 0 17 20 35 2,537 36 2,608 17 1,367 11 1,395 1 4,047 Page 165 of 218 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY OUR HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS 3RD STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - GIN 3RD STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION [4:00 LEFT 3RD STREET 11 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT INTER - HOUR BEGIN TOTAL HBOUND PM SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 3 0 11 SECTION 18 1,068 22 L 10 877 7 RI GHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 9 0 7 16 3 0 11 14 18 1,068 22 1,108 10 877 7 894 2 4:15 PM 7 0 8 15 3 0 9 12 17 1,136 21 1,174 11 724 8 743 4 4:30 PM 8 0 7 15 1 0 6 7 18 1,209 12 1,239 11 556 7 574 5 [2,015 4:45 PM 3 0 5 8 1 0 6 7 17 1,364 12 1,393 6 508 8 522 0 5:00 PM 5 0 3 8 0 0 6 6 17 1,469 14 1,500 7 490 4 501 Page 165 of 218 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY OUR 3RD STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - GIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION [4:00 LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL PM 9 0 7 16 3 0 11 14 18 1,068 22 1,108 10 877 7 894 2,D32 Page 165 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 897 4=0* 18 J 2,005 99% 1,068 1,108 22 NIV Note: Percents (%) represent movement volumes divided by the total intersection traffic 14 1 L�11 0 1 32 3 3RD STREET 39 2 %9 1 I 48 2 %9 9 DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM INTERSECTION: 3RD STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 25 1 D 7 16 7 877 r10 894 1,972 97% 1,078 Page 166 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Page 167 of 218 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS 11 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND 1ST STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 1ST STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD WESTBOUND SECTION HOUR 15 MIN TOTAL LEFT 1ST 1ST STREET LEFT THRU RIGHT GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD BOULEVARD I TOTAL INTER - BEGIN BEGIN NORTHBOUND NORTHBOUND 0 9 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 1,099 SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM 5 0 1 6 0 0 3 3 0 100 0 100 1 314 3 318 427 7:15 AM 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 3 0 90 0 90 1 282 0 283 378 7:30 AM 5 0 1 6 0 0 1 1 0 106 1 107 1 235 0 236 350 7:45 AM 4 0 0 4 0 0 2 2 0 108 0 108 1 261 0 262 376 8:00 AM 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 4 0 78 1 79 1 1 227 0 228 312 6:15 AM 4 0 1 5 0 0 1 1 0 73 0 73 1 130 1 132 211 8:30 AM 4 0 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 64 2 66 1 167 1 169 244 8:45 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 85 2 87 1 160 0 161 250 TOTAL: 25 0 fi 31 0 0 18 18 0 704 6 710 8 1,776 5 1,789 2548 Page 167 of 218 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS 11 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 1ST STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD WESTBOUND SECTION HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL LEFT 1ST STREET LEFT THRU RIGHT GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD I TOTAL TOTAL INTER- BEGIN 18 1 NORTHBOUND 0 9 9 _ SOUTHBOUND -� EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 1,099 SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL 11 LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM 16 0 2 18 0 0 9 9 0 404 1 405 4 1,092 3 1,099 1,531 7:15 AM 12 0 1 13 0 0 10 10 0 382 2 384 4 1,005 0 1,009 1,416 7:30 AM 14 0 2 16 0 0 8 8 0 365 2 367 4 853 1 858 1,249 7:45 AM 13 0 3 16 0 0 10 10 0 323 3 326 4 785 2 791 1,143 8:00 AM 9 0 4 13 0 0 9 9 0 300 5 305 4 684 2 690 1,017 Page 167 of 218 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR 1ST STREET 11 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 11 LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM 18 1 0 0 9 9 0 404 1 405 11 4 1,092 3 1,099 1,531 Page 167 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 1,117 •.—► a J 1,522 99% �, 404 405 1 INV Note: Percents ( %) represent movement volumes divided by the total intersection traffic 9 9 0 4 1 t 0 1STSTREET 12 1% I 1 23 2% t DATE: - March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM INTERSECTION: 1ST STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD *1 1 1* 16 0 2 1 18 L3 1,092 1,099 I4 4`110♦ 1,505 98% 406 Page 168 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6 :00 PM Page 169 of 218 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS F UR GIN LEFT NORTHBOUND THRU RIGHT 1ST STREET SOUTHBOUND TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - SECTION TOTAL EASTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 1ST STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 1ST STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 4 0 6 HOUR 5 15 MIN 1 14 1ST STREET 1ST STREET GOLDEN GATE GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - INTER - BEGIN EASTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL NORTHBOUND BEGIN NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL SECTION TOTAL EASTBOUND 4 7 9 9 13 WESTBOUND 6 7 7 7 2 SECTION 5 6 4 4 5 LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4 :00 PM 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 5 247 1 253 1 269 2 272 528 4:15 PM 1 0 0 1 2 0 5 7 1 267 6 274 0 271 1 272 554 4:30 PM 2 0 0 2 2 0 1 3 1 279 9 289 2 186 2 190 484 4:45 PM 0 0 6 6 1 0 1 2 2 259 1 262 1 155 1 157 427 5:00 PM 4 0 1 5 1 0 0 1 7 312 3 322 0 117 4 121 449 5:15 PM 3 0 0 3 0 0 2 2 4 338 2 344 2 103 2 107 456 5*30 PM 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 4 5 436 1 442 1 133 0 134 582 5:45 PM 4 0 1 5 2 0 0 2 1 360 3 364 0 131 2 133 504 TOTAL: 17 0 8 25 10 0 13 23 26 2,498 26 2,550 7 1,365 14 1,386 3,984 Page 169 of 218 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS F UR GIN LEFT NORTHBOUND THRU RIGHT 1ST STREET SOUTHBOUND TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - SECTION TOTAL EASTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 1ST STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 4:00 PM 4 0 6 HOUR 5 0 9 1 14 1ST STREET 11 4 881 6 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - LEFT SOUTHBOUND THRU RIGHT I TOTAL 11 EASTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL WESTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL BEGIN NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL SECTION TOTAL 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 4 7 9 9 13 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 7 7 2 10 14 16 16 15 5 6 4 4 5 0 9 14 0 7 13 0 4 8 0 5 9 0 4 9 9 1,052 17 1,078 11 1,117 19 1,147 14 1,188 15 1,217 18 1,345 7 1,370 17 1,446 9 1,472 4 881 3 729 5 561 4 508 3 484 6 8 9 7 8 891 740 575 519 495 1,993 1,914 1,816 1,914 1,991 Page 169 of 218 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY F UR GIN LEFT NORTHBOUND THRU RIGHT 1ST STREET SOUTHBOUND TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - SECTION TOTAL EASTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL WESTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL 11 4:00 PM 4 0 6 1 10 11 5 0 9 1 14 9 1,052 17 1 1,078 11 4 881 6 1 891 1,993 Page 169 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 894 «-t► 9 J 1,972 99% 1,052 y 1,078 17 Note: Percents ( %) represent movement volumes divided by the total intersection traffic 1ST STREET 29 1% I 14 1 9 0 5 41 1 1* 1 21 1 31 2% 15 1 DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM INTERSECTION: 1ST STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD L6 881 4 891 1101111111111111/ 1,954 98% 1,063 Page 170 of 218 1 4 0 6 1 10 L6 881 4 891 1101111111111111/ 1,954 98% 1,063 Page 170 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS WILSON BOULEVARD 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS INTER - NORTHBOUND HOUR BEGIN WILSON BOULEVARD NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL 11 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL I LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL INTER - SECTION TOTAL 7:00 AM WILSON BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 23 6 366 395 147 255 4 406 1 714 42 757 1,583 715 AM WILSON BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 3 645 46 INTER 15 MIN 730 AM 12 3 4 19 24 12 274 310 108 256 3 367 3 572 44 619 1,315 745 AM 10 3 2 15 - BEGIN 3 524 NORTHBOUND 576 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 10 5 2 17 WESTBOUND 55 246 3 304 SECTION 54 LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL I LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM 6 0 0 6 6 3 106 115 32 68 1 101 0 206 8 214 7:15 AM 8 2 2 12 3 0 92 95 33 55 2 90 0 183 17 200 7:30 AM 4 0 2 6 13 3 73 89 36 70 1 107 1 159 11 171 7:45 AM 1 0 0 1 1 0 95 96 46 62 0 108 0 166 6 172 8:00 AM 4 0 0 4 4 7 87 98 18 59 1 78 2 137 12 151 T2,674 8:15 AM 3 3 2 8 6 2 19 27 8 65 1 74 0 110 15 125 8:30 AM 2 0 0 2 4 0 56 60 5 60 1 66 1 111 16 128 8:45 AM 1 2 0 3 7 2 67 76 24 62 0 86 1 93 11 105 121AL: 29 7 6 42 44 17 595 656 202 501 7 710 5 1,165 96 1,266 HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS WILSON BOULEVARD WILSON BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - NORTHBOUND HOUR BEGIN WILSON BOULEVARD NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL 11 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL I LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL INTER - SECTION TOTAL 7:00 AM 19 2 4 25 23 6 366 395 147 255 4 406 1 714 42 757 1,583 715 AM 17 2 4 23 21 10 347 378 133 246 4 383 3 645 46 694 1,478 730 AM 12 3 4 19 24 12 274 310 108 256 3 367 3 572 44 619 1,315 745 AM 10 3 2 15 15 9 257 281 77 246 3 326 3 524 49 576 1,198 800 AM 10 5 2 17 21 11 229 261 55 246 3 304 4 451 54 509 11091 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY WILSON BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 7 19 2 4 25 23 6 366 395 147 255 4 406 1 714 42 757 1,583 Page 171 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 1,099 `�♦ 147 Mt 1,505 95% 255 406 4 NJ Note: Percents ( %) represent movement voWmes divided by the total intersection traffic DATE: WILSON BOULEVARD '1 1 586 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM 19 37% INTERSECTION: WILSON BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 395 191 1 1 366 6 23 «, $ %* DATE: March 13, 2007 '1 1 COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM 19 2 INTERSECTION: WILSON BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 11 25 I 36 2% DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM INTERSECTION: WILSON BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 4 42 714 4111111111111 1 757 1,039 66% 282 Page 172 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS BEGIN NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL SOUTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM WILSON BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 7 238 285 167 878 18 1 1,063 5 645 46 1 696 2,057 WILSON BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE 15MN I INTER - BEGIN WILSON BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD SOUTHBOUND INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND I TOTAL WESTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL SECTION RIGHT I I LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL I LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 2 1 1 4 13 3 91 107 43 199 5 247 1 179 11 191 549 4:15 PM 3 0 1 4 9 4 75 88 44 222 3 269 2 194 23 219 580 4:30 PM 1 0 1 2 12 0 37 49 49 228 4 281 2 152 4 158 490 4 :45 PM 2 0 1 3 6 0 35 41 31 229 6 265 0 120 8 128 438 5:00 PM 4 0 0 4 4 0 32 36 63 248 3 314 0 85 4 89 443 5:15 PM 0 1 2 3 13 1 53 67 73 262 3 338 1 54 3 58 466 5:30 PM 1 0 1 2 12 1 43 56 131 304 3 438 1 90 4 95 591 5:45 PM 1 1 0 2 8 2 51 61 109 253 1 363 0 81 2 83 509 TOTAL:11 14 3 7 24 77 11 417 505 543 1,945 28 2,516 7 955 59 1,021 4,066 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL SOUTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM WILSON BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 7 238 285 167 878 18 1 1,063 5 645 46 1 696 2,057 HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL TOTAL 8 10 1 4 13 0 3 13 40 7 238 285 31 4 179 214 167 878 18 1,063 187 927 16 1,130 5 645 4 551 46 39 696 594 2,057 1,951 55:00pm 7 1 4 12 35 1 157 193 216 967 16 1,199 3 411 19 433 1,837 7 1 4 12 35 2 163 200 298 1,043 15 1,356 2 349 19 370 1,938 6 2 3 11 37 4 179 220 375 1,067 10 1,453 2 310 13 325 2,009 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL SOUTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 1 7 238 285 167 878 18 1 1,063 5 645 46 1 696 2,057 Page 173 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 891 —, 167 0/ 1,954 95% �, 878 1,063 18 N1 Note: Percents ( %) represent movement volumes divided by the total intersection traffic DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY � COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM INTERSECTION: WILSON BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD WILSON BOULEVARD 499 24% I 285 214 1 1 238 7 40 4j 1 %* f* 4 i� 46 645 41111111111111111111 5 696 1,618 79% 922 Page 174 of 218 8 1 1 � 30 13 43 2% f* 4 i� 46 645 41111111111111111111 5 696 1,618 79% 922 Page 174 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: February 28, 2007 DAY: WEDNESDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR SUMMARY !EF— _�--_ HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD IMMOKALEE ROAD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM 35 1 143 179 36 14 70 1 120 6 237 14 257 192 1,141 13 1,346 1,902 Page 175 of 218 HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS WILSON BOULEVARD & IMMOKALEE ROAD WILSON BOULEVARD WILSON BOULEVARD HOUR IMMOKALEEROAD BEGIN NORTHBOUND �— SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL( LEFT 15 MIN BEGIN LEFT NORTHBOUND THRU 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 35 24 SOUTHBOUND THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT 179 36 14 70 120 6 237 14 257 192 EASTBOUND IMMOKALEE ROAD INTER - WESTBOUND SECTION TOTAL 1,346 TOTAL 1,902 7:30 AM RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM 20 1 65 86 12 4 20 36 1 65 6 72 62 273 4 359 7:15 AM 8 0 15 23 3 2 22 27 2 60 2 553 64 23 294 3 7:30 AM 4 0 35 39 11 3 9 23 2 66 3 320 434 71 46 7:45 AM 3 0 28 31 10 5 19 34 1 46 324 2 372 505 8:00 AM 9 1 38 48 11 1 8 3 50 41 250 4 295 410 8:15 AM 2 0 21 20 2 39.. 4 45 31 260 8 299 412 23 6 4 6 16 2 34 3 39 25 235 6 266 344 8:30 AM 4 0 20 24 4 6 12 22 5 51 8 64 21 196 7 224 8:45 AM 2 0 24 26 3 2 12 17 1 54 4 334 59 1 37 178 6 TOTAL: 52 2 246 300 60 27 108 195 16 415 33 1 221 323 464 306 2,010 40 2,356 3,315 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY !EF— _�--_ HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD IMMOKALEE ROAD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM 35 1 143 179 36 14 70 1 120 6 237 14 257 192 1,141 13 1,346 1,902 Page 175 of 218 HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS WILSON BOULEVARD & IMMOKALEE ROAD WILSON BOULEVARD HOUR IMMOKALEEROAD BEGIN NORTHBOUND �— SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL( LEFT WESTBOUND —� INTER - SECTION 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 35 24 1 143 THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT 179 36 14 70 120 6 237 14 257 192 THRU 1,141 RIGHT 13 TOTAL 1,346 TOTAL 1,902 7:30 AM 18 1 116 1 122 141 35 11 58 104 7 211 12 230 141 141 1,128 17 1,286 1,761 7:45 AM 18 1 107 38 13 42 93 7 185 13 205 143 126 31 1,069 20 1,232 1,671 8:00 AM 17 1 103 16 45 92 10 170 18 198 118 121 24 941 25 1,084 1,500 13 38 75 10 178 19 207 114 869 27 - 1,010 1,413- PEAK HOUR SUMMARY !EF— _�--_ HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD IMMOKALEE ROAD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM 35 1 143 179 36 14 70 1 120 6 237 14 257 192 1,141 13 1,346 1,902 Page 175 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. ,111111111in 1,246 �► 6 J 1,503 79% �, 237 M* 257 14 Note: Percents ("/) represent movement volumes divided by the total intersection traffic WILSON BOULEVARD 140 7% 1 120 1 14 36 1 L► 1 220 1 399 21% 35 20 1 DATE: February 28, 2007 DAY: WEDNESDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM INTERSECTION: WILSON BOULEVARD & IMMOKALEE ROAD I r' 1 143 1 179 A13 4m 1,141 r192 1,346 +Nm' 1,762 s� 93% 416 Page 176 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: February 28, 2007 DAY: WEDNESDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS WILSON BOULEVARD & IMMOKALEE ROAD HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD 15 MIN WILSON BOULEVARD IMMOKALEE ROAD HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD IMMOKALEEROAD EASTBOUND BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 26 14 278 318 7 9 20 36 46 514 43 603 246 597 23 866 1,823 4:15 PM 22 17 313 352 13 9 25 47 47 656 47 750 261 587 20 868 2,017 4:30 I'M 21 16 264 301 18 9 21 48 45 747 48 840 241 579 20 840 4:45 PM 30 13 274 317 21 10 21 52 46 810 61 917 225 557 23 , 805 2,pg9 5:00 PM 29 10 268 307 19 12 18 49 41 797 67 905 187 546 22 755 2,016 SECTION LEFT NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL SOUTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL EASTBOUND I LEFT -, WESTBOUND INTER- SECTION 4A0 PM 6 1 29 36 THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:15 PM 6 4 77 89 0 3 2 2 5 11 51 4 66 57 150 7 214 321 4:30 PM 6 4 86 96 1 9 1 12 10 111 8 130 54 149 6 209 440 4:45 PM 6 5 86 97 4 5 4 10 12 163 9 184 69 158 4 231 521 5:00 PM 2 4 64 70 1 4 6 9 13 189 21 223 66 140 6 212 541 5:15 PM 7 3 28 38 3 7 7 16 12 193 8 213 72 140 4 216 515 5:30 PM 15 1 96 112 1 5 4 i3 8 202 10 220 34 141 6 181 452 5:45 PM 5 2 80 87 5 5 2 14 13 226 22 261 53 136 7 196 563 TOTAL: 55 24 546 625 3 26 21 38 85 87 113;1 110 1508 433 11143 45 11621 34839 HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD WILSON BOULEVARD & IMMOKALEE ROAD IMMOKALEE ROAD BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND INTER - HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD IMMOKALEEROAD EASTBOUND BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 26 14 278 318 7 9 20 36 46 514 43 603 246 597 23 866 1,823 4:15 PM 22 17 313 352 13 9 25 47 47 656 47 750 261 587 20 868 2,017 4:30 I'M 21 16 264 301 18 9 21 48 45 747 48 840 241 579 20 840 4:45 PM 30 13 274 317 21 10 21 52 46 810 61 917 225 557 23 , 805 2,pg9 5:00 PM 29 10 268 307 19 12 18 49 41 797 67 905 187 546 22 755 2,016 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD IMMOKALEE ROAD BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND INTER - EASTBDUND WESTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEF7 THRUI RIGHT SECTION I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 4:45 PM 30 13 274 317 21 10 TOTAL 21 52 46 810 61 917 225 557 23 B05 2,091 Page 177 of 218 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 608 46 Mt 1,525 73% 11111111+ 810 917 61 NJ Note: Percents ( %) represent movement volumes divided by the total intersection traffic WILSON BOULEVARD 134 6% 1 52 1 I 10 21 1 '* 82 1 DATE: February 28, 2007 DAY: WEDNESDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM -6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:45 PM - 5 :45 PM INTERSECTION: WILSON BOULEVARD & IMMOKALEE ROAD L23 557 r225 805 1,910 91% 1,105 Page 178 of 218 1 r* 30 13 274 1 � 296 317 613 29% L23 557 r225 805 1,910 91% 1,105 Page 178 of 218 2006 FDOT TRAFFIC INFORMATION CD - PEAK SEASON FACTORS Page 179 of 218 I a) a N H O a v a I 4J H O a v a W >, A H H O 3 b1 }+ 4J Z ro (ts D U O U H o.x N W U H m wo q U O m la O a) O to M Xo ro •� w > P4 s. c 10 C o a O 4- N m 0 W W I U U f O P4 I DWI wi W ro s-J ro A x a) a) r�v o r L n r i m m 1, t o N r- m O M in l D m O M t n t- O N N N M M C L n N t o I- r r I` I` r1,0 o N a N. -1 m ID r r r r N M o H H 000010101010101010 O O O O x411' i riN NNNNN NN NNNNNN NNN 04 04 NN rq1 i r-i H H- i.--1 .-4 c-1 ri ri ri 1-1 ri H O O O O O O O ri ri ri ri 11 ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri r{ r-) ri r-i ,-t ri ri ri ri r♦ ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri .-i 1i ri ri dr im nMO m1- ID Lo Vr%D( - m rim -w D o V' l0 m mmm m0-1 riN M M M M M M N ri r-10 m r- n C C yC N Om 0 0 01 01 01 01 mm mmmm m m 01010161010000 000 o Ori ri ri ri ri ri ri - ri ri ri -1 ri ri o 00000000 001 ri ri OOOo OOOoOOOOOOOOOH H ri r-1 ri ri H ri"ri ri ri ri H r-1 r4 .-1 ri q ri -q r-I ri r-1 r-1 ri ri ri ri ri r-1 H HC, w ID lD l0 w to lD 1D 1D l0 w 1D w l0 w LD w lD 10 lD w 1D w w w w ID w lD l0 %D lD w w lD 1D 10 w %D %D w lD w l0 w w w 10 1D lD w 10 to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 0-1 rim C> 4mN(D im to ri 0uA NNOMON MO1-C'J 0 m N N 610 H 04 1114 N 014 M O 1D a' ri m 0 H m In N 014 CO O r-i 11 O -1 C4 N Or-1 r-iN0 ri r-iN OOriNNO riNN O.-1 r - INOOrIN N O ri riN00 14 M o r-INN Orl ri N 00 14 C4 MM \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 ri N N (D CD )MM M V, 00 d'C, 00 V1 to 10 lD lD lD n 0 C.01` mm 0 0061 Cl) OOOO ri ri ri H NN NN NN 000000000000000000000000000000000000000riririrlririri . -iri.- sari. -i.-i 1 I I I I I.1 ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 i I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I w 1D lD %o O %D W lD W 1D 1D 1D lD tD -1D 1D w w 1D 1D w 1D W %D W W W 1D lD 1D w w w w w w W %D W lD lD w w w w w 1D 1D w Low w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000o0000o0000000000000 0000000000000 NNN NN N NNN NN N N NN NN cm (V (11N NNNN N [V NN N N NNN NNNN N NNN N NNN NNN" N NN ri m to N N 0 1r-IC4 0 10114 NOI ID M M C> -I N m (D ri m"N O1 lD M M D MO"MOIL N C3 mN N O10N OI ID M O1� NM I'00� -I NN O ri riNOri rl N 00 riNMOrl N NO .-I riN OOri N Mor -INN Or-I rtN OOr-1 NNO r-I riN Ori r-i NM I oCD C` 0riN NNNMM M M 0(D CCD c' o1n CD a Lr) 1D 1D 1D lD o r- r- r r mmmm CD 0101 Ol OOOOO r♦ H ri ri N N N NN 14 r-4 I o00000000000000000000000000000000000000ri ri ri ri ri ri r♦ri .a ri ri r-1 ri ri u p r-I N M V' v1 1D 1- m 61 0 H N M cr ul 11 H -i 01 0 ri N M 04 N CD 1- m Ol O m N M rr) m m �lo I) m 01 0 r-I N !•. � 1n 10 Tv Lr) r-1 N M r-i II .--Iri ri ri r-Ir -i riri.- -I riNN N N NNN NNN MMMMMM MMMM d'v� a V''d'vr c1' C cp a't111n u')tn V O CU W rn o ro m m w m � a Page 180 of 218 ANNUAL GROWTH RATE CALCULATIONS Page 181 of 218 ANNUAL GROWTH RATE CALCULATIONS BASED ON AUIR HISTORICAL DATA AGR (Collier Blvd.) = 4.38% Page 182 of 218 2006 2010 ANNUAL ACTUAL CURRENT AUIR AUIR YRS OF GROWTH GROWTH ROADWAY SEGMENT ID# VOLUME VOLUME GROWTH RATE RATE Collier Boulevard S. of Vanderbilt Beach Rd 30.2 2,012 2,388 4 4.38% 4.38% S. of Golden Gate Blvd 31.1 2,938 2,134 4 2.00% -7.68% S. of Pine Ridge 32.1 2,400 2,170 4 2.00% -2.49% Immokalee Road E. of Collier Blvd 44 2,027 2,094 4 2.00% 0.82% E. of Wilson Blvd 45 1,773 1,947 4 2.37% 2.37% Golden Gate Blvd E. of Collier Blvd. 17 2,018 1,786 4 2.00% -3.01% W. of 3rd Ave 17 2,018 1,786 4 2.00% -3.01% Project Frontage 17 2,018 1,786 4 2.00% -3.01% E. of Wilson Blvd 123 1,480 1,083 4 2.00% -7.51% W. of Everglades Blvd. 123 1,480 1,083 4 2.00% -7.51% 4 Wilson Blvd S. of Immokalee Rd. 2.00% N. of Site 4 118 2.00% Project Frontage 3,4 118 2.00% S. of Golden Gate Blvd 2 118 2.00% ` All traffic volumes were taken from the 2006 & 2010 Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR) " In instances where the historical data indicates a reduction in traffic or insufficient data was available to calculate a growth rate due to construction, a minimum annual growth rate of 2.0% was assumed. A 2% growth rate was assumed for Wilson Blvd. due to the lack of data in the AUIR report SAMPLE GROWTH RATE CALCULATION 2010 AUIR "(11Yrs of Growth) Annual Growth Rate (AGR) _ -1 2006 AUIR 2,388 "(114) AGR (Collier Blvd.) _ -1 2,012 AGR (Collier Blvd.) = 4.38% Page 182 of 218 HCS+ INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Page 183 of 218 COLLIER BOULEVARD @GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD Page 184 of 218 Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP TR Transportation Agency or Co. Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Time Period AM Peak Hour Golden Gate Blvd @Collier Intersection Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Background Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 2 1 3 2 2 3 Lane Group L R T R L T Volume (vph) 1021 463 442 533 114 337 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95, 0.95 0.95 0:95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 1 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G= 65.0 G= 1Y= G= G= 1Y= G= 10.0 G= 25.0 G= G= Y= 7 Y= Y= 6 Y= 7 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 1075 414 465 561 120 355 Lane Group Capacity 1862 857 1057 2266 286 1734 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.48 0.44 0.25 0.42 0.20 Green Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.21 0.81 0.08 0.34 Uniform Delay d1 18.3 17.1 41.4 2.8 52.2 28.0 Delay Factor k 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.4 0.4 -0.3 0.1 1.0 0.1 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 18.8 17.5 41.7 2.8 53.2 28.0, Lane Group LOS B B D A D C Approach Delay 18.4 20.4 34.4 Approach LOS B C C Intersection Delay 21.7 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 file: //CAD o cuments and Settings\rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k20E.tmp Generated: 4/24/2008 9:02 AM 4/24/2008 Page 185 of 218 Short Report rage i or i SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP Agency or Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @Collier Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Buildout Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 2 1 3 2 2 3 Lane Group L R T R L T Volume (vph) 1032 469 442 555 125 337 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only Thru & RT 07 1 08 Timing G= 65.0 IY= G= 1Y= G= G= -- G = 10.0 G= 25.0 G 1Y= JG= 7 Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 7 1Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 C cle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Confrol Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 1086 420 465 584 132 355 Lane Group Capacity 1862 857 1057 2266 286 1734 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.49 0.44 0.26 0.46 0.20 Green Ratio 0.54 0.54 10.11 0.21 0.81 0.08 0.34 Uniform Delay d1 18.4 17.2 41.4 2.8 52.4 28.0 Delay Factor k 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 1 1.2 0.1 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 Control Delay 18.9 17.6 41.7 2.8 53.6 28.0 Lane Group LOS B. B D A D C Approach Delay 18.5 20.1 35.0 Approach LOS B C C Intersection Delay 21.7 Intersection LOS C copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +rm Version 5.21 venerated: 4rz41zuue 9:o2 A. file:HC: \Documents and Settings\rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k21F.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 186 of 218 anon: icepori 1 ubl L Vl 1 EB WB NB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes vva unly G= 44.0 SHORT REPORT VJ G= General Information G= 11.0 1 Site Information 3 Analyst RLP 3 Intersection Golden Gate Btvd @Collier Y= 7 T R Transportation IY= L Blvd Agency or Co. Consultants T Area Type All other areas Date Performed 412312008 Volume (vph) Jurisdiction Collier County Time Period PM Peak Hour 464 Analysis Year 2014 Background Volume and Timing Input 203 SB EB WB NB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes vva unly G= 44.0 I U4 G= VJ G= 2 G= 11.0 1 G= 3 2 2 3 IY= JY= Lane Group Y= 7 1Y= IY= L R Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, T R L T NB Volume (vph) Adjusted Flow Rate 441 464 170 153 675 1798 203 299 315 % Heavy Vehicles Lane Group Capacity 2 1260 2 580 2 2 2 2 2622 PHF We Ratio 0.95 0.37 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.12 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) Green Ratio A 0.37 A 0.37 A A A A Startup Lost Time Uniform Delay d1 2.0 27.8 2.0 26.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green Delay Factor k 2.0 2.0 10.11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.11 Arrival Type Incremental Delay d2 3 0.2 3 0.2 3 3 3 3 0.0 Unit Extension PF Factor 3.0 1.000 3.0 1.000 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.000 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume Control Delay 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 15.0 Lane Width Lane Group LOS 12.0 C 12.0 C 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 B Parking /Grade /Parking Approach Delay 27.7 N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour B Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 1 3.2 ne I CD I 3.2 Thrn k RT I n7 3.2 F 01 vnasln Timing vva unly G= 44.0 I U4 G= VJ G= 1 G= G= 11.0 G= 45.0 G= G= Y= 7 IY= Y= IY= JY= 6 Y= 7 1Y= IY= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Len th C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 464 153 711 1893 214 315 Lane Group Capacity 1260 580 1903 2242 315 2622 We Ratio 0.37 0.26 0.37 0.84 0.68 0.12 Green Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.80 0.09 10.52 Uniform Delay d1 27.8 26.6 27.3 7.4 52..8 .14.9 Delay Factor k 10.11 10.11 0.11 0.38 0.25 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.2 0.2 1 0.1 3.2 5.8 0.0 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 28.0 26.9 27.4 10.6 58.6 15.0 Lane Group LOS C C C B E B Approach Delay 27.7 15.1 32.6 Approach LOS C B C Intersection Delay 19.7 Intersection LOS B copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 fileWCADocuments and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k230.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 187 of 218 Short Report iur'. i vi i SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP TR Transportation Agency or Co. Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Time Period PM Peak Hour Golden Gate Blvd @Collier Intersection Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Buildout Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 2 1 3 2 2 3 Lane Group L R T R L T Volume (vph) 515 207 675 1863 236 299 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (PIA) A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 25 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G= 44.0 G= 1Y= G= G= JG= 11.0 G= 45.0 G= G= Y= 7 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= 7 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 542 192 711 1961 248 315 Lane Group Capacity 1260 580 1903 2242 315 2622 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.33 0.37 0.87 0.79 0.12 Green Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.80 0.09 0.52 Uniform Delay d1 28.6 27.4 27.3 8.0 53.4 14.9 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.33 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.2 0.3 0.1 4.2 12.5 0.0 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1..000 1.000 Control Delay 28.8 27.7 27.4 12.2 65.9 15.0 Lane Group LOS C C C B E B Approach Delay 28.5 16.2 37.4 Approach LOS C B D Intersection Delay 21.5 Intersection LOS C Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 file:HCADocuments and Settings \rlp \Local Settings\Temp \s2k241Amp Generated: 4124/2008 9:02 F, 4/24/2008 Page 188 of 218 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD @ 3rd STREET NW Page 189 of 218 Two -Way Stop Control TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information It Analyst RLP Agency/Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 nal sis Time Period AM Peak Hour Jurisdiction nal sis Year Golden Gate Blvd 14 1: aru i ul 1 Project Description F0801.31 -10 - Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict East/West Street: Golden Gate Boulevard North /South Street: 3rd Street NW /SW Intersection Orientation: East -West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 10 439 10 5 1372 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 10 462 10 5 1444 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 2 — -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 30 32 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 0 31 0 0 33 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 0 0 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 Configuration R R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R R v (veh /h) 10 5 31 33 C. (m) (veh /h) 463 1086 771 369 A 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.09 95% queue length 0.07 0.01 0.13 0.29 Control Delay (s /veh) 12.9 8.3 9.9 1 LOS B A A C C pproach Delay (s /veh) -- — 9.9 15.7 pproach LOS -- — A C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 4124/2008 9:01 file: //C: \Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1F5.tmp 4/24/2004 Page 190 of 218 Two -Way Stop Control General Information TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY cite Infnrmation nal st RLP enc /Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 [Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour rd9r, I Ul I rsection Golden Gate Blvd @ 3rd St NW sdiction Collier Count l sis Year P 2014 Buildout 490 10 0.95 'ro'ect Description F0801.31 -10 - Estates Sho tn c;enrer Juuusuiu1 ast/West Street: Golden Gate Boulevard North /South Street: 3rd Street NW /SW t W t Stud Period 0.25 ntersection Orientation. Eas - es Jehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Vovement 1 L Eastbound 2 T 3 R 4 L Volume veh /h 20 490 10 0.95 5 0.95 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 t 1 r Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 21 515 10 5 vehlh 5 31 h /h) . 446 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 95% queue length 0.15 0.01 0.13 Control Delay (s /veh) 13.5 8.5 Raised curb Median Type A 8 Approach Delay (s /veh) — — 10.1 RT Channelized 1 pproach LOS -- '- B 0 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Lanes 1 2 1 1 L Configuration L T R U stream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 9 10 L T R L olume veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 30 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 31 0 veh /h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized 0 ion 0 0 1 0 R eue Len th, and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound t 1 r 4 7 8 figuration L L R 21 5 31 h /h) . 446 1038 741 v/c 0.05 0.00 0.04 95% queue length 0.15 0.01 0.13 Control Delay (s /veh) 13.5 8.5 10.1 LOS B A 8 Approach Delay (s /veh) — — 10.1 1 pproach LOS -- '- B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 file:HC:\Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1F8.tmp Wes_ tbound 5 6 T R 1407 10 0.95 0.95 1481 10 0 2 1 T R 0 - Southbound 11 12 T R 37 0.95 0.95 0 38 0 2 0 N 0 0 0 1 R Southbound 10 11 12 R 38 359 0.11 0.35 16.2 C 16.2 C Generated: 4/24/2008 9:01 AN 4/24/2001 Page 191 of 218 Two -Way stop Control - wb� • �- TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Isite Information Analyst RLP Agency/Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @ 3rd St NW Jurisdiction Collier County ,Analysis Year 2014 Background IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 !o'ect Description F0801.31 -10 - Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict ast/West Street: Golden Gate Boulevard North /South Street: 3rd Street NW /SW tersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R alume veh/h) 21 1257 26 15 1089 10 eak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ourly Flow Rate, HFR ,eh /h) 22 1323 27 15 1146 10 ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 ledian Tye Raised curb T Channelized 0 0 anes 1 2 1 1 2 1 onfiguration L T R L T R stream Signal 0 0 linor Street Northbound Southbound lovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R rolume veh/h) 19 17 leak -Hour Factor PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 lourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h) ) ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 20 2 0 0 0 0 17 2 ) ercent Grade ( %) 0 0 :tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 �T Channelized 0 0 -anes 0 0 1 0 0 1 ,onfigurabon R R vela , Queue Length, and Level of Service approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R R v (veh /h) 22 15 20 17 C (m) (vehlh) 600 506 404 463 v/c 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.04 95% queue length 0.11 0.09 0.16 0.11 Control Delay (s /veh) 11.2 12.3 14.4 13.1 LOS B B B B Approach Delay (s /veh). — — 14.4 13.1 Approach LOS — -- B B Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 4/24/2008 9:02 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1FB.tmp 4/24/200E Page 192 of 218 I WU- W dy 0LUP 1.U1111 U1 i 3opyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 file: / /C.: \Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1FE.tmp Generated: 4/24/2008 9:02 AM 4/24/2008 Page 193 of 218 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection Gold en Gate Blvd @ 3rd St nal st RLP Agency/Co. TR Trans ortation Consultants Jurisdiction Collier Count Date Performed 412312008 Analysis Year 2014 Buildout nal sis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description F0801.31 -10 - Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict East/West Street: Golden Gate Boulevard North /South Street: 3rd Street NW /SW Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement 1 L Eastbound 2 T 3 R 4 L Westbound 5 T 6 R Volume veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 51 0.95 1432 0:95 26 0.95 15 0.95 1287 0.95 20 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 53 1507 27 15 1354 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- — 2 __ Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Movement 7 Northbound 8 9 10 Southbound 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h) 19 42 ?eak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 20 2 0 0 0 0 44 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 Configuration R R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R R v (vehlh) 53 15 20 44 C (m) (veh /h) 495 430 352 395 v/c 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.11 95% queue length 0.36 0.11 0.18 0.37 Control Delay (slveh) 13.1 13.7 15.8 1 15.3 LOS B B C I C Approach Delay (s /veh) -- — 15.8 15.3 .� Approach LOS -- -- C C 3opyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 file: / /C.: \Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1FE.tmp Generated: 4/24/2008 9:02 AM 4/24/2008 Page 193 of 218 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD @SITE ACCESS Page 194 of 218 Ir Short Keport 1 ar,i, i vi i SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP gency or Co. TR Transportation Consultant gate Performed 412312008 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @ Site Access Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Buildout Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 2 1 1 1 Lane Group L T T R L R Volume (vph) 35 485 1397 52 30 25 % Heavy Vehicles 0 2 2 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 15 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 inimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 8.0 1 G= 72.0 G= G= G= 20.0 G= G= G= Y= 6.5 IY= 7 Y= Y= rY = 6.5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 37 511 1471 34 32 11 Lane Group Capacity 242 2557 2128 969 301 269 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.20 0.69 0.04 0.11 0.04 Green Ratio 0.73 0.72 0.60 0.60 0.17 0.17 Uniform Delay d1 10.7 5.5 16.4 9.8 42.4 42.0 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 1 0.2 0.1 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 11.0 5.5 17.4 9.8 42.6 42.0 Lane Group LOS B A B A D D Approach Delay 5.9 17.2 42.4 Approach LOS A B D Intersection Delay 14.8 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 fileWCADocuments and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k252.tmp Generated: 4124/2008 9:03 AM 4/24/2008 Page 195 of 218 011U1 arI)VI1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP Agency or Co. TR Transportation Consultant g y Date Performed 412312008 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @ Site Access Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Buildout Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 2 1 1 1 Lane Group L T T R L R Volume (vph) 115 1336 1184 145 203 138 % Heavy Vehicles 0 2 2 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 15 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Timing EB Onl G= 8.0 ]Y= EW Perm G= 72.0 03 G= 04 1 G= I 1Y= SB only G= 20.0 06 G= 07 08 G= G= Y= 6.5 7 Y= IY= 6.5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 121 1406 1246 132 214 129 Lane Group Capacity 304 2557 2128 969 301 269 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.55 0.59 0.14 0.71 0.48 Green Ratio 0.73 0.72 0.60 0.60 0.17 0.17 Uniform. Delay d1 9.2 7.7 14.8 10.5 47.3 45.3 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.15 0.18 0.11 0.27 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.1 7.6 1.3 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 10.1 8.0 15.2 10.5 54.9 46.6 Lane Group LOS B A B B D D Approach Delay 8.2 14.8 51.8 Approach LOS A B D Intersection Delay 15.6 1 Intersection LOS B Copyright B 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +' " Version 5.21 °" 1 „ ""'__ - file:HCADocuments and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k263.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 196 of 218 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD @ 1st STREET NW Page 197 of 218 two -way �)iop k.,onuul - -b- - -- TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst RLP Agency/Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @ 1st St NW Jurisdiction Collier Count nal sis Year 2014 Back round 2 3 Project Description F0801.31 -10 -Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict East/West Street: Golden Gate Boulevard I North /South Street: 1st Street NW /SW Intersection Orientation East -West IStudv Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 'Volume veh/h) 5 459 5 5 1367 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h) 5 483 5 5 1438 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 _ -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 21 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h) 0 0 22 0 0 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 0 0 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 Configuration R R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R R v (veh /h) 5 5 22 15 C (m) (vehlh) 466 1071 759 371 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.04 95% queue length 0.03 0.01 0.09 0.13 Control Delay (s /veh) 12.8 8.4 9.9 15.1 LOS B A A C Approach Delay (s /veh) -- -- 9.9 15.1 Approach LOS — -- A C Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +7M Version 5.21 Generated: 4124/2008 9:00 1 file://C:\Documents and Settings\rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1E9.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 198 of 218 G 1 wo -way stop Lontrot —5- —. TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @ 1st St NW Vnalyst RLP enc /Co. TR Transportation Consultants Jurisdiction Collier County Date Performed 412312008 Analysis Year 2014 Buildout nal sis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description F0801 -10 -.Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict :31 East/West Street: Golden Gate Boulevard North /South Street: 1st Street NW /SW Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 21 489 5 5 1424 20 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h) 22 514 5 5 1498 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- — 2 -- — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h) 21 25 ,Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95. 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 0 22 0 0 26 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 0 0 2 Percent Grade { %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 Configuration R R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement. 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 . Lane Configuration L L R R v (veh /h) 22 5 22 26 C (m) (veh /h) 435 1043 742 354 v/c 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.07 95% queue length 0.16 0.01 0.09 0.24 Control Delay (s /veh) 13.7 8.5 10.0 16.0 LOS B A A C pproach Delay (s /veh) -- -- 10.0 16.0 � pproach LOS -- -- A C Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +rM Version 5.21 file: //C: \Documents and Settings\r1p \Local Se1tings \Temp \u2k1EC.tmp Generated: 4/24/2008 9:00 AM 4/24/2008 Page 199 of 218 1 WU- W Ay 31,0IJ 1- ,U1111U1 General Information TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Analyst RLP Agency/Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 4/23/2008 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Jen Gate Blvd @ 1st St 'ier Count 4 Background Project Description F080f.31 -10 - Estates Shoppinq Center Subdistrict East/West Street: Golden Gate Boulevard North /South Street: 1st Street NW /SW Intersection Orientation: East -West IRtudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 75 1241 20 5 1097 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 O 95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 1306 21 5 1154 10 veh /h Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 2 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h ) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 15 0.95 0.95 0.95 17 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 15 0 0 17 veh /h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 0 0 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 Configuration R R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R R v (veh /h) 15 5 15 17 C (m) (veh /h) 596 516 410 460 VIc 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.04 95% queue. length 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.11 Control Delay (siveh) 11.2 12.0 14.1 13.1 LOS B B 8 B Approach Delay (s /veh) -- -- 14.1 13.1 Approach LOS -- -- B B Copyright m 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +rM Version 5.21 Generated: 4!24/2008 9:01 P file://C:\Documents and Settings\rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1EF.tmp 4/24/20N Page 200 of 218 Two -Way Stop Control neral Information TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information nal st RLP Agency/Go. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 nal sis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @ 1st St NW Jurisdiction Collier Count nal sis Year 2014 Buildout la'or Street Eastbound Westbound lovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 T R Description F0801.31 -10 - Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 2'ect 3st/West Street: Golden Gate Boulevard North /South Street: 1st Street NW /SIN tersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments la'or Street Eastbound Westbound lovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 T R L T R L plume veh/h) 75 1444 20 0.95 5 0.95 1252 0.95 74 0.95 eak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 RT Channelized LOS lourly Flow Rate, HFR 78 1520 21 5 1317 77 /eh /h 0 0 1 1 R Configuration 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 _ __ ledian Tye Raised curb tT Channelized D .anes 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 T R L T R 'onfiguration L 1 stream Signal 0 0 Ainor Street Northbound Southbound vovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Jolume (veh /h ) 'eak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 15 0.95 0.95 0.95 77 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 15 0 0 81 ;veh /h 1) n n 2 rerceni heavy vernucb - 0 Percent Grade Flared Approach N 0.57 0.04 N Storage 0 13.8 13.5 0 RT Channelized LOS 0 B Lanes 0 D 1 0 0 1 1 R Configuration R gela , Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R R v (veh /h) 78 5 15 81 An7 file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1F2.tmp 0.20 0.73 16.0 C 16.0 C Generated: 4/2412008 9:01 M 4/24/2001 Page 201 of 218 C (m) (veh /h) vlc 4ai 0.16 azi 0.01 I JTJ 0.04 95% queue length 0.57 0.04 0.13 Control Delay (s /veh) 13.8 13.5 15.8 LOS B B C Approach Delay (s /veh) -- -- 15.8 Approach LOS -- -- C Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1F2.tmp 0.20 0.73 16.0 C 16.0 C Generated: 4/2412008 9:01 M 4/24/2001 Page 201 of 218 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD @ WILSON BOULEVARD Page 202 of 218 Short Report 1 ur'u 1 Vi. 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP gency or Co. TR Transportation Consultants Jate Performed 4/23/2008 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @ Wilson Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Background Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH 1 RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lane Group L T R L T R LTR LT R Volume (vph) 174. 301 5 5 864 51 20 5 5 31 10 493 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed/Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 75 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasinq Excl. Left EB Only EW Perm 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 8.0 G= 24.0 G= 42.0 G= 1Y= 1Y= G= 26.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 J Y= 0 Y= 7 7 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 183 317 0 5 909 48 131 44 440 Lane Group Capacity 662 1951 871 483 1241 554 325 319 937 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.73 0.09 0.10 0.14 0.47 Green Ratio 0.73 0.55 0.55 0.42 0.35 10.35 0.22 10.22 0.59 Uniform. Delay d1 9.9 13.3 12.1 20.5 34.1 26.1 37.6 38.0 13.9 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.29 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 PF.Factor 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 10.1 13.4 12.1 20.5 36.4 26.2 37.7 38.1 14.2 Lane Group LOS B B B C D C D D B Approach Delay 12.2 35.8 37.7 16.4 Approach LOS B D D B Intersection Delay 25.1 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 file:HC:\Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k27A.tmp Generated: 4/24/2008 9:04 AI 4/24/200 Page 203 of 218 611ort xeport . -I- . ..- SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP TR Transportation Agency or Co. Consultants Date Performed 4/23/2008 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @ Wilson Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Buildout Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lane Group L T R L T R LTR LT R Volume (vph) 179 321 10 5 904 58 32 9 5 41 15 513 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type Unit Extension 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 75 Lane Width Parking /Grade /Parking 12.0 N 12.0 0 12.0 N 12.0 N 12.0 0 12.0 N N 12.0 0 N N 12.0 0 12.0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour Minimum Pedestrian Time 0 0 3.2 0 0 0 3.2 0 ' 0 3.2 0 3.2 0 Phasing Excl. Left EB Onl G= 8. G= 24.0 Timing IY= 6 0 Y= 0 Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 EW Perm 04 NS Perm G= 42.0 G= G= 26.0 Y= 7 Y= Y= 7 Y= 1 06 07 08 G= G= G= Y= Y° C cle Len th C = 120.0 Lane. Group Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 188 649 338 1951 5 871 5 476 952 1241 56 554 48 310 59 311 461 937 Lane Group Capacity v/c Ratio 0.29 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.77 0.10 0.15 0.19 0.49 Green Ratio 0.73 0.55 0.55 0.42 0.35 0.35 0.22 0.22 0.59 Uniform Delay d1 10.7 13.4 12.2 20.5 34.7 26.3 38.1 38.4 14.1 Delay Factor k Incremental Delay d2 PF Factor 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.32 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.2 1.000 0.0 1.000 0.0 1.000 0.0 1.000 3.0 1.000 0.1 1.000 0.2 1.000 0.3 1.000 0.4 1.000 Control Delay 11.0 13.5 12.2 20.5 37.6 26.4 38.3 38.7 14.5 Lane Group LOS B B B C D C D D B Approach Delay Approach LOS 12.6 B 26.0 36.9 38.3 D D Intersection LOS 17.3 B C - A -AA Intersection Delay Copyright m 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +l m Version 5.21 file:/ /C: \Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k28B.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 204 of 218 0 F l 5ftort Keport .-I, -. - . SHORT REPORT General Information 1 Site Information Analyst RLP T R Transportation Agency or Co. Consultants )ate Performed 412312008 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @Wilson Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Background Volume and Timina Ini3ut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lane Group L T R L T R LTR LT R Volume (vph) 197 1038 21 10 781 56 10 5 5 54 10 321 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 70 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasinq Excl. Left EB Only EW Perm 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 5.0 G= 25.0 G= 45.0 G= G= 25.0 IY= G= G= 1Y= G= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= 7 Y= 7 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Controi Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 207 1093 17 11 822 54 21 68 264 Lane Group Capacity 682 2069 923 257 1330 594 328 289 897 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.53 0.02 0.04 0.62 0.09 0.06 0.24 0.29 Green Ratio 0.73 0.58 0.58 0.42 0.38 10.38 0.21 0.21 0.57 Uniform Delay d1 8.3 15.1 10.5 20.5 30.5 124.3 38.1 39.5 13.5 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.1 1 0.1 0.4 0.2 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 8.5 15.3 10.5 20.6 31.4 24.3 38.2 40.0 13:7 Lane Group LOS A I B B C C C D D B Approach Delay 14.2 30.8 38.2 19.1 Approach LOS B C D B Intersection Delay 20. 1 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 4/2412008 9:04 AN file:HC:\Documents and Settings \rip \Local Settings \Temp \s2k29C.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 205 of 218 6nort icepurt. SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP Agency or Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @ Wilson Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Buildout Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lane Group L T R L T R LTR LT R Volume (vph) 237 1160 62 10 901 90 49 17 5 99 25 381 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 j 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 70 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only EW Perm 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 5.0 1Y= G= 25.0 G= 45.0 G= G= 25.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 0 Y= 7 Y= Y= 7 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Anal sis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control. Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 249 1221 60 11 1948 89 75 130 327 Lane Group Capacity. B41 2069 923 235 1330 594 222 282 897 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.59 0.07 0.05 0.71 0.15 0.34 0.46 0.36 Green Ratio 0.73 0.58 0.58 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.21 0.21 0.57 Uniform Delay d1 11.1 15.9 10.8 20.5 32.0 24.8 40.5 41.6 14.2 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 1.8 1 0.1 0.9 1.2 0.3 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 11.5 16.3 10.9 20.6 33.8 25.0 41.4 42.8 14.5 Lane Group LOS B B B C C C D D B Approach Delay 15.3 32.9 41.4 22.5 Approach LOS B C D C Intersection Delay 22.9 Intersection LOS C copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +1 M Version 5.21 VCIICIdLUU. YIGYILVVII V.V" file:HCADocuments and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k2ADAmp . 4/24/2008 Page 206 of 218 -*-1 WILSON BOULEVARD @SITE ACCESS Page 207 of 218 I yvu— ry uy your �.vuu vi TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst RLP Agency/Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Wilson Blvd @ Site Access Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Buildout IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 'ro'ect Description F0801.31 -10 - Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict ast/West Street: Site Access North /South Street: Wilson Boulevard ntersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 11 235 554 11 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 11 247 0 0 583 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 r -- - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 15 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 15 0 15 0 0 0 11-1� Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (veh /h) 11 15 15 C (m) (veh /h) 992 329 516 v/c 0.01 0.05 0.03 95% queue length 0.03 0.14 0.09 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.7 16.5 12.2 LOS A C B pproach Delay (s /veh) -- - 14.3 pproach LOS -- - B Copyright m 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 4/24/2008 9:05 AMA` file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \r1p \Local Settings \Temp \u2k2F5.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 208 of 218 I WU- W ay 3LOP 1,U11LLU1 rrnnnral Infnrmation TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Ci4n Infnrmatinn --.D- - -- - Intersection RLP pnalvst enc /Co. TR Trans ortation Consultants )ate Performed 4/23/2008 nalvsis Time Period PM Peak Hour --.D- - -- - Intersection Wilson Blvd Site Access Jurisdiction lCollier Count Analysis Year 12014 Buildout Project Descri tion F0801.31 -10.- Estates Shopping .Center Subdistrict Wilson Boulevard East/West Street: Site Access North /South Street: Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Northbound southbound Major Street 1 L 46 0.95 2 T 298 0.95 3 4 R L 0.95 0.95 5 T 445. 0.95 6 R 43 0.95 Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 48 313 0 0 468 45 (veh /h) 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 1 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 T R Configuration L T 0 U stream Signal J 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound 12 Movement 7 8 9 10 11 T R L T R L olume veh /h Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 71 0.95 0.95 60 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ,Iourly Flow Rate, HFR 74 0 S3 0 0 0 veh /h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (veh /h) 48 74 63 C (m) (veh /h) 1063 599 V/c 0.05 0.2 . 24 0.11 95% queue length 0.14 0.92 0.35 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.5 20.4 11.7 LOS A C B Approach Delay (s /veh) -- — 16.4 Approach LOS — -- C �—%,Copydght ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 4/2412008 9:05 AM file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k2F8.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 209 of 218 WILSON BOULEVARD @ IMMOKALEE ROAD Page 210 of 218 snort t�.epuri General Inform Analyst Agency or Co. Date Performed Time Period V I e and Tit RLP TR Transportation Consultants 4/23/2008 AM Peak Hour SHORT REPORT "A�1. -L G= 7.0 EB Site Information WS 1 G= Immokalee Rd @ Wilson NB Intersection Blvd SB Area Type All other areas LT Jurisdiction Collier County LT Analvsis Year 2014 Background 1 arr- 1 Vl 1 oum ..... ...... "A�1. -L G= 7.0 EB V- ...,. G= 37.0 WS 1 G= NB G= SB G= LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 3 1 2 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane Group L T R L T R WB LT R L TR SB Volume (vph) 10 302 18 245 1456 17 47 5 193 39 11 75 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated -(P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 29.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.11 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.1 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 PF Factor 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1:000 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 35 0 0 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 46.7 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 C Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour 13.6 18.5 46.2 Approach LOS C Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 I nA I KlC Parm I R 117 08 I',.. rncaani Timing "A�1. -L G= 7.0 V- ...,. G= 37.0 . ... - - ... G= 38.0 1 G= G= 18.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 1Y= 0 Y= 7 1Y= IY= 7 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 11 318 14 258 1533 13 54 166 41 86 Lane Group Capacity 103 1607 501 1432 3171 989 191 989 202 243 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.20 0.03 0.18 0.48 0.01 0.28 0.17 0.20 0.35 Green Ratio 0.06 0.32 0.32 0.42 0.63 0.63 0.15 0.63 0.15 0.15 Uniform Delay d1 53.5 29.9 28.3 22.1 12.1 8.5 45.3 9.4 44.7 45.8 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 10.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.5 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.5 1 0.9 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 '1.000 1:000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 Control Delay 54.0 30.0 28.3 22.1 12.2 8.5 46.1 9.5 45.2 46.7 Lane Group LOS D C C C B A I D A D D Approach Delay 30.7 13.6 18.5 46.2 Approach LOS C B B D ,, Intersection Delay 18.0 Intersection LOS B Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +' m Version 5.21 tzieneratea: u/,uivuo a:u i mivi file:HC:\Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k2BE.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 211 of 218 011Vlt 111-1.1V1L »b.. . .. SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP Agency or Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Immokalee Rd @ Wilson Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Buildout Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 3 1 2 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane Group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume (vph) 10 302 24 251 1456 17 50 5 196 39 11 75 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 35 0 0 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 j 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left WB Only Thru & RT 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 7.0 G= 37.0 1Y= G= 38.0 G= G= 18.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 0 Y= 7 Y= IY= 7 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 _Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 11 318 20 264 1533 13 58 169 41 86 Lane Group Capacity 103 1607 501 1432 3171 989 191 989 201 243 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.20 0.04 0.18 0.48 0.01 0.30 0.17 0.20 0.35 Green Ratio 0.06 0.32 0.32 0.42 10.63 0.63 1 0.15 0.63 0.15 0.15 Uniform Delay d1 53.5 29.9 28.4 22.1 12.1 8.5 45.4 9.4 44.7 45.8 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.5 0.1 1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.5 0.9 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 54.0 30.0 28.4 22.2 12.2 8.5 46.3 9.5 45.2 46.7 Lane Group LOS D C C C B A D A D D Approach Delay 30.6 .13.6 18.9 46.2 Approach LOS C B B D Intersection Delay 18.1 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 file:HC:\Documents and Settings\rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k2CF.tmp Generated: 4/24/2006 9:05 AN 4/24/2008 Page 212 of 218 G Short tKeport SHORT REPOR-I General Information Site Information Analyst RLP TR Transportation Agency or Co. Consultants )ate Performed 412312008 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Immokalee Rd @ Wilson Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Background Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 3 1 2 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane Group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume (vph) 59 1033 78 287 710 29 40 18 369 23 15 23 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 110.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 10 0 0 5 0 0 50 0 0 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 WB Only Thru & RT 04 erm 06 07 08 X!M G= 24.0 G= 48.0 G= 9.0 gG= G= G= G Y= 0 Y= 7 Y= Y= Y= Y = Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 C cle Len th C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 62 1087 72 302 747 25 61 336 24 35 Lane Group Capacity 133 2030 633 1117 3044 950 228 857 212 271 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.54 0.11 0.27 0.25 0.03 0.27 0.39 0.11 0.13 Green Ratio 0.08 0.40 10.40 0.32 0.60 0.60 0.16 0.54 0.16 0.16 Uniform Delay d1 53.2 27.5 22.6 30.0 11.3 9.8 44.4 16.0 43.3 43.4 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 2.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 '1,000 1.000 Control Delay 55.8 27.8 22.7 30.1 11.3 9.8 45.0 16.3 43.5 43.6 Lane Group LOS E C 1 C C B A D B D D Approach Delay 28.9 16.6 20.7 43.6 Approach LOS C B C D --� intersection Delay 23.2 Intersection LOS C Copyright O 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +lm Version 5.21 ueneratea: 41L4 1[uu6 a:uo AN file:HCADocuments and Settings \r1p \Local Settings \Temp \s2k2E0.tmp 4/24/2001 Page 213 of 218 011U1 1\.CPU11 -0- - --- SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP Agency or Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Immokalee Rd @ Wilson Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Buildout Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 3 1 2 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane Group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume (vph) 59 1033 94 303 710 29 59 18 388 23 15 23 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 .0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 10 0 0 5 0 0 50 0 0 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasin Excl. Left WB Only Thru & RT 04 NS Perm 06 07 1 08 Timing G= 9.0 1Y= G= 24.0 G= 48.0 G= G= 19.0 1 IY= G= G JG= Y= 6 0 Y= 7 Y= 7 Y= Y 1Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 62 1087 88 319 1747 25 81 356 24 35 Lane Group Capacity 133 2030 633 1117 3044 950 222 857 208 271 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.54 0.14 0.29 0.25 0.03 0.36 0.42 0.12 0.13 Green Ratio 0.08 0.40 0.40 0.32 0.60 0.60 0.16 0.54 0.16 0.16 Uniform Delay d1 53.2 27.5 22.9 30.1 11.3 9.8 145.1 16.3 43.3 43.4 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 2.6 0.3 1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1..000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 55.8 27.8 23.0 30.3 11.3 9.8 46.1 16.6 43.5 43.6 Lane Group LOS E C C C B A D B D D Approach Delay 28.8 16.8 22.1 43.6 Approach LOS C B C I D Intersection Delay 23.4 Intersection LOS I C Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +rM Version 5.21 Generated: 4/24/2008 9:05 A file: //CAD ocuments and Settings\rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k2F1.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 214 of 218 COLLIER COUNTY 2030 FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Page 215 of 218 2030 Long Ronge T mnsportation Plan Figure 12 -5 2030 Constrained Financially Feasible Plan Volume -to- Capacity Ratio 2030 LRTP Minor Update 12.14 Adopted June 6, Page 216 of 218 TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS Page 217 of 218 TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS /� ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 7th EDITION TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 8" EDITION Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Land Use Shopping Center LUC 820) Ln (T) = 0.60 Ln (X) + 2.29 (61% In/39% Out) Ln (T) = 0.66 Ln (X) + 3.40 (48% In/52% Out) Ln (T} = 0.65 Ln (X) + 5.83 T = Trips, X= 1,000's of square feet of GLA TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 8" EDITION Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Shopping Center (LUC 820) Ln (T) = 0.59 Ln (X) + 2.32 61% In/39% Out Ln (T) = 0.67 Ln (X) + 3.37 49% In/51% Out Ln (T} = 0.65 Ln (X) + 5.83 T = Tri s, X = 1,000's of square feet of GLA Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict TAD Generation Based on 7th Edition of ITE Lana Use A 1VI Peak Hour P M <Peak I3our : Daily Daily .Total Shopping Center 152 97 L 249 537 1,095 11,504 Shopping Center 155 1513 1,070 11,504 (225,000 sq. ft.) Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Trin Generation Based on W" Edition of ITE Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict f hnnae in Ti-in Generation from 7t" Edition to 8th Edition of ITE Land Use ` zar, A M Peak Hour � P M Peak Hour - Daily Daily .Total Shopping Center 152 97 L 249 537 1,095 11,504 (225,000 sq. ft.) (225,000 sq. ft.) Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict f hnnae in Ti-in Generation from 7t" Edition to 8th Edition of ITE Land Use ` zar, A 1VI "Peak Hour P 1VT Peak =Hour = Daily Shopping Center _3 _3 _5 +24 +25 0 (225,000 sq. ft.) Shaded Box indicates peak direction utilized for LOS calculations Page 218 of 218 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT CP- 2008 -1 BCC Transmittal Hearing January 19, 2010 jmb transportation engineering, inc. traffic /transportation engineering & planning Commissioner Jim Coletta, District 5 January 14, 2010 Board of Collier County Commissioners 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CP 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Dear Commissioner Coletta: As you may recall, Mr. Rich Yovanovich, Mr. Tim Wallen and I met with you and Mr. Nick Casalanguida to discuss the above referenced plan amendment. Mr. Wallen and I attended on behalf of the I" & Yd Group and Mr. Yovanovich attended on behalf of the Petitioner. As we discussed, the I" & 3rd Group reached an agreement with the Petitioner regarding numerous development standards and safeguards that would be incorporated into the PUD in order to minimize the project's impact. To everyone's satisfaction, you said that if the BOC approved CP 2008 -1 then you would request that the Board recognize our agreement as a condition of the plan amendment. In addition, Mr. Yovanovich committed to revise the PUD consistent with the terms and conditions of the agreement and have it run concurrent with the plan amendment. At the time, we thought the revised PUD would be submitted prior to the January 191h transmittal hearing, but that will not occur. Mr. Yovanovich reassured the Group that the revised PUD will be submitted prior to the Board's final plan approval. I am pleased to inform you that the 15` & 3rd Group and the Petitioner have finalized an agreement which has been attached for the Board's consideration. If the Board of County Commissioners approves CP 2008 -1, then the I" & 3rd Group and the Petitioner request that the 1" & 3rd Group/Petitioner's Agreement, dated January 14, 2010 be included as a condition of Plan Amendment. Thank you for your acceptance of this letter and attachments into the record, and as always, feel free to call upon me should you wish to discuss this matter in further detail. Sincerely, JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. James M. Banks, P.E. Enclosure: ls` & 3rd Group/ Petitioner's Agreement, revised January 14, 2010 Copy: Rich Yovanovich, Tim Wallen, Nick Casalinguida 76121" street nw, naples, florida 34120 phone: 239 -919 -2767 Exhibit A I't & 3rd Group /Petitioner's Agreement for Estates Shopping Center PUD & Comp Plan Amendment 2008 -1 January 14, 2010 Estates Shopping Center PUD Terms & Conditions 1. "rya is to ; ,.hide ., site plan that details the iaeat;,,., of potential land , bodies ^f„",, -°, ^a " The PUD will be consistent with the conceptual site plan dated November 4, 2009, except for access to '3`a Street NW which will be consistent with Concept A (see the attached Conceptual Site Plan & Concept A Access Plan). However, orientation of the rg ocei store and other structures are subject to change. 2. Two story structures will be located in the southern half of the property. No two story structures on the north, northeast or northwest areas of the property. 3. The PUD will maintain a minimum building setback of 120 feet from north property line and 150 feet from the west property line for the retail and office uses. The building(s) housing the sewage treatment and /or water treatment plants shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet. n 4. PUD's first C.O. will be for a grocery store being no less than 27,000 s.f. in size. 5. PUD's Building Architecture: All buildings shall be designed in a unified architectural style which shall be stylistic of Key West, Olde Florida or Bermuda architecture. All structures will have a maximum zoned building height restriction of 35 feet and actual building height of 45 feet. PUD will establish reasonable hours of operation of all businesses within the commercial center. Hours of Operation: a. Grocery and restaurant uses: 6 am to 11 pm b. Other retail and office uses: 6 am to 9 pm c. Gas /convenience uses: 24 hour operation 6. Delivery trucks will be restricted from 6 am to 11 pm. 7. Gas -n- convenience to be located only on the south central portion of the site. No carwash will be permitted. Gas -n- convenience will not receive a certificate of occupancy until after January 1, 2015. 8. Sewage treatment system will be designed and located in a manner that shall protect residents from odor and noise. The commercial center will be served by a central sewage treatment center that is housed in a building being no more than 25 feet in height. Restaurants will have a sewage interceptor system to remove grease and fat from waste prior to discharge to central sewage treatment. Individual septic systems may be provided on an interim basis. 9. Water will be provided by a central water distribution system. The water system will be designed and located in a manner that shall protect residents from odor and noise. 10. Dumpsters will be located in a manner that will minimize noise and odor impact on residents. 11. The PUD will prohibit "do -it yourselfers" from repairing /servicing automobiles anywhere on -site. Any auto service /repair will be done by authorized personnel associated with an auto service center (e.g., Tuffy'.s, Midas, Goodyear, etc.). 12. A twenty -five foot wide enhanced landscape buffers shall be provided along the project frontage for both 3rd Street N.W. and 1st Street N.W. The enhanced buffers must be installed concurrent with the first phase of development on the site. 13. A twenty -five foot wide type `B" buffer will be required along the north property line, except where the preserve area is maintained. 14. The seventy-five foot wide vegetative preserve/buffer identified and located along the northern property boundary shall retain existing native vegetation. Where little or no native vegetation exists, the owner or successors in heir shall replant and supplement native vegetation at all three strata. Plant materials must be native species similar to those presently existing within the preserve area. These supplemental plantings must occur concurrent with the first phase of development on the site. 15. Buffers are to be constructed after land clearing stage. 16. PUD supports the residents' desire to maintain a full or at a minimum a n directional left median opening at 3rd Street NW /GGB. 17. NE) vehieulur .aeoeess from 3F4 St-Feet to the PUD will be allowed. Pe'est �. i.iVbe ele aeeess zhiv✓'d C -eet NW will be tcrri-ttea, if G vmicc. y ehicular- intere- + t 2'4 StFeet NV(T_4wnit wiR be de, *_ ' ' ' delivery +.-. eks ate,l with `,.e PUD Access to 3rd uan a� Street NW shall be consistent with Concept A. 18. 151 & 3rd Group supports PUD having a full access on Golden Gate Boulevard which would be centrally, located to the site, as well as signalization of the full access if allowed by Collier County. 151 & 3rd Group supports the PUD's request to obtain additional right - in/out access points along GGB at a minimum spacing of 330'. 19. If authorized by the Collier County School District, the PUD shall install or snake payment in lieu of construction for two school bus stop shelters, which shall be installed at or near the intersection of 1S1 Street N.W. and Golden Gate Boulevard and 3rd Street NW and Golden Gate Boulevard. The shelter size and location shall be coordinated with the Collier County School District. Installation of the shelters shall be concurrent with issuance of the first building certificate of occupancy. If authorized by the Collier County School District, the PUD will construct covered school bus stop shelters consistent with the shelter located at 27 "' Avenue SW @ White Boulevard. 20. The PUD's lighting will be designed by an engineer or qualified professional in a manner to eliminate any off -site "spillover" lighting on residential property and to 2 maintain (within reason) dark sky conditions. All lighting shall be architecturally designed. Parking lot lighting shall be limited to 25 feet in height and shall utilize low pressure sodium or similar bulbs, which will be shielded from neighboring residential land uses. Halogen lighting shall be prohibited. 21. The Developer /Owner will take the necessary measures (as defined by the Collier County Sherriff's Department) which will give the residents the authority to report any trespassing or criminal activities that may occur on the subject property. The residents will be authorized to report such activities in order that the Sherriff s department will be obligated to respond to the report in a timely manner without receiving direct approval from the property owner to proceed. The Developer /Owner will take whatever measures are necessary for this to be enforced while the property is vacant, under construction, and fully developed. 22. PUD to reference outdoor acoustic prohibition criteria. Live music allowed only at the southern most portion of the site (except SW corner), but no later than 10 PM. Special permit required for open air concert (similar to Mercado). PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Amusement and recreation Groups7911 — Dance studios, schools and halls, excluding discotheques 7991 — Physical fitness facilities 7993 — Coin- operated amusement devises 7999 — Amusement and recreation services, not elsewhere classified, including only day camps, gymnastics instruction, judo/karate instruction, sporting goods rental and yoga instruction (excludes NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges, Waterslides, etc.) 2. Apparel and accessory stores (no adult oriented sales) Groups 5611 — Men's and boys' clothing and accessory stores 5621— Women's clothing stores 5632 — Women's accessory and specialty stores 5641 — Children's and infants' wear stores 5651 — Family clothing stores 5661 — Shoe stores 5699 — Miscellaneous apparel and accessory stores 3. Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations Groups 5531— Auto and home supply stores 5541 — Gasoline service stations, without repair 4. Automotive repair, services and parking (no outdoor repair /service. All repairs /services to be performed by authorized automotive technician.) Groups7514 — Passenger car rental 7534 — Tire retreading and repair shops, including only tire repair 7539 — Automotive Repair Shops, Not Elsewhere Classified, including only minor service, lubricating and diagnostic service 7542 Car-washes, as an aecesser-y to eenvenienee stores en - ly 5. Building materials, hardware, garden supply, and mobile home dealers Groups5231— Paint, glass, and wallpaper stores 5251 — Hardware stores 5261 — Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores 6. Business services Groups7334 — Photocopying and duplicating services 7335 — Commercial photography 7336 — Commercial art and graphic design 7338 — Secretarial and court reporting services 7342 — Disinfecting and pest control services 7352 — Medical equipment rental and leasing 7359 — Equipment rental and leasing, not elsewhere classified 7371 — Computer programming services 7372 — Prepackaged software n 7373 — Computer integrated systems design 7374 — Computer processing and data preparation and processing services 7375 — Information retrieval services 7376 — Computer facilities management services 7379 — Computer related services, not elsewhere classified 7382 — Security systems services 7383 —News syndicates 7384 — Photofinishing laboratories 7389 — Business services, not elsewhere classified 7. Child day care services (Group 8351) 8. Communications Groups4812 — Radiotelephone communications 4841 — Cable and other pay television services 9. Construction special trade contractors (office use only, no on -site equipment storage) Groups 1711 — Plumbing, heating and air - conditioning 1721 — Painting and paper hanging industry 1731 —Electrical work industry 4 1741— Masonry, stone setting, and other stone work 1742 — Plastering, drywall, acoustical, and insulation work 1743 — Terrazzo, tile, marble, and mosaic work industry 1751 — Carpentry work 1752 — Floor laying and other floor work, not elsewhere classified industry 1761 — Roofing, siding, and sheet metal work industry 1771 — Concrete work industry 1781 — Water well drilling industry 1791— Structural steel erection 1793 — Glass and glazing work 1794 — Excavation work 1795 — Wrecking and demolition work 1796 — Installation or erection of building equipment, not elsewhere 1799 — Special trade contractors, not elsewhere classified 10. Depository institutions Groups 6021 —National commercial banks 6022 — State commercial banks 6029 — Commercial banks, not elsewhere classified 6035 — Savings institutions, federally chartered 6036 — Savings Institutions, not federally chartered 6061— Credit unions, federally chartered 6062 — Credit unions, not federally chartered 6091 — Non - deposit trust facilities 6099 — Functions related to depository banking, not elsewhere classified 11. Eating and drinking places (Group 5812, including only liquor service accessory to the restaurant use, no outdoor amplified music or televisions) 12. Engineering, accounting, research, management, and related services Groups8711 —Engineering services 8712 — Architectural services 8713 — Surveying services 8721 — Accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services 8741 —Management services 8742 — Management consulting services 8743 — Public relations services 8748 — Business consulting services, not elsewhere classified 13. Executive, legislative, and general government, except finance Groups9111—Executive offices 9121 — Legislative bodies 9131 — Executive and legislative offices combined 9199 – General government, not elsewhere classified 14. Food stores Groups5411 – Grocery stores (minimum 27,000 square feet) 5421 – Meat and fish (seafood) markets, including freezer provisioners 5431 – Fruit and vegetable markets 5441 – Candy, nut, and confectionery stores 5451 – Dairy products stores 5461 – Retail bakeries 5499 – Miscellaneous food stores, including convenience stores with fuel pumps and carwash 15. General merchandise stores Groups5311 – Department stores 5331 –Variety stores 5399 – Miscellaneous general merchandise stores 16. LT.,I,a;..g and et e« investment ff —Fr^+�� $6.717 nff:ees efbafikheldi �"'Y TIZ�'rtT vu a vaxaa vaumb vvriaPaari�:s — 719 Offiees of1.ol inn e� e + 1 1, 1 f .1 ..., � holding ., ;;t,�.aaa� , 6 722 Til. nage...e,.+; investment eff:ee� ,1 ... <.<. a.,_aaaaasbvaaaraa , 6726 U nit fase-- ama »tt serti'fie- ikte- e€frc -es,al 6732 1 &eatiwial, re , and charitable 6733 Tpasts, exeept e"emienal, religious, charitable 6792; Oil e j a-k `xs7 m4er-sr — 6794 latent owners and les;,ers 6798 Real estate i-nvestment tfusts 17. Home furniture, furnishings, and equipment stores Groups5712 – Furniture stores 5713 – Floor covering stores 5714 – Drapery, curtain, and upholstery stores 5719 – Miscellaneous home furnishings stores 5722 – Household appliance stores 5731 – Radio, television, and consumer electronics stores 5734 – Computer and computer software stores 5735 – Record and prerecorded tape stores (no adult oriented sales) 5736 – Musical instrument stores 18. Insurance carriers Groups 6311– Life insurance 6321– Accident and health insurance 6324 – Hospital and medical service plans 6331 — Fire, marine, and casualty insurance 6351 — Surety insurance 6361 —Title insurance 6371 — Pension, health and welfare funds 6399 — Insurance carriers, not elsewhere classified 6411 —Insurance agents 19. Justice, public order and safety Groups9221 — Police protection 9222 — Legal counsel and prosecution 9229 — Public order and safety, not elsewhere classified 20. Meeting and banquet rooms 21. Miscellaneous retail (no adult oriented sales) Groups5912 — Drug stores and proprietary stores 5921 — Liquor stores (accessory to grocery or pharmacy only) 5932 — Used merchandise stores 5941 — Sporting goods stores and bicycle shops 5942 — Book stores 5943 — Stationery stores 5944 — Jewelry stores, including repair 5945 — Hobby, toy, and game shops 5946 — Camera and photographic supply stores 5947 — Gift, novelty, and souvenir shops 5948 — Luggage and leather goods stores 5949 — Sewing, needlework, and piece goods stores 5992 — Florists 5993 — Tobacco stores and stands 5994 — News dealers and newsstands 5995 — Optical goods stores 5999 — Miscellaneous retail stores, not elsewhere classified (excluding gravestone, tombstones, auction rooms, monuments, swimming pools, and sales barns) 22. Non - depository credit institutions Groups 6111— Federal and federally- sponsored credit agencies 6141— Personal credit institutions 6153 — Short-term business credit institutions, except agricultural 6159 — Miscellaneous business credit institutions 6162 — Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents 6163 — Loan brokers 23. Offices and clinics of dentist (Group 8021) 24. Personal services Groups 7212 — Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners 7221 — Photographic studios, portrait 7231 — Beauty shops 7241 — Barber shops 7251 — Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors 7291— Tax return preparation services 7299 — Miscellaneous personal services, not elsewhere classified, excluding massage parlors, Turkish baths and escort services 25. Public finance, taxation, and monetary policy (Group 9311) 26. Real Estate Groups6512 — Operators of nonresidential buildings 6513 — Operators of apartment buildings 6514 — Operators of dwellings other than apartment buildings 6515 — Operators of residential mobile home sites 6517 — Lessors of railroad property 6519 — Lessors of real property, not elsewhere classified 6531 — Real estate agents and managers 6541 _ Title abstract offices 6552 — Land subdividers and developers, except cemeteries 27. Schools and educational services, not elsewhere classified (Group 8299) 28. Security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges, and services Groups6211 — Security brokers, dealers, and flotation companies 6221 — Commodity contracts brokers and dealers 6231 — Security and commodity exchanges 6282 — Investment advice 6289 — Services allied with the exchange of securities or commodities, not elsewhere classified 29. Social services Groups 8322 — Individual and family social services (adult day care centers only) 8351 — Child day care services 30. Travel agencies (Group 4724) 31. Veterinary services for animal specialties (Group 0742) 32. Video tape rental (Group 7841, excluding adult oriented sales and rentals) 33. United states postal service (Group 4311, excluding major distribution centers) Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (`BZA ") by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: a. Utility buildings b. Essential service facilities c. Gazebos, statuary and other architectural features II. PROHIBITED USES: 1. Amusement and recreation services, not elsewhere classified (Group 7999, NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges, Waterslides, etc.) 2. Air and water resource and solid waste management (Group 9511) 3. Business Services Groups7313 — Radio, television, and publishers' advertising representatives 7331— Direct mail advertising services 4. Correctional Institutions (Group 9223) 5. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) (Group 5813) 6. Educational services Groups8211 — Elementary and secondary schools 8221 — Colleges, universities, and professional schools 8222 — Junior colleges and technical institutes 8231 — Libraries 7. Health services Groups 8062 — General medical and surgical hospitals 8063 — Psychiatric hospitals 8069 — Specialty hospitals, except psychiatric 8. Miscellaneous Retail M n Groups 5921 — Liquor stores 5961— Catalog and mail -order houses 5962 — Automatic merchandising machine operators n 9. Personal services Groups7211— Power Laundries, family and commercial 7261— Funeral service and crematories 10. Social services Groups8322 — Individual and family social services, excluding adult day care center$ 8361 — Residential care, including soup kitchens and homeless shelters 10 W- L Concept A Dead End Parking Area at Wes f end Golden Gate Blvd. Main Entry O� �v � C C W r 4 166_60' ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PACKAGE PREPARED BY: COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH AND KOESTER, P.A. 4001 Tamaimi Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, Florida 34103 239.435.3535 239.435.1218 fax and Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134 239.947.1144 239.947.0375 fax GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 n AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 a- A006 - 1 Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Civil Engineers ■ Land Surveyors ■ Planners ■ Landscape Architects MARK W. MINOR, P.E. D. WAYNE ARNOLD, A.I.C.P. JOSHUA R. EVANS, P.E. KEITH A. STEPHENSON, P.S.M. MICHAEL T. HERRERA, P.E. JUAN A. ARAQUE, P.S.M. DAVID W. SCH?d TT, P.E. HEIDI K. WILLIAMS, A.I.C.P. MICHAEL J. DELATE, P.E. D. KENT CARLYLE, R.L.A. ELIZABETH A FOUNTAIN, P.E. KENNETH W. PAHUTSKI, P.S.M. ANDRES F. CORREA, P.E. PAMELA M. HYYTI April 24, 2008 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP RECEIVED Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department APR 2 5 2008 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl 34104 C4MPRDEPPAT EpLAN NG Re: Collier County Growth Management Plan Amendment Application; Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Dear Ms. Mosca: Enclosed, please find five copies of the completed Collier County Growth Management Plan Amendment Application along with its supporting data and analysis. As you are aware, an amendment for the subject property was filed in 2006 as Petition CP- 2006 -2, and at the applicant's request, Petition CP- 2006 -2 was deferred to the 2008 Growth Management Plan amendment cycle. We have also included a check for $16,700.00 the amendment as directed at our pre - application meeting held on April 7, 2008. The proposed amendment includes the 41 +/- acre parcel, located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of. Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. The applicant has not modified the project boundaries from the prior submittal; however, we have made several revisions to the text of the proposed amendment and to the supporting commercial needs analysis, which we believe address many of the comments previously provided by staff for Petition CP- 2006 -2. You will note that the applicant has included in the proposed amended text of the Subdistrict, a list of both permitted and prohibited uses. The prior amendment application proposed all uses permitted in the C -4, General Commercial Zoning District. The amended application has limited the proposed uses within the Subdistrict to those which we believe are consistent with uses commonly found in neighborhood to community scale shopping centers, compatible with the needs of the residents of central Golden Gate Estates and supported by residents surveyed within our market area. A copy of the survey and the results to date have been included in the supporting documents. The full range of general commercial land uses would not be permitted within the proposed Subdistrict. (239) 947 -1144 ■ FAX (239) 947 -0375 ■ Web Site: www.gradyminor.com 3800 Via Del Rey ■ Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 -7569 EB 0005151 ■ LB 0005151 ■ LC 26000266 April 24 2008 Application Sebadtta( Ltr RCGivIPA Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Re: Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict April 24, 2008 Page 2 of 2 The proposed Subdistrict also includes a phasing schedule, which is related to required roadway improvements in the vicinity of the subject property. A maximum of 100,000 square feet of commercial development is permitted initially, with a restriction that a grocery store use must be the first use to obtain a certificate of occupancy within the Subdistrict. The balance of the authorized commercial square footage cannot occur until transportation improvements at the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard are substantially complete. Please also note that Fishkind & Associates has updated the Commercial Needs Analysis supporting data and analysis document to reflect a 10- minute drive time market surrounding the proposed Subdistrict. This revised document demonstrates demand for additional retail commercial land uses in the market area and at this location. We look forward to reviewing the revised Growth Management Plan amendment application with you at your convenience. If you have any questions or comments, please contact either Richard Yovanovich at (239) 435 -3535 or me. ` lay ; Wayne Arnold, AICP C: Kenneth Johnson, Trustee Richard Yovanovich April 24 2008 Application Submittal Ltr RCGMPA MEETING NOTES COLLIER COUNTY. * * ** DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN PETITION NUMBER CP- 2008 -1 DATE RECEIVED PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE DATE SUFFICIENT PLANNER ASSIGNED: COMMISSION DISTRICT: [ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF] This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Phone: (239) 403 -2300; Fax: (239) 643 6869. 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 (attached). If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive n Planning Section at 239 - 403 -2300. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Name of Applicant(s) Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee Company Coleman, Yovanovich, & Koester P.A. Mailing Address 4001 N. Tamiami Trail, Suite 300 City Naples State FL Zip Code 34103 Phone Number 239 - 435 -3535 Fax Number 239 - 435 -1218 B. Name of Agent* D. Wayne Arnold, AICP * THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company/Firm Q. Grady Minor and Associates. P.A. Mailing Address 3800 Via Del Rev City Bonita Springs State FL Zip Code 34134 Phone Number 239 - 947 -1144 Fax Number 239 - 947 -0375 Email Address wamoldn,Irradyminor.com CP 2008 -1 1 09/2009 H. And Name of Agent Richard D Yovanovich Esq. Company/Firm Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Mailing Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North Suite 300 City Naples State FL Zip Code 34103 Phone Number 239 - 435 -3535 Fax Number 239 - 947 -0375 Email Address ryovonovich()gcilaw corn C. 1. Name of Owner(s) of Record Please see Exhibit I.0 Mailing Address C/O Coleman Yovanovich, & Koester, P.A. / Kenneth Johnson 4100 N. Tamiami Trail Suite 300 City Naples State FL Zip Code 34.103 D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. Exhibit I.D 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, and provide one copy of the Articles of Incorporation, or other documentation, to verify the signer of this petition has the authority to do so. A Name and Address, and Office Percentage of Stock N/A If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee Golden Gate Boulevard West Trust Robert A and Barbara A Crown Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee Robert A and Barbara A Crown Percentage of Interest 100% 100% CP 2008 -1 2 09/2009 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 E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contact purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners, and provide one copy of the executed contract. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership or trust. n G. Date subject property acquired (X) ** leased ( ): Terms of lease yrs /mos. * *Please see Exhibit I.0 If Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing date H. NOTE: 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. CP 2008 -1 3 09/2009 n III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. Legal Description Please see Exhibit III.A B. Section: 04 Township: 49 South Range: 27 East C. Tax I.D. Number (Folio #) Please see Exhibit I.0 D. General Location Northwest corner of Golden Gate Blvd & Wilson Blvd. E. Planning Community 8 Rural Estates F.TAZ 215 G. Size in Acres 40.62± acres H. Zoning E. Estates I. Present Future Land Use Map Designation (s) Estates (Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict and Neighborhood Center Subdistrict.) IV. TYPE OF REQUEST A. Growth Management Plan Element(s) OR Sub - Element(s) to be amended: Future Land Use Immokalee Area Master Plan Transportation Coastal & Conservation Intergovernmental Coord. Sanitary Sewer Drainage ✓ Golden Gate Area Master Plan Capital Improvement Housing Recreation & Open Space Potable Water Solid Waste Natural Groundwater Aquifer B. Amend Page(s) 27 and 38 of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element As Follows: (Use Cross throughs to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: See Exhibit IV.B C. Amend Future Land Use Map(s) designation, FROM: Estates Mixed Use District Residential Estates Subdistrict and Neighborhood Center Subdistrict District, Subdistrict TO: Estates Commercial District Estates Shopping_ Center Subdistrict District, Subdistrict [If new District and/or Sub - district proposed, include Future Land Use Map with legend depicting it]. D. Amend other Map(s) and Exhibits as follows: (Name & Page #) Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map Exhibit IV.Da Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers Map — Exhibit IV.Db Wilson Boulevard / Golden Gate Boulevard Center Man — Exhibit IV.Dc Proposed Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Map — Exhibit IV.Dd E. Describe additional changes requested: GGAMP Policy 1. 1.2 B and list of mans CP 2008 -1 4 09/2009 V. REQUIRED INFORMATION Note: All Aerials must be at a scale of no smaller than 1" = 400'. At least one copy reduced to 8V x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE 1. Exhibit V.A.Ia Provide general location map showing surrounding Exhibit V.A. l b developments (PUD, DRI' S, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. 2. Exhibit V.A.2 Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. 3. Exhibit V.A.3a Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and Exhibit V.A.3b zoning within a radius of 500 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION 1. Exhibit V.B 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 1. Exhibit V.C.1 a Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of n Exhibit V.C.lb native habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT- FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A" ABOVE. 2. Exhibit V.C.2 Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service)and State (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 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.) 3. Exhibit V.C.3 Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. Provide copy of County's Historical /Archaeological Probability Map and correspondence from Florida Department of State. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9J- 11.006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached). INSERT "Y" FOR YES OR "N" FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. NO n 2. NO Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference 9J -1 l.006(1)(a)7.a,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.? CP 2008 -1 5 09/2009 E. 3. NO 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(l)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) 4. NO 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. 5. YES- Exhibit V.D.5 Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density Exhibit V.D.6 and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use Exhibit V.D.7 designation and district/subdistrict identified (commercial, Exhibit V.D.8 industrial, etc.), or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district/subdistrict? (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 compatibility of use with surrounding land uses, and as it concerns protection of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference Rule 9J- 1.007, F.A.C.). PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Exhibit V.E.1 Provide the existing adopted Level of Service Standard (LOS, and document the impact the proposed change will have on that Standard, for each of the following public facilities: a) Ex. V.E.1 a Potable Water b) Ex. V.E.lb Sanitary Sewer c) Ex. V.E.Ic Arterial & Collector Roads: Name of specific road and LOS Golden Gate Boulevard Wilson Boulevard l' Street NW 3` Street NW d) Ex. V.E.1 Drainage e) Ex. V.E.1 Solid Waste f) Ex. V.E.1 Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2 and 1.1.5). 2. Exhibit V.E.2 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. CP 2008 -1 6 09/2009 3. Exhibit V.E.3 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: I. Exhibit V.F.1 Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM) 2. Exhibit V.F.2 Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). 3. N/A Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable. 4. N/A Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable. 5. N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 1. Yes $16,700.00 non - refundable filing fee, made payable to the Board of County Commissioners, due at time of submittal. 2. N/A $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. 3. TBD Plus Legal Advertisement Costs (Your portion determined by number of petitions and divided accordingly. 4. Exhibit G.4 Proof of ownership (Copy of deed). 5. Exhibit G.5 Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (see attached form). 6. Yes 1 Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments, including maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed, 15 copies of the complete application will be required. Additional copies may be required. * Maps, aerials, sketches shall include: North arrow; name and location of principal roadways; shall be at scale of 1" = 400' or at a scale as determined during the pre - application meeting; identification of the subject site; legend or key, if applicable. All oversized documents and attachments must be folded so as to fit into a legal -size folder. For all oversized exhibits, at least one copy must be submitted at 8 -%2 x 11 inches. All exhibits and attachments to the petition must include a title and exhibit # or letter, and must be referenced in the petition. CP 2008 -1 7 09/2009 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT I.0 NAME OF OWNERS OF RECORD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict EXHIBIT LC Name of Owners of Record ID Folio No. Address Owner Name O.R. Bk - Pg Closing Date Net Acreage A B C D 37119840001 37119880003 37119800009 37117120008 No site address No site address 110 1" St NW 121 GG Blvd W Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee Golden Gate Boulevard West Trust 3912 —2758 3912 —2758 4007 —1531 4026 —1313 10/2005 10/13/05 3/29/06 4/2006 5.15 5.46 2.81 2.81 E 37117160000 141 GG Blvd W Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee 3946 —201 12/9/05 2.34 F 37117040007 165 GG Blvd W Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee 3990 —289 2/28/06 2.34 G 37117080009 171 GG Blvd W Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee 3990 —208 2/28/06 1.17 H 37117000005 181 GG Blvd W Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee 4014 —2946 4/10/06 1.64 I 37117280003 No site address Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee 3949 —1405 12/12/05 2.73 J 37116720001 410 3rd St NW Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee 3999 —2240 3/15/06 2.73 K 37116961006 221 GG Blvd W Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee 3962 —2201 1/9/06 2.34 L 37116960007 241 GG Blvd W Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee 3990 —3499 2/28/06 2.81 M 37116920005 265 GG Blvd W Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee 3914 —3601 10/17/05 2.34 N 37116840004 No site address Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee 3990 —267 2/28/06 1.17 O 37116880006 90 3` St NW Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee 4307 —1221 11/7/07 1.64 P 37117200009 131 1st St NW Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee 4461 — 447 6/11/09 1.14 Total Net Acres (Acreage including platted ROW 40.62 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT I.D LIST OF CONSULTANTS AND QUALIFICATIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict EXHIBIT I.D Project Team List of Consultants and Sub - consultants Planning/Project Management: Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. D. Wayne Arnold, AICP 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 (239) 947 -1144 (239) 947 -0375 fax Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 (239) 435 -3535 (239) 435 -1218 fax Market Analysis: Fishkind & Associates G. Russell Weyer, Senior Associate 1415 Panther Lane, Suite 248 Naples, Florida 34109 (239) 254 -8585 (239) 382 -3254 fax Fishkind & Associates, Inc. Michael J. Timmerman, CRE, SRA, Senior Associate 1415 Panther Lane, Ste 346 -347 Naples, FL 34109 Tel: 239 - 254 -8585 Fax: 239 -591 -6601 Transportation: TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. Ted B. Treesh, President 13881 Plantation Road, Suite 11 Fort Myers, FL 33912 -4339 PH: 239 - 278 -3090 FAX: 239 - 278 -1906 CELL: 239 - 292 -6746 E -mail: tbt @trtrans.net Environmental: Collier Environmental Consultants Marco Espinar 3880 Estey Avenue Naples, Florida 34104 (239) 263 -2687 (239) 263 -6616 fax Surveyor: Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Juan Araque, P.S.M. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 (239) 947 -1144 (239) 947 -0375 fax CP- 2008 -1 EXHIBIT LID Page 1 of 10 D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Principal, Director of .Planning Education Master of Urban Planning, University of Kansas, Lawrence Bachelor of Science, Urban and Regional Planning /Geography, Missouri State University Professional Registrations/ Affiliations • American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) • American Planning Association (APA) • Leadership Collier, Class of 2000 • Bonita Springs Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee • Collier Building Industry Association, Board of Directors • Collier County Jr. Deputy League, Inc., Board of Directors GradyMinor Mr. Arnold is a Principal and co -owner of the firm and serves as the Secretary/Treasurer and Director of Planning. As Director of Planning, Mr. Arnold is responsible for and oversees services related to plan amendments, property rezonings, expert witness testimony, ROW Acquisition, public participation facilitation, and project management. Mr. Arnold previously served as the Planning Services Director at Collier County, where he oversaw the County's zoning, comprehensive planning, engineering, platting and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) functions. Mr. Arnold also has prior Florida planning experience with Palm Beach County Government and the South Florida Water Management District. Mr. Arnold has been accepted as an expert in land planning matters in local and state proceedings. Relevant Projects • Collier County Growth Management Plan . • Marco Island Master Plan • Immokalee Area Master Plan • Collier County Land Development Code • Logan Boulevard Right -of -Way Acquisition Planning Analysis • U.S. 41 Right -of -Way Expansion Planning Analysis • Copeland Zoning Overlay • Collier County Government Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI) • Winding Cypress DRI • Pine Ridge /Goodlette Road Commercial Infill District • Lely Lakes PUD Rezoning • Henderson Creek Planned Development/Growth Management Plan Amendment • Orangetree (Settlement Area) Growth Management Plan Amendment • Mercato Mixed Use Planned Development • North Point DRI/MPD • Vornado RPUD • Orange Blossom Ranch MPD • Palermo Cove RPD Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Civil Engineers • Surveyors • Land Planners • Landscape Architects CP- 2008 -1 EXHIBIT I.D Page 2 of 10 George Russell (Russ) Weyer, MBA Senior Associate Professional Qualifications Education Areas of Expertise 1993 Master of Business Administration (MBA) University of Miami Real Estate and Finance 1977 Bachelor of Arts (BA) Michigan State University Communications Areas of Expertise Selected Client List Professional Synopsis Employment Record Period JED of Southwest Florida, Inc. Mar. 2003 — July 2004 Vice President of Development GRW Management, Inc. Sept. 2001 — Feb. 2003 President London Bay Homes, Inc - Romanza, Inc Sept. 2000 — Sept. 2001 President Lake Las Vegas, Joint Venture Nov. 1999 — Sept. 2000 Vice President of Resort Operations Cavalear Corporation Jan. 1997 —Nov. 1999 President and CEO Westinghouse Communities, Inc. Mar. 1984 —Oct. 1996 Director of Commercial Sales and Amenity Management • Residential Development Management and Analysis • Commercial Development Management and Analysis • Real Estate Amenity Management and Analysis • Residential Market Analysis Commercial Market Analysis • Real Estate Amenity Market Analysis • Real Estate Fiscal Analysis • Litigation Support Fishkind and Associates Resume CP- 2008 -1 EXHIBIT LID Page 3 of 10 As a former commercial and residential real estate developer in Florida, Ohio and Nevada, Mr. Weyer brings an extensive and distinct development point of view to Fishkind and Associates. He has over 20 years of real estate development /0-1, experience with large corporations and family -owned companies that focused on commercial office, retail, industrial, hospitality, amenity, and residential development. Mr. Weyer has on -point senior management experience with the entire development process from acquisition identification, due diligence, purchase negotiations, planning and securing entitlements, horizontal and vertical construction, sales (leasing) and marketing, to property management, condominium turnover and disposition. CP- 2008 -1 EXHIBIT LID Page 4 of 10 Michael J. Timmerman, CRE, SRA Senior Associate �-• Professional Qualifications Education 1983 Bachelor of Science Northland College, Ashland, WI Professional Memberships 2007 The Counselors of Real Estate 1989 The Appraisal Institute Employment Record Fishkind & Associates, Inc. Hanley Wood Market Intelligence, Inc. Feasinomics, Inc. Collier Residential Appraisal, Inc. Armalvage & LaCroix Landmark Appraisal Areas of Expertise Economics and Finance Designations CRE SRA Period February 2008 - Present March 2005 — October 2007 May 1991 — March 2005 January 1988 — December 1991 January 1987 — December 1987 August 1983 — December 1986 Professional Synopsis As a Senior Manager of Fishkind and Associates, Michael Timmerman manages consulting assignments throughout the Southeast United States and in particular Florida. In October of 2007 Mr. Timmerman was awarded the CRE (Counselor of Real Estate) Designation by the Counselors of Real Estate, an international group of high profile real estate practitioners who provide expert advisory services to clients on complex real property and land related matters. In 1989 Mr. Timmerman received his SRA designation from the Appraisal Institute. Mr. Timmerman has over 25 years of experience in the industry including the consulting, valuation and geo- spatial analysis of a broad spectrum of residential and commercial properties. He also created community and product lifestyle classifications to generally categorizing the consumer's preferences during their life stage and how they relate to their purchase of residential real estate. He has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, USA Today, Fortune Magazine, Worth Magazine, Builder Magazine and many other State and Local newspapers and magazines. Selected Client List Barron Collier Companies Florida Power and Light PGT Windows Cameratta Properties Collier Enterprises Core Communities Bank of Florida US Government r..� County Governments Michael J. Timmerman, CRE, SRA, Fishkind & Associates, Inc Resume CP- 2008 -1 EXHIBIT I.D Page 5 of 10 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. TED B. TREESH President EXPERIENCE Relative Experience: Mr. Treesh has over IS years experience in the area of transportation engineering and transportation planning. Specifically, he has expertise in the areas of traffic impact studies, corridor planning studies, traffic signal justifications studies and traffic signal systems analysis. Mr. Treesh has served as Project Manager on numerous transportation planning studies. He has performed capacity evaluations of signalized and unsignalized intersections, evaluated development plans in terms of traffic circulation and safety, making recommendations for improvements to parking areas and on -site design to accommodate development traffic. Traffic Impact Analysis: Managed and conducted traffic impact studies of numerous land uses ranging in size from 1,400 acres to less than 1 acre. Land uses analyzed include shopping centers, mixed use developments, medical office buildings, residential developments, industrial developments, and office buildings. Conducted capacity analyses of critical intersections, utilizing the Highway Capacity Software (HCS), and recommended appropriate geometric improvements to accommodate development, as well as, non - development traffic. Evaluated development plans in terms of traffic circulation and safety, making recommendations for improvements to parking and on -site design to accommodate development traffic. Accepted as an expert witness in transportation and testified before Planning Commissions, Zoning Boards, Village Boards, and City Councils, as well as, neighborhood and local organizations. Studies completed in the metropolitan Chicago area, southeast Wisconsin, St. Louis metropolitan area, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. RESUME Traffic Signal Justification Studies: traffic signal justification Performed studies for private developments, as well as, for public streets on both state and local roadways. Traffic Signal Systems: Assisted in the analysis and development of a coordinated traffic signal system to alleviate congestion and reduce vehicle emissions. Analysis of existing traffic volumes, flow patterns, and signal spacing was completed utilizing the progression programs SYNCHRO and PASSER II -90 to develop an optimum signal progression program. Transportation Planning: Project Manager on the Daniels Parkway corridor study for the Lee County Department of Transportation. Also served as project consultant on Strategic Regional Arterial (SRA) corridor projects conducted by the Illinois Department of Transportation and the Chicago Area Transportation Study. These projects involved analyses and recommendations of proposed roadway geometrics, right -of- way requirements, cost estimates and access management alternatives for future planning. Parking: Analyzed and designed parking configuration for neighborhood shopping center and various small retail developments. Also analyzed existing parking facilities identified internal deficiencies and made recommendations for improvement. Performed numerous parking studies including downtown areas to determine peak parking demand and characteristics. Trip Generation Research: Involved in research to better quantify the trip generation of various land uses in the Chicago land area. These land uses include gas stations with car washes, small retail centers anchored by a convenience store, and residential developments. Involvement includes methodology, data collection, and analysis of statistical data. PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. President May 2006 -- Present Metro Transportation Group, Inc. Fort Myers Office Principal /Regional Manager June 2001 — April 2006 Senior Transportation Consultant 1999 — May 2001 Woolpert, LLP Dayton, Ohio Project Manager 1997-1999 Metro Transportation Group, Inc. Senior Transportation Consultant 1990-1997 EDUCATION Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana Bachelor of Science - Civil Engineering AFFILIATIONS Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Research Board Urban Land Institute CP- 2008 -1 EXHIBIT I.D Page 6 of 10 Marco A. Espinar 3880 Estey Avenue Naples, Fl 34104 Cardinal Mooney High School Sarasota, Florida Manatee Junior College Bradenton, Florida RESUME Bilingual: English & Spanish Office: 239 - 263 -2687 EDUCATION Diploma AA Degree Biology University of South Florida BS Degree Tampa, Florida Biology Completed USF Cooperative Education Program April 1988 1980 1982 1990 USF Undergraduate Research - USF 1985 Apalachicola Archaeological Expedition & Research - Lab Coordinator of Fauna Identification from Archeological Sites - Studies of Seagrass Beds (Thalassia testudinum) in Upper Tampa Bay, Florida - Growth Rates of Marine Algae ( Gracilaria tikvahiae, G. verrucosa, G. deblis ) Port Manatee, Florida EMPLOYMENT HISTORY & EXPERIENCE Collier Environmental Consultants Inc. Naples, Florida 2/96 - Present Owner & Environmental Planner Environmental Permitting, Planning Exotic Plant Removal / Poisoning Vegetation Inventory Mitigation Plantings Mitigation & Monitoring Plans Jurisdictional Determination Threatened and Endangered Species Survey Environmental Impact Statements Gopher Tortoise Permitting, Testing, Relocation Red Cockaded Woodpecker Survey Turrell & Associates, Inc. Naples, Florida 2/94-12/95 Environmental Permitting, Planning Threatened and Endangered Species Survey Environmental Impact Statements Senior Environmental Planner Supervision of Staff Review Staff Reports CP- 2008 -1 EXHIBIT LD Page 7 of 10 South Florida Water Management District Fort Myers, Florida 2/93- 8/93 Dredge & Fill Permit Review Surface Water Permit Review Collier County Government Development Services Naples, Florida 10/90-2/93 Site Development Plan Compliance Planned Unit Development Compliance Site Drainage Inspections Southwest Florida Water Management District Tampa, Florida 9/87-10/90 As -Built Inspections- Engineering, Survey Surface and Ground Water Permit Compliance Well Construction & Abandonment Inspections Southwest Florida Water Management District Brooksville, Florida 1/86-9/87 Wetland Vegetation Studies At Major Well Fields Water Quality Sampling & Testing Environmental Analyst Environmental Specialist II Landscape Inspections Environmental Enforcement Field Services Technician (CO -OP) Environmental Scientists 1 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Florida Association of Environmental Professionals, Member Southwest Florida Association of Environmental Professionals, Member Elected to Governing Board for 2 terms, served on Bylaws Committee Exotic Pest Plant Council, Member Appointed by the Board of County Commissioners and Served on the Collier County Environmental Advisory Board Appointed by the Board of County Commissioners and Currently Serving on the Development Services Advisory Committee Currently Serving on the Land Development Code Sub - Committee CP- 2008 -1 EXHIBIT LID Page 8 of 10 Appointed by the Board of County Commissioners and Served on Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee 6 years Served as Chairman of the Conservation Collier Lands Evaluation and Management Sub - Committee, Award for Five (5) years of Voluntary Service to Collier County By the Board of County Commissioners Gopher Tortoise Management and Mitigation Professional Training Program Successful Completion 9/01 REFERENCES UPON REQUEST CP- 2008 -1 EXHIBIT LID Page 9 of 10 Juan A. Araque, PSM Surveyor Education • Bachelor of Science Land Surveying University of Costa Rica, Professional Registrations/ Affiliations • Florida Surveying and Mapping Society 0 GradyMinor Mr. Araque has been a Project Manager for Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. since 2005. He has been responsible for the coordination of field crews for project stakeout of single family and multi - family development projects and, transportation and utility engineering projects. Mr. Araque's 8 years of Land Surveying experience include Platting, Topographic and Construction work. He has extensive computer experience in Land Development Desktop, Carlson Civil /Survey and Civil /Survey SoftDesk within AutoCAD design. Relevant Projects Public Sector • Boundary and Topographic Survey Services for the North Water Treatment Plant Marco Island The Marco Island City Hall Fire Control District, City of Marco Island, Florida Private Sector Platting, Surveying and Construction Layout for various residential subdivisions in Collier County, Florida, including: ❖ Laurel Lakes Phase I; ❖ Black Bear Ridge, Ph I; ❖ Orange Blossom Ranch Phase 113 ❖ Artesia Naples Manchester Square. Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Civil Engineers • Surveyors • Land Planners • Landscape Architects CP- 2008 -1 EXHIBIT LID Page 10 of 10 rmilh ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT III.A LEGAL DESCRIPTION SKETCH OF LEGAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit III.A d 7M - 79 31 V,9 A13G 700 A H O o a W > OWti z 4 v O 3 U p U W W WoW4 z 0 cs N O W ti O z p O W h Z Q 25 0 Q 00) <W <JO 2 Q:W40 anti jU �o jO ".a i O 4Lu ZU Wiry a"W �o W� �Q h J Z�U Q O OOyW2�y OW Wv �� 0.0Q m rOrnnO O�Wti ti� Om OO �Y a VJ m0.. _ � < y O Q 0004 Oy �Q oy o2 h �' � �CCO O 4W ..ay4 UO�Y UO 04Wi O y0a +i `0. Ovav 0. N0. O O 62 e' ^C°a rr^^ Kt of W�p4p O'L�y� pti0 O•� ^� � N■ -39� ■ 0. 2 2 Y � ~ O 2 2 � � -1 k� � is Q2- 6 O W z iii• O � N ?. 0.0 W Y W OW Oz 06 �0. t� X06 OOQ Oti W2 rA V Z�S`RO iY Iz �yQE WZOhO 4 0 44 V 2 Vj y 0 WO tit ti pRp ti� ti ff y° y 0 W� O�� ti S �''� W6 WU WU Cap W0. W� oijU y� <O `Y 00 N� y v' aay 6 bm zVCt � p 4 2 tk- d O W 4¢w co © gOm �t0 aOm �O� AQ4Wi� Q2 j Q h0.00 �`2° "0a3 _ rgyjQm 'y� Z pzv' 0�4 p.•0. Oti4 Oti4 00. Oti4 Otis' Otia OtiNa � R ti 2 Q y C Page 1 of 3 Exhibit III.A Page 2 of 3 Exhibit III.A - G479 NOSM-6179 M30V,9 A z e ca - i om3 zt 0 N R 3 OU m ui Q'' ti w Wa� � H w Ed Q L- F4 , Qs �i Z5 ¢� ^� �n O o� �O ZQ W� j�� i> h h W a Q OWtiO U ti 0 W ° h d ti I-Z U p p th til 2 ~ W Q in W �fFn��Z H O� U VQ Q 12 ti C 4 Q W CLW Z 2�2U ° V WO Ed V O V Q Q. i�ULlI e W 3 Oct W h ?bj y W O ?x? Z O ti 1 v Q 2 H ti Q CIZ Q 'o O �U N !t WF,4hvmi w vO�Wi' GS CZg4N W 40c°.i4' 3 CQJ�ry�� NZ Q • Q) ° O C �czz?zy Wa° �U � t O jo ow��2 �j¢ ! Q,, pH lUa'ovWx022j��y� °y0� eOW tiV �pti 2h 0�Oj a� °H �b yVx-ia r 2 titi Wm otip �`W�"�W2 QU TWO W! ~ tt�� quip yf^ i CO KA �i � .¢�W♦ bV �S`dl��` m Qa'ti W� ° °V �Q WQ V�� °per W 6 y .L c:j�4� �air�040 W��WWJ h2 �_ '7,Z WW 1.5 U V 44 Q W Q CO O W~4 Q ti p n A 2 J o �QVV 4+2Z-- ti W W W W 2 oUUt;01 Qa2� �Q UGH �O ��U4Qiti�cQab ti�0 k j eo h y Page 2 of 3 Exhibit III.A N m w 0 w NOTES 1 1 I I I I I EAST 75.0 CIVIL ENGINEERS ■ LAND SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS ■ LANDSCAPF. ARCHITECTS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY I I I OF WEST I80 SOUTH 75.0 OF THE NORTH 150 OF WEST 180 TRACT 107 SHEETS 1 Of J AND 2 OF 3 I I RACT 109 I TRACT Ill SCALE: TRACT 110�I+ 110 I N00 °19'10 "E I -- S89 °40'5 "E 660.00' ZZ W TRACT �07 I S00 °19'10"W WEST EAST 75.00' ~ O 107 I I I TRACT 108 TRACT 108 I rRA50.009- 105.0 I I 75.00' I I I S 89 °4050 "E 660.00' TRACT 1091 I ' I ' S 89 °4050 "E 680.00' 1 I I o SUBJECT PROPERTY I y N o -^� 60.0 ROAD EASEMENT �� h " , m� t 40.62 ACRES "' " 1 I �I I - 60.0 ROAD I EASEMENT g�� v h - -- I 1 1 I I I I I EAST 75.0 CIVIL ENGINEERS ■ LAND SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS ■ LANDSCAPF. ARCHITECTS EAST 75.0 I I I OF WEST I80 I OF WEST 180 TRACT 107 2 3 I I RACT 109 - 150.0 1800 -TRACT I I SCALE: TRACT 110�I+ 110 I 3 WEST I -DATE: JANUARY, 2007 77 M LYRE W AURL E8 0005151 SR fIWG ffRT. 0' AUM. L& 0X5151 L.v %Aff ARN 8V SS lye 6 ZZ W TRACT �07 I I I EAST , TRACT WEST EAST EAST WEST 1 f ~ O 107 I I I TRACT 108 TRACT 108 I rRA50.009- 105.0 I I o I I I TRACT 1091 w l I I I I I b 0 I I I y I I J TRACT 107 TRACT 108 100.0 ROAD I 1 I I L_ rRACT 109 I I 1 I C EASEMENT r-r -- - - -a-- -- -- -r -7 - -- LEGEND P.O,B. a P0/NT OF BEC/NNIN6 CENTERLINE OF GOLDEN GATE BL l9. k SOUTH LINE OF GOLDEN CATE ESTATES, UNIT Noll 'NOTA SURVEY` I 1 1 N I 1 � 1 I o'® Da SCALD 1' = 200' 1 THIS EXHIBIT MAY HAVE BEEN i I REDUCED OR ENLARGED I i , ROAD --{ I CIVIL ENGINEERS ■ LAND SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS ■ LANDSCAPF. ARCHITECTS EASEMENT EASEMENT 1 JA I WEST I EAST 2 3 RCGMPA - 150.0 1800 -TRACT ti SCALE: TRACT 110�I+ 110 I I �W I -DATE: JANUARY, 2007 77 M LYRE W AURL E8 0005151 SR fIWG ffRT. 0' AUM. L& 0X5151 L.v %Aff ARN 8V SS lye 6 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FILE: 8-9580 I I I c TP4CT 110 --- T-- J TRACT 143 TRACT 144 --L - - - -- - - - - -� N 89 40'50_" W 2000.00_' GOLDEN GATE BLVD P.O.B. SE CORNER TRACT 144 (100' WOE RICH T -Lip -WAY) 1 I g �I of I �I°o �I I I 3 o ! 1 m� 1 1 �- I 1 Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P. A. 5Kt I (;H L U AUGUMYANY LLUAL DRAWN BY. JD CIVIL ENGINEERS ■ LAND SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS ■ LANDSCAPF. ARCHITECTS CHECK BY.- JA BONITA SPRINGS FORTMYERS NORTH PORT A PORTION OF JOB CODE: RCGMPA J800 WA DEL REY 11940 FAIRWAY LAKES DR. 2562 COMMERCE PKWY. GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT N6.11 SCALE: 1 "= 200 )N/TA SPRINGS, 34134 FT. WERS, 6 90 -- 4380 (941J 476 -55 858 33913 NORTH PORT, 34289 (239) 947 -111 44 (239) 6 SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST -DATE: JANUARY, 2007 77 M LYRE W AURL E8 0005151 SR fIWG ffRT. 0' AUM. L& 0X5151 L.v %Aff ARN 8V SS lye 6 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FILE: 8-9580 9w www.graaymznor.com I ISHEFT; 3OF3 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT IV.B AMENDED LANGUAGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 Exhibit IV.B Proposed Growth Management Plan Text a. Estates — Commercial District (VIII)) Residential Estates Subdistrict development may be allowed within the Estates — CommercalyDist ict at' a maximum density of one unit per 21/4 gross acres unless the lot is considered a legal non - conforming lot of record. - --ate- the estates Shopping Center designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map .•l A required and reduce traffic impacts in this area of Collier County, and limitations: a. Allowable Uses shall be limited to the following: 1. Amusement and Recreation 'Groups 7911 7991 7993 and 7999 includin onl day cams instruction 'udo /karate instruction sporting -goods rental and yoga instruction) 2. Apparel and Accessory Stores (Grou s 5611 5699) 3. Auto anti Pn__ c,,..��.. �..____ __ 0 5. - �� JJ't I incivain asoline service stations without repair) Automotive Re air and Services Grou s 7514 7534 includin nly tire repair. 7539 including only minor service lubricating and diagnostic service) and 7542) - 7384, and 7389) ' � v 6. Child Day Care Services (Group 8351) 7. Communications (Groups 4812 4841) 71- Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT IV.B De oor 8. s dU - - -__ _ 6099 6111 -6163 including drive through facilities 9. Eatin Places (Group 5812 including only liquor restaurant use. 10. Educational Services (Group 82991 11.E1 ineerinq ACCOUntlnq Research and Managerr 8741 -8743 87481 Food Stores (Groups 5411 -5499 includ �a 12. cti1 13. Generai iviercnal iu- ---- _- _ _ 14. Government Administration Offices (Groups 9111 -9199 15. Hardware Garden Suppl and Paint/ Wallpaper Stores (Grou 5251 and 5261) 16.1 liolidii i and Other Investment (Groups 6712 -6799 17. Home Furniture /Furnishings (Grou s 5712-5736 18. Insurance Carriers (Grou s 6311 -6361 19. Justice Public Order and Safet Grou s 9221 9222 9229 and 20. Meeting and Banquet Rooms 21. Miscellaneous Retail (Groups 5912 5921 (accessory to g harmac onl) 5932 5941 5949 5992-5 995. 7221 7251 7291- 22. Personal Services %.7, uu J , - • - - 23. Real Estate (Groups 6512 -65521 24. Security and Commodit Brokers Grou :P)-s-6--2-1--l---6--2-8-9-1 25. Transportation Services (Group 4724) 26. Video Rental (GrouN 7841 ^ 27. U.S. Post Office Grou 4311 excluding ma'or distributio 28. An other similar use as may be approved by the Board The following uses shall be rohibited within the Subdistrict: b The following uses shall be prohibited: 1. Drinking Places L5 ( 813) and Stand Alone Liquor Stores (5921) 2. Mail Order Houses (5 961 3. Merc)andizing Machine Operators L9621 4. Power Laundries (7211 5. Crematories (7261 7313 6. Radio TV Re resentatives and Direct Mail Advertisin Services 7331 7. NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges, +Waterslideasce c. (7999and Specialty 8. General 1osP11 Hospitals ( 8069) 9. Elementary and Secondary Schools (8211) Colleges (8221) Junior Colleges (8222) 10. Libraries (8231) 11. Correctional Institutions (9223) 12. Waste Management 9511 Page 2 of 7 EXHIBIT IV.B 13. Homeless Shelters and Sou Kitchens leasable floor area. area. the specified timeframes cost within 120 rinxic of a written re uest from the Couna request for reimbursement ion Of Occupancy (CO) for more than Inn nnn square feet of development, The applicant m11.0 nhtnin -n r n s obtained. uses. �•�W3 L11U C� nuea aeveio ment area and required preserve area for this subdistrict is attached. The Preserve area depicted on the conceptual plan shall satisfy all comprehensive plan requirements for retained native veaetation including but not limited to the requirements of POIiC 6.1 .1 of the CCME. A more detailed develo ment plan must be developed and utilized for the required PUD rezoning g. Development standards includinq permitted uses and setbacks for principal buildings shall be established at the time of PUD rezoning, Any future PUD rezone shall include at a minimum: 1 A minimum twenty -five (25) feet wide landscape buffer must be provided adjacent to external rights -of -way. n Page 3 of 7 EXHIBIT IV.B 2 No commercial building ma be constructed within 125 feet of the ^ northern or western property boundary of this subdistict. (3) Any portion of the Project directly abutting residential property (property zoned E Estates and without an approved conditional use) shall provide, at a minimum a seventy five (75) feet wide buffer except the westernmost 330' of Tract 106 which shall provide a minimum 20' wide buffer in which no parking uses are permitted Twenty -five (25) feet of the width of the buffer along the developed area shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of fifty feet of the buffer width shall consist of retained or re- planted native vegetation and must be consistent with subsection 3.05.37.1-1 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) The native vegetation retention area may consist of ._9 perimeter berm and be used for water management detention. Any newly constructed berm shall be reve etated to meet subsection 3.05.07.H of the LDC (native vegetation replanting requirements). Additionally, in order to be considered for approval use of the native vegetation retention area for water management purposes shall meet the following criteria. (4) There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained. The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro-period unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the existing vegetation. (5)lf the proiect requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management District the proiect shall provide a letter or official document from the District indicatin i that the native vegetation within the retention area will ^ not have to be removed to comply with water management requirements If the District cannot or will not supply such a letter, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for water management. (6)If the project is reviewed by Collier County, the County, engineer shall provide evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to facilitate the necessary storage of water in the water management area. a. Estates — Mixed Use District (VI)2— Neighborhood Center Subdistrict — Recognizing the need to provide basic goods, services and amenities to Estates residents, Neighborhood Centers have been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. The Neighborhood Center designation does not guarantee that commercial zoning will be granted. The designation only provides the opportunity to request commercial zoning. (VI) a) The Collier County Land Development Code shall be amended to provide rural design criteria to regulate all new commercial development within Neighborhood Centers. (III)(V)(VI) b) Locations Page 4 of 7 EXHIBIT IV.B Neighborhood Centers are located along major roadways and are distributed within Golden Gate Estates according to commercial demand estimates, (See Map 9). The centers are designed to concentrate all new commercial zoning, and conditional uses, as allowed in the Estates Zoning District, in locations where traffic impacts can be readily accommodated and to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial and conditional use development. Four Neighborhood Centers are established as follows: Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center. This center consists of alt --fGw three quadrants at the intersection of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards (See Map 10). The NE and SE quadrants of the Center consist of Tract 1 and 2, Unit 14, Tract 17, Unit 13 and the western half of Tract 18, Unit 13 Golden Gate Estates. The NE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is approximately 8.45 acres. The parcels within the NE quadrant shall be interconnected and share access to Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard to minimize connections to these two major roadways. The SE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is 7.15 acres, allows 5.00 acres of commercial development, and allocates 2.15 acres to project buffering and right -of -way for Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. The Eensisfis of Tr t 144 Unit i 4 The SW quadrant of the Center is approximately 4.86 acres in size and consists of Tract 125, Unit 12 of Golden Gate Estates. Also revise as follows: TABLE OF CONTENTS, LIST OF MAPS Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict [Page 1] • add name of this inset map in FLUE where maps are listed. Policy 1.1.2: The ESTATES Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Useage 5] Districts and Subdistricts for: 1. ESTATES — MIXED USE DISTRICT a. Residential Estates Subdistrict b. Neighborhood Center Subdistirct C. Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict d. Conditional Uses Subdistrict Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT IV.B /"'t 2. ESTATES — COMMERCIAL DISTRICT a. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict • add the new Subdistrict in FLUE policy 1.1.2.2 that lists all Designations /Districts /Subdistricts. Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT IV.B is v O O II ai 0 P. 4. O nz 0. r1 Y 0 ca rn O ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBITS IV.Da IV.Db IV.Dc IV.Dd AMENDED MAPS GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 ,.� AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 IN ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRIC U) LEGEND MAN DESIGNATION ESTAIM DE9GNAI1M AORMLTURAL/AURAL DESIGNATION 10® IS 0R.0{T IOeD � 06POCf ❑ 081E rdRt00R �A aI6I �nrl ®nar 0e1I0'.T ❑ ®n0A mnm •mR�l enrVERLM AND iocc ❑vwnon mro mr�rs m�Imr sam mnv aomaroa ❑ ®mw uv arz m�ro uiva m ti p 10 W r ❑ M� rCIt�2R mRY .�16T ❑ o m ❑ maro sours mnm10A etler ®wru � IMMOKALEE ROAD El owllow ❑ vmu, mwoea` NRD lio 01r 400! Z M1�101 YTYR 0l6rIVq r6tQ MOIi M DMRa Mrz .�MYRM ®;��; ®^° M OYLL � O'0'YICi U) z DAMS BOULEVARD N S.R. 84 c >O m N G� m ti p 10 W r 3 U o m IMMOKALEE ROAD n PROJECT LOCATION rO. ACRES- ESTATESSHOPPING _ CENTER SUBDISTRICT JQ m VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD ` m GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD FFQE z rc PINE RD. -G WHITE BLVD. U) m o m r � � 3 m 0- I G.G. PKWY. a F z °a Ir U) n r 7N S.R. 84 GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP IMMOKALEE ROAD OIL WELL ROAD RANDALL BOULEVARD SUBJECT SITE: ESTATES (MIXED USE ESTATES SUBDISTRR = 30.62± ACRES ESTATES (MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD CEN c 10.00± ACRES _ m o N m 61I �I o W SCALE 0 1 M 2 HL 3M. 4 KL 5 M PREPARED m IDVDAD NAPPDO SECTION mw DEVElIPlpii Arm Dam431140IT& SEW= RMUM mm Wm Pao row- ewl -c -Emre R26E I R27E R28E DISTRICT, RESIDENTIAL T) DISTRICT, TER SUBDISTRICT) _ z DAMS BOULEVARD N S.R. 84 c m m N G� m ti p 10 w r ��% 3 U U) n r 7N S.R. 84 GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP IMMOKALEE ROAD OIL WELL ROAD RANDALL BOULEVARD SUBJECT SITE: ESTATES (MIXED USE ESTATES SUBDISTRR = 30.62± ACRES ESTATES (MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD CEN c 10.00± ACRES _ m o N m 61I �I o W SCALE 0 1 M 2 HL 3M. 4 KL 5 M PREPARED m IDVDAD NAPPDO SECTION mw DEVElIPlpii Arm Dam431140IT& SEW= RMUM mm Wm Pao row- ewl -c -Emre R26E I R27E R28E DISTRICT, RESIDENTIAL T) DISTRICT, TER SUBDISTRICT) _ i� ON 21 Eel: tee' PENAZI Collier County, Florida IMMOKALEE ROAD EXHIBIT IV.Dc: WILSON BOULEVARD /GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD CENTER Collier County, Florida IMMOKALEE SUBJECT PROPERTY 40.6± ACRES ADOPTED — SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 (Ord. No. 2003 -44) ADOPTED — JANUARY 25, 2007 (Ord. No. 2007 -19) 0 1/2 MI. 1 ML PREPARED BY, GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISIO FILE, GGMP -43- 2007 -2.DWG DATE- 2/2007 LEGEND GOLDEN GATE SETTLEMENT ESTATES AREA ESTATES SHOPPING NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER SUBDISTRICT CENTER ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Collier County, Florida IMMOKALEE ADOPTED — SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 (Ord. No. 2003 -44) ADOPTED — JANUARY 25, 2007 (Ord. No. 2007 -19) 0 1/2 MI. 1 MI. PREPARED BY, GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISID FILE, GGMP -43- 2007 -2.DWG DATE, 2/2007 LEGEND GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 0 SETTLEMENT AREA n ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBITS V.A.la V.A.lb to � V.A.2 V.A.3a V.A.3b LAND USE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 tT 17'� -�-Aa:; Lo Lo PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, 0 D COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING EA-11. —C.-hi WESTERN COLLIER COUNTY LEGEND GENERALIZED ZONING u) ❑ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ❑ PUD COMMERCIAL Lo 13 PUD INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ❑ GOLDEN GATE CITY ❑ INCORPORATED (S) INDICATES PUD HAS SUNSETIED (p) ozrmm mmp= no 14, 2W a W. SLNi IF F R 25 E COLLIER EEW STATE PARK R 26 E I R 27 E LE as " �.i .......... %6w. tT 17'� -�-Aa:; Lo Lo PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, 0 D COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING EA-11. —C.-hi WESTERN COLLIER COUNTY LEGEND GENERALIZED ZONING u) ❑ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ❑ PUD COMMERCIAL Lo 13 PUD INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ❑ GOLDEN GATE CITY ❑ INCORPORATED (S) INDICATES PUD HAS SUNSETIED (p) ozrmm mmp= no 14, 2W a W. SLNi IF F R 25 E COLLIER EEW STATE PARK R 26 E I R 27 E HABITAT WOODCREST ESTATE SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.A.1 b GENERAL LOCATION MAP - ENLARGEMENT II'Al RANDALL BOULEVARD MIR -MAR RANDALL BLVD. CENTER(S) GOLDEN GATE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ESTATES UNIT 24 UNIT 25 UNIT 20 UNIT 23 SUBJECT GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES PROPERTY GOLDEN TE195TATES UNIT 16 UNIT 17 UNIT 16 40.6± ACRES LL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES V UNIT 6 UNIT 7 UNIT 10 UNIT 11 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 14 UNIT 49 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 50 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD C-2 C -3 WILSON / BLVD. CENTER GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 5 UNIT 8 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 9 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 12 UNIT 13 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 48 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 51 WARREN BROTHERS GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 15 UNIT 194 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 193 LEGEND GENERALIZED ZONING ❑ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ❑ PUD COMMERCIAL PUD INDUSTRIAL ® INDUSTRIAL 0 COMMERCIAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ❑ GOLDEN GATE CITY ❑ INCORPORATED (S) INDICATES PUD HAS SUNSETTED (P) INDSCAr:- PROP! PuD 0 1 MI. 2 MI. 3 MI. O SCALE PREPARED BY: GIS /GD MAPPING DEPARTMENT GVAIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENNRONMENTAL SERVICES DIM510N ZONING AS O JANUARY 2009 PATE 1/2009 ML' PLANTEC-2009 -1. ❑ ZONED - E (ESTATES) ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.A.2 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SUBJECT SITE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH COPYRIGHT COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS OFFICE AERIAL DATE: JANUARY 2008 NORTH 0' 150' 300' 600' EXHIBIT V.A.3a .-� ZONING MAP SUBJECT PROPERTY: 40.6± ACRES EXISTING ZONING: E (ESTATES) EXISTING USE: VACANT AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NORTH ZONING: E (ESTATES) USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SOUTH ZONING: E (ESTATES), C -3 (COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE) AND CPUD (SNOWY EGRET PLAZA AND WILSON BOULEVARD CENTER) USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL COMMERCIAL CENTERS EAST ZONING: E (ESTATES) AND C -2 (COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE) USE: SINGLE FAMIILY RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL CENTER WEST ZONING: E (ESTATES) USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL I,4 4i Y� " 'o SUBJECT SITE + + 500' RADIUS NORTH COLLIER COUNPY ZONING MAP GGE05E AND GGE05B Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Exhibit V.A.3b Summary Table of Land Use & Zoning (within 500 feet) UNIT # TRACT # LAND USE ZONED APPROXIMATE ACREAGE 11 73 USFR (Undeveloped Single Family Residential) E 1.06 73 DSFR (Developed Single Family Residential E 2.12 74 DSFR E 4.66 75 DSFR E 5.00 76 USFR E 2.27 76 DSFR E 2.73 77 DSFR E 2.50 104 DSFR E 2.50 105 DSFR E 5.01 106 DSFR E 2.28 111 USFR E 1.14 112 DSFR E 5.00 113 DSFR E 2.73 140 DSFR E 2.81 141 DSFR E 5.51 142 DSFR E 2.34 14 5 USFR E 2.81 4 DSFR E 5.51 3 DSFR E 1.17 3 USFR E 3.98 2 USFR E 2.12 2 DSFR E 1.06 1 UC (Undeveloped Commercial) E 2.41 1 DC (Developed Commercial) C2 1.93 13 18 USFR E 2.03 17 DC CPUD 8.04 12 125 UC CPUD 5.46 124 USFR E 4.58 123 DSFR E 4.68 122 DSFR E 2.08 122 USFR E 2.50 89 DSFR E 5.15 88 USFR E 2.08 88 DSFR E 2.50 87 Undeveloped Government E 2.48 87 DSFR E 2.08 86 DSFR E 4.58 TOTAL Exhibit V.A.3b Land Use Summary.doc RCGMPA 11 ' 118.89 Estates Shopping Center Exhibit V.A.3b Summary Table of Land Use & Zoning (within 500 feet) e0-1111 Page 2 of 2 n LAND USE USFR (Undeveloped Single Family Residential) DSFR (Developed Single Family Residential UC (Undeveloped Commercial) DC (Developed Commercial) Undeveloped Government TOTAL 70XTWC4 E, ESTATES C2 CPUD (Commercial Planned Development) TOTAL APPROXIMATE ACREAGE APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Exhibit V.A.3b Land Use Summary.doc RCGMPA 24.57 74.00 7.87 9.97 2.48 118.89 103.46 1.93 13.50 118.89 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT V.B FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 IN Ef ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.B Vl LEGEND V URBAN DEmaVAnON MAIM DEMATKM ADRICULnAUL,/RURAL DEm ""ION ram urs R39lT � Dc RiWCr ❑ ..� ammrt ASA ffiId.T ❑�.�.�, n > o mod? OVERLAYS AND saEaAL FEATlMES ealo m�N. eR.s�r ❑ ® � >d° .m°1Pi m1°�,rwnea m � *'AII ACRES- ESTATESSNOPPING ❑..ee m ❑ .II�� .CIIVR. m11O eee[IQST G ❑ wRA wOtl ea�x.misr lM i6 60W! : W, Q > CENTER SUBDISTRICT o 3 ❑ mL® nAtvm mmw. weer ®wrai mamRSA s�reer ❑ � a rsn�m m a G.G. PKWY. Vl m V 0 1k 2NL 3 M 4 H 0 m1 F m IMMOKALEE ROAD n > o mod? PROJECT LOCATION m � *'AII ACRES- ESTATESSNOPPING 'S _ Q > CENTER SUBDISTRICT o 3 m \VANDERBILT m m a G.G. PKWY. o BEACH ROAD I o m m ° o GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD o z rc � m a PINE RD. WHITE BLVD. GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP IMMOKALEE ROAD OIL WELL ROAD RANDALL BOULEVARD SUBJECT SITE: ESTATES (MIXED USE ESTATES SUBDISTRI( = 30.62± ACRES f z a m DAVIS BOULEVARD S.R. 84 N p G� W fj N p F clrc ohm m Cd 6 cj O U ® LEA=- \ i SCALE 0 1k 2NL 3 M 4 H 0 m1 PREPARES m D CAD NAPPW SECTION CM91UH tt DEVELwaxr AND ENJAWENTAL SERVMM DI ERN DAM uvem PDJ; Ggur B-LDVD M R27E R29E > o mod? o � m � F- i Q o 3 m m a G.G. PKWY. o I o m o o ¢ � m a m r4 M-71 S.R. 84 f z a m DAVIS BOULEVARD S.R. 84 N p G� W fj N p F clrc ohm m Cd 6 cj O U ® LEA=- \ i SCALE 0 1k 2NL 3 M 4 H 5 H PREPARES m D CAD NAPPW SECTION CM91UH tt DEVELwaxr AND ENJAWENTAL SERVMM DI ERN DAM uvem PDJ; Ggur B-LDVD R28E I R27E R29E ESTATES (MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD CEN DISTRICT, RESIDENTIAL ;T) DISTRICT, TER SUBDISTRICT) _ n ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBITS V.C.la V.C.lb FLUCFS AND SOILS MAPS GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.C.1 a FLUCFCS MAP AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH COPYRIGHT COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS OFFICE AERIAL DATE: JANUARY 2008 SUBJECT SITE v- FLUCCS LINE 0' 200' 400' FLUCCS CODE FLUCCS DESIGNATION ACREAGE % 121 SINGLE FAMILY HOME 9.00 22.16 321 PALMETTO 2.40 5.91 411 PINE FLATWOODS 5.80 14.28 428 CABBAGE PALM 3.0 7.39 621 CYPRESS CANOPY WITH BRAZILIAN PEPPER 0.66 1.62 624D PINE, CYPRESS, CABAGE PALM - DRAINED 18.86 46.43 814 ROADS AND HIGHWAYS 0.81 1.99 8335 PUMP STATION 0.09 0.22 TOTAL 40.62 100.00 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.C.1 b SOILS MAP GO ® SUBJECT SITE SOILS LINE NORTH 0' 200' 400' DESCRIPTION ACREAGE PERCENTAGE BOCA FINE SAND (21) 6.57± 16% PINEDA FINESAND, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM (14) 34.03± 84% TOTAL 40.6± 100% AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH COPYRIGHT COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS OFFICE EXHIBIT V.C.1 B Page 1 of 5 AERIAL DATE: JANUARY 2008 (21) Boca Fine Sand- This nearly level, poorly drained soil is on the flatwoods. Individual areas are elongated and irregular in shape and range from 20 to 350 acres. The slope is 0 to 2 percent. Typically, the surface layer is very dark gray fine sand about 4 inches thick. The subsurface.layer is fine sand to a depth of about 26 inches; the upper part is light gray and the lower part is brown. The subsoil is dark grayish brown fire sandy loam to a depth of about 30 inches. Limestone bedrock is at a depth of about 30 inches. In 95 percent of areas mapped as this soil, Boca and similar soils make up 79 to 93 percent of the map unit. The characteristics of Hallendale soil are similar. Soils of dissimilar characteristics included in this map unit are small areas of Pineda and Riviera, limestone substratum soils in slough landscape positions. These soils make up about 7 to 21 percent of the unit. The permeability of this soil is moderate. The available water capacity is very low. In most years, under natural conditions, the seasonal high water table is between 6 to 18 inches of the surface of 1 to 6 months. In other months, the water table is below 38 inches and recedes to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. Rarely is it above the surface. Natural vegetation consists mostly of south Florida slash pine, cabbage palm, sawpalmetto, waxmyrtle, chalky bluestem and pineland threeawn. This soil is poorly suited to.culti.vated crops because of wetness and droughtiness. The number of adapted crops is limited unless very intensive management practices are followed. With.good water control and soil improving measures, the soil can be made suitable form many fruit and vegetable crops. A water control system-is needed to remove excess water in wet season and provide water through subsurface irrigation in dry seasons. Row crops should be rotated with cover crops. Seedbed preparation should include bedding of the rows. Fertilizer and lime should be added according to the need of the crops. With proper water control, the.soil is well suited to citrus. Water control systems that maintain good drainage to an effective depth are needed_ Bedding the soil prior to planting provides good surface and internal drainage and elevates the trees above the seasonal high water table. A good grass cover crop between the tz-ef--s h&IPS tO grmtect the soil from blowing when the trees are young. With good water control management, this soil is well suited to pasture. A water control system -i,s..needed to remove excess water during the wet season. It : s:...sntexl ,;suited to pangolagrass, EXHIBIT V.C.1 B Page 2 of 5 rf/ !yj ' V bahiagrass and clover. Excellent pastures of grass or grass - clover mixtures can be grown with good management. Regular applications of fertilizers and controlled grazing are needed for highest yields. This soil is moderately suited for desirable range plant production. The dominant forage is creeping bluestem, lopsided indiangrass, pineland threeawn and chalky bluestem. Management practices should include deferred grazing and brush control. This Boca soil is in the South Florida Flatwood range site. This soil has severe limitations for most urban uses because of wetness_ If this soil is used as septic tank absorption fields, it should be mounded to maintain the system well above the seasonal high water table.. For recreational uses, this soil also has severe limitations because of .wetness, but with proper drainage to remove excess surface water during wet periods, many of these limitations can be overcome. This Boca soil is in capability subclass IIIw. /"'1111 /I'-- EXHIBIT V.C.1 B Page 3 of 5 �. z In 95 percent of the areas mapped as Hallandale fine sand, Hallandale and similar soils make up 83 to 98 percent of the map unit. In the remaining areas, the Hallandale soil makes up either a higher or lower percentage of the mapped areas. The characteristics of Boca and Jupiter soils are similar to those of the Hallandale soil. The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small areas of Pineda and Riviera, limestone substratum, soils in sloughs. These soils make up about 17 percent or less of the unit. The permeability of this soil is rapid. The available water capacity is very low. Under natural conditions, the seasonal high water table is between a depth of 6 to 18 inches for 1 to 6 months during most years. During the other months, the water table is below a depth of 18 inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. The natural vegetation consists of South Florida slash pine, saw palmetto, creeping bluestem, chalky bluestem, and pineland threeawn. This soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops because of the wetness and droughtiness. The number of adapted crops is limited unless very intensive management practices are used. With good water - control and soil - improving measures, this soil is suitable for many fruit and vegetable crops. A water - control system is needed to remove excess water during wet seasons and to provide water through subsurface irrigation during dry seasons. Row crops should be rotated with cover crops. Seedbed preparation should include bedding of the rows. Applications of fertilizer and lime should be based on the needs of the crops. With proper water - control measures, the soil is well suited to citrus. A water - control system that maintains good drainage to an effective depth is needed. Planting on raised beds provides good surface and internal drainage and elevates the trees above the seasonal high water table. Planting a good grass cover crop between the trees helps to protect the soil from blowing when the trees are younger. With good water - control management, this soil is well suited to pasture. A water - control system is needed to remove excess water during the wet season. This soil is well suited to pangolagrass, bahiagrass, and clover. Excellent pastures of grass or a grass - clover mixture can be grown with good management. Regular applications of fertilizer and controlled grazing are needed for the highest possible yields. This soil is moderately suited to range. The dominant forage consists of creeping bluestem, lopsided indiangrass, pineland threeawn, and chalky bluestem. Management practices should include deferred grazing Soil Survey 1 and brush control. This Hallandale soil is in the South Florida Flatwoods range site. This soil has severe limitations for most urban uses because of the shallow depth to bedrock and the wetness. It has severe limitations for septic tank absorption fields because of the depth to bedrock, wetness, and poor filtration. If this soil is used as a septic tank absorption field, it should be mounded to maintain the system well above the seasonal high water table. For recreational uses, this soil has severe limitations because of wetness, the sandy texture, and the shallow depth to bedrock; however, with proper drainage to remove excess surface water during wet periods, some of these limitations can be overcome. This Hallandale soil is in capability subclass IVw. 14— Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum This nearly level, poorly drained soil is in sloughs and poorly defined drainageways. Individual areas are elongated and irregular in shape, and they range from 20 to 300 acres in size. The slope is 0 to 2 percent. Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown fine sand about 4 inches thick. The subsurface layer is light brownish gray fine sand to a depth of about 12 inches. The subsoil extends to a depth of about 55 inches. The upper part of the subsoil is brownish yellow and very pale brown fine sand, the next part is grayish brown sandy clay loam, and the lower part is light brownish gray and dark grayish brown fine sandy loam. Limestone bedrock is at a depth of about 55 inches. In 95 percent of the areas mapped as Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum, Pineda and similar soils make up 79 to 98 percent of the map unit. In the remaining areas, the Pineda soil makes up either a higher or lower percentage of the mapped areas. The characteristics of Holopaw and Riviera, limestone substratum, soils are similar to those of the Pineda soil. The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small areas of Boca, Hallandale, and Malabar soils in landscape positions similar to those of the Pineda soil. These soils make up about 11 percent of less of the unit. The permeability of this soil is slow. The available water capacity is low. Under natural conditions, the seasonal high water table is within a depth of 12 inches for 3 to 6 Months during most years. During the other months, the water table is below a depth of 12 inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. During periods of high rainfall, the soil is covered by shallow, slowly moving water for about 7 days. The natural vegetation consists of South Florida slash pine, waxmyrtle, chalky bluestem, blue maidencane, and gulf muhly. EXHIBIT V.C.1B Page 4 of 5 r'" I� Collier County Area, Florida This soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops because of the wetness and droughtiness. With good water - control and soil - improving measures, this soil is suitable for many fruit and vegetable crops. A water- control system is needed to remove excess water during wet seasons and to provide water through subsurface irrigation during dry seasons. Row crops should be rotated with cover crops. Seedbed preparation should include bedding of the rows. Applications of fertilizer and lime should be based on the needs of the crops. With proper water-control measures, the soil is moderately suited to citrus. A water - control system that maintains good drainage to an effective depth is needed. Planting on raised beds provides good surface and internal drainage and elevates the trees above the seasonal high water table. Planting a good grass cover crop between the trees helps to protect the soil from blowing when the trees are younger. With good water - control management, this soil is well suited to pasture. A water - control system is needed to remove excess water during the wet season. This soil is well suited to pangolagrass, bahiagrass, and clover. Excellent pastures of grass or a grass - clover mixture can be grown with good management. Regular applications of fertilizer and controlled grazing are needed for the highest possible yields. This soil is well suited to range. The dominant forage consists of blue maidencane, chalky bluestem, and bluejoint panicum. Management practices should include deferred grazing. This soil is in the Slough range site. This soil has severe limitations for most urban uses because of the high water table. It has severe limitations for septic tank absorption fields because of the wetness, slow percolation, and poor filtration. Building sites and septic tank absorption fields should be mounded to overcome these limitations. This soil also has severe limitations for recreational development because of wetness and the sandy texture. The problems associated with wetness can be corrected by providing adequate drainage and drainage outlets to control the high water table. The sandy texture can be overcome by adding suitable topsoil or by resurfacing the area. This Pineda soil is in capability subclass Illw. 15— Pomello fine sand This nearly level, moderately well drained soil is on low ridges on flatwoods. Individual areas are elongated and irregular in shape, and they range from 5 to 100 acres in size. The slope is 0 to 2 percent. Typically, the surface layer is gray fine sand about 4 inches thick. The subsurface layer is fine sand to a depth of about 35 inches. The upper part of the subsurface layer is light gray, and the lower part is white. The subsoil is fine sand to a depth of about 60 inches. The upper part of the subsoil is black, the next part is dark brown, and the lower part is brown. The substratum is light yellowish brown to brown fine sand to a depth of about 80 inches. In 95 percent of the areas mapped as Pomello fine sand, Pomello and similar soils make up 85 to 98 percent of the map unit. In the remaining areas, the Pomello soil makes up either a higher or lower percentage of the mapped areas. The permeability of this soil is moderately rapid. The available water capacity is low. Under natural conditions, the seasonal high water table is at a depth of 24 to 42 inches for 1 to 5 months during most years. During the other months, the water table is below a depth of 40 inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 80 inches during extended dry periods. The natural vegetation consists mostly of oak, South Florida slash pine, saw palmetto, cactus, chalky bluestem, creeping bluestem, and pineland threeawn. This soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops because of the droughtiness. The number of adapted crops is limited unless very intensive management practices are used. With irrigation and soil- improving measures, this soil is suitable for many fruit and vegetable crops. Row crops should be rotated with cover crops. Applications of fertilizer and lime should be based on the needs of the crops. With proper water - control measures, the soil is well suited to citrus. A water - control system that maintains good drainage to an effective depth is needed. Planting on raised beds provides good surface and internal drainage and elevates the trees above the seasonal high water table. Planting a good grass cover crop between the trees helps to protect the soil from blowing when the trees are younger. This soil is moderately suited to pasture. Pangolagrass and bahiagrass are adapted species, but they produce fair yields with good management. Regular applications of fertilizer and controlled grazing are needed for the highest possible yields. This soil is poorly suited to range. The dominant forage consists of creeping bluestem, lopsided indiangrass, pineland threeawn, and chalky bluestem. The dense growth of scrubby oaks, saw palmetto, and other shrubs dominates the desirable forage. Management practices should include deferred grazing and brush control. Livestock usually do not use this range site, except for protection and as dry bedding ground during the wet seasons. This Pomello soil is in the Sand Pine Scrub Range site. This soil has moderate limitations for most urban uses because of the wetness and droughtiness. It has severe limitations for septic tank absorption fields because of wetness and the poor filtration. If this soil is used as a EXHIBIT V.C.1 B Page 5 of 5 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT V.C.2 LISTED SPECIES GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 LISTED SPECIES SURVEY ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT (Previously known as The Village Common of Golden Gate Estates) Collier County, Florida OCTOBER 2006 Prepared By: Collier Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3880 Estey Avenue Naples, Florida 34104 (239) 263 - 2687 W EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 1 of 22 I Introduction / Purpose This report is an account of a %acted Species Survey recently performed on an acre tract. The parcel is located in Golden Gate Estates Collier County, Florida. Its purpose is to identify and describe key habitats and report any listed species using the site that would be at risk due to possible future development actions on the site. This survey and report are based on fieldwork performed during September 2006. II Site Description The site consists of approximately 33.51 acres and is located in Section 9, Township 49, Range 27; Collier County, Florida. The name of the project is The Village Common of Golden Gate Estates. The site consists of two separate parcels. See Exhibit # I - Location Map The dominant forest types on these parcels are Pine / Cypress/ Cabbage palm (624 D) and Palmetto (321). The availability of good functional habitat has been restricted. The parcels are located within a platted subdivision and at a very busy intersection. In addition, the parcels have some exotics and the natural hydrological regime has been disrupted. This Threatened and Endangered Species Survey placed an emphasis on surveying the pine flatwoods, this habitat offers some of the best quality foraging and nesting areas onsite. It has been noted that pine flatwoods are a prime habitat for the Red - Cockaded Woodpeckers and Big Cypress Fox Squirrels. However, no RCW's were sighted or active cavity trees found. In total the site consists of approximately 33.51 acres. The following is how the acreage figures breakdown. FLUCCS CODE 0.91 acres Cypress with Brazilian pepper 621/422 14.63 acres Single family home 121 2.37 acres Palmetto 321 13.97 acres Slash pine, Cypress, Cabbage pahn 624(D) 1.63 acres Disturbed / Cabbage palms 7401428 See Exhibit #2 - FLUCCS Map EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 2 of 22 III Threatened and Endanffered Species Survey_ The required survey for a Threatened and Endangered Species Survey calls for a survey covering 100 % of the site, at prescribed transect distances per site acreage. Such a survey was conducted in September 2006. Established transects were oriented north - south and east - west and superimposed on an aerial map of the site. These transects were ground - located and walked by compass bearing. Early morning (0730 -1000 ), mid -day (1100 - 1500) and late -day (1500 -1800) time periods were chosen to survey these transects. This survey was conducted daily for approximately 20 hours. All possible species of plants and animals listed by state and federal agencies were noted. IV Results & Discussions Listed Several species of plants that are listed by government agencies were found on this property during the transect surveys and none of the onsite plants are considered as being rare. Several species of Tillandsia were found. These plants are listed by the FDA as endangered, primarily due to their commercial value. Refer to Exhibit # 3 - Cumulative Plant List Listed Fauna Refer to Exhibit # 4 - Wildlife Species Observed Key Species Discussion Red Cockaded Woodpeckers Red - Cockaded woodpeckers are known to inhabit Pine Flatwoods. Observations were keyed to searching for signs or calls of these animals. All mature pines were checked along the transect routes. Particular attention was paid to the south and west faces of the trees, as that seems to be the predominant location of cavity openings. No individuals or cavity trees were identified during this survey. Gopher Tortoise This site does not offer suitable habitat for Gopher tortoise. Searches were keyed in the best areas such as the pine - palmetto areas. However, no signs or burrows were identified on the subject parcels. r-N EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 3 of 22 Big Cypress Fog Squirrels Big Cypress Fox Squirrels are known to use similar habitat as Red - Cockaded Woodpeckers. Observations were keyed to searching for signs or calls of these animals, such as leaf nests in canopy trees or the distinctive chattering of territorial squirrels. Several chewed pinecones were found on site. However, only gray squirrels were observed actively foraging. No Fox squirrels were identified on site during this survey. Fox squirrels are known to inhabit Golden Gate Estates and surrounding areas. Florida Panther Several individuals have been identified several miles to the east of the project site No individuals have been documented utilizing this project site or identified during this survey. This species also has a large home range and is known to inhabit Golden Gate Estates and surrounding areas. See Exhibit # 5 Florida Black Bear No individuals were observed during this survey even though Black bears are known to inhabit the general area. Special attention was for given for signs such as scraps, tracks and scat. This mammal has a large home range and is known to inhabit Golden Gate Estates and surrounding areas. Conclusions Our survey found no listed species on this site. In fact, very little wildlife was noted during the survey conducted over several days. Transects were walked on straight compass bearings along a grid spaced at approximately 20 yards apart for the entire parcel. Other transects were primarily meandering transects through areas of prime habitat. All transects were walked at varying times from post -dawn & mid -day to pre - sunset hours. The pine, palmetto areas still have enough recognizable character to support foraging by common small mammals and birds. Signs of small mammals such as rabbits, raccoons were readily visible in these areas. Several species of songbirds were seen passing through the.transect areas during this survey. Several factors have contributed to the decline of this site. The site has relic plant communities. The pine flatwoods and the pine/ cypress/ cabbage palm areas give hints of a greater past ability to support major populations of mammals and birds. The main factor contributing to the decline of quality habitat is the surrounding developments. Several single family homes are within the study area. in addition, the hydrological regime of this site has also been severely altered. This study area is also located at a very busy intersection. The high traffic patterns and the single family homes has affected the natural EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 4 of 22 3 movement of mammals. I suspect that any small, medium and/or large mammal movements would be at night. During this survey no threatened and/or endangered species were identified vertebrates. The only plant species identified was Tillandsia spp. EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 5 of 22 j�v Threatened, Endangered and Species of Special Concern Species Black bear Florida panther Everglades mink Big Cypress Fox squirrel Indigo snake American alligator Gopher tortoise Gopher Frog Present Absent x x X x x x x x Southeastern American kestrel x Red - Cockaded woodpecker x Florida Scrub Jay x Wood stork x Snail kite x Bald eagle x Limpkin x Osprey x White ibis x Tricolored heron x Snowy egret x Reddish egret x Little blue heron x EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 6 of 22 s- LOCATION MAPS EXHIBIT # I EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 7 of 22 LOCATION MAP irattmmsw A. - jtsmsYlm ! ial E. C.jf C7.1 ig r _ - - Y _1 — EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 8 of 22 /1-. FLUCCS CODE MAP EXHIBIT # 2 EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 10 of 22 %I L s�-,CTION'4 G I MAP AFRIL A106 )V f i -.4- DEN GA'T E ESTA- I FLUCCS DESIGNAT ION I. single Family Home N-Aplarm Oypress calloily With Brazilian pepper Klidstory (potentially jurisdictional) 2X iv 1� I It pivWjC.yprpqFjCabbags Palm (drainsd), non-jurisdictional Disturlied/C.-bbage Palms TOTAL EXHIBITV.C.2 Page 11 of 22 CUMULATIVE PLANT LIST EXHIBIT # 3 EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 12 of 22 /� FLUCCS CODE AND VEGETATION INVENTORY FLUCCS CODE (Description) Common Name Scientific Name Indicator Status 121 Single Family Homes 14.63 acres 624 D Slash pine, Cypress, Cabbage palm 13.97 acres Upland This is the largest natural habitat within this project. The species composition consists of both wetland and upland plant species. The area does not meet the criteria as Jurisdictional. Slash pine Pinus elliotti FACW FAC Cp,D M,C Cabbage palm Sabal palmetto OBL Cp,O Cypress Taxodium spp. FACU G,C palmetto Laurel oak Serona repens Quercus laurifolia FACW Cp,O Strangler fig Ficus aurea Myrsine floridana FAC FAC M,O M,C / G,C Myrsine Beauty bush Callicarpa Americana UPL M,O Snowberry Chiococca alba UPI, G,D Dahoon holly Ilex cassine Schinus terebinthifolius OBL Exotic M,O M,C Brazilian pepper wax myrtle Myrica cerifera FAC+ M,O Broom sedge Andropogon virginicus FAC- G,O Caesar weed Urena lobata FACU G,O Virginia creeper Ampelopsis quinquefolia FAC G.O Cat -briar Smilax spp. FAC G,C Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans FAC G,O Grape vine Vitis rotundifolia FAC G,D Whitehead broom Spermacoce verticillata FAC G,C Florida Trema Chocolate weed Trema spp. Melochia corchorifolia FAC FAC M,O G,C 621/422 Cypress — Brazilian pepper 0.91 acres Transitional This area may be considered jurisdictional wetlands. This area is located in Unit 111. The area has been impacted by the lowering of the ground water table and by the neighboring development. This is evident by the heavy coverage of Brazilian pepper and vines. The area is vegetated with such species as: Cypress Taxodium spp. OBL Cp,D EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 13 of 22 Cabbage Palm Sabal palmetto FAC M,O Brazilian pepper Sclunus terebinthifolius Exotic M,D Swamp fern Blechnum seirulatum FACW+ G,C Grape vine Vitis rotundifolia FAC G,O Poison ivy Toxicodendron radians FAC G,O Smilax Smilax spp. FAC G,O 321 Palmetto 2.37 acres Uplands This area consists of a sparse Slash pine canopy with a palmetto understory. This habitat is located in Unit 110. The area would be considered upland. The area is vegetated with a variety of species. The following species were identified within this habitat. Slash pine Pinus elliotti FACW Cp,D Cabbage palm Saba] palmetto FAC M,C Dahoon holly Ilex cassine OBL M,O Palmetto Serona repens FACU G,C Melaleuca Melaleuca quinquenervia Exotic Cp,D Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius Exotic M,D Winged Sumac Rhus copallina UPL M,O Myrsine Myrsine floridana FAC M,C Penny royal Piloblephis rigida UPL G,O fetterbush Lyonia lucida FACW M,O Gallberry Ilex glabra FACW M,C buckthorn Bumelia reclinata FAC M,O Florida trema Trema spp. FAC M,O Dewberries Rubus spp. FAC G,C Broom sedge Andropogon virginicus FAC G,O Beggers ticks Bidens alba FACW G,O Ragweed Ambrosia artemissiifolia FACU G,C Grape vine Vitis rotundifolia FAC G,D Poison ivy Toxicodendron radians FAC G,O Smilax Smilax spp. FAC G,C snow-berry Chiococca parvifolia UPL G,O 740/428 Disturbed/ Cabbage palms 1.63 acres Upland This area is in Unit 110. The area has a dense carpet of Grape vine. This area would be considered upland. Cabbage palm Sabal palmetto FAC M,C Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius Exotic M,D Winged Sumac Rhus copallina UPL M,O EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 14 of 22 M rsine y Myrsine floridana FAC M,C FAC G,D Grape vine Vitis rotundifolia Toxicodendron radians FAC G,O Poison ivy Smilax Smilax spp. FAC G,C ABREVIATIONS — Canopy (Cp), Midstory (M), Ground Cover (G) Dominant (D), Common (C), Occasional (0) INDICATOR STATUS - Obligate (OBL), Facultative plants (FACW), Facultative plants (FAC), Up land ( UPL) EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 15 of 22 WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED EXHIBIT # 4 EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 16 of 22 WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED Common Name Amphibian & Reptiles: Six - lined racerunner Brown anole Black racer Florida Box turtle Birds: Dove - ground Dove- mourning Copper Hawk Vulture, turkey Vulture, Black Pileated woodpecker Northern flicker Crow, American Boat - tailed Grackle Common grackle Bluejay Carolina wren Northern mockingbird Cardinal Chuck - will's widow Common nighthawk Mammals: Gray squirrel Raccoon Hispid cotton rat Nine- banded armadillo Eastern cottontail Feral cat Species Cnemidophorus sexlineatus Anoli_ Columber constrictor Terrepene caroling bauri Columbine passerine Zenaida macroura Accjjiter c� opperii Cathartes aura Coraayps stratus Dryocopus pileatus Colaptes auratus Coryus brachyrhynchos Quiscalus major Ouisc atus auiscula Cyanocitta cri stata T1Lryothorus ludovicianus Miznus nol=lottos Richmondena cardinalis Capri UujQus carolinensis Chordeiles minor Sciurus carolinensis Procyo or Sim don hispidus Dasypus novemcinctu Sylvialaaus floridanus Felis domestics EXHIBIT V.C.2 -Status Page 17 of 22 Suspected Listed Species per FLUCCS CODE These species are known to be found within these FLUCCS codes. It should be noted that there were none directly observed. However, they are suspected and potentially can inhabit these biological communities. 411 Eastern Indigo Gopher tortoise Gopher frog Red -rat snake Florida pine snake Southeastern kestrel Red cockaded woodpecker Fox squirrel Black bear Panther Fakahatchee burmannia Stain leaf Paw -paw Florida coontie 624,621 Black bear Panther Tri -color heron Snowy egret Little blue heron Limpkin Wild Pines- Tillandsia spp. Stiff - leaved Recurved wired- leaved Butterfly orchid EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 18 of 22 PANTHER HABITAT MAP EXHIBIT # S EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 19 of 22 n MERIT Panther Habitat Excluding Rural Lands Dot a rtkSource, aPpacrRc.4el:s ii_aCts�o°llaanrW;CaPunNyanJP@ mpremor Creaad � GS CDES /6rrmnmey5ef1ce C G m GGIS=#PanliCPdVeSLnrxd � 3.5 J �}�ifeS u e•.. r Data' EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 20 of 22 ADDENDUM On September 2006 a Listed Species Survey was conducted at a 33.51 -acre site called The Villages Common of Golden Gate Estates. The site is located in Section 9, Township 49 Range 27. The site is located on the north side of Golden Gate Blvd and west of Wilson Blvd. Since the original Listed Species survey was conducted two additional single- family parcels were added. The total acreage site is now 40.62 acres. As requested by Collier County Environmental staff on May 2, 4 and 5, 2009 a brief assessment for listed species was conducted on the additional acreage. The following outlines our findings: On May 2, 4 and 5 of 2009 Collier Environmental Consultants examined the addition acreage. The additional acreage consists of two platted single - family Golden Gate Estate lots. Both lots have single - family residences on site. One site parallels 3rd Street NW and the other is perpendicular to 1" Street NW and Golden Gate Blvd. The parcel along 1St Street NW has been partially cleared and has a high privacy fence along the entire perimeter of the parcel. This fence limited this survey and limits movement of any large mammals on this subject parcel. The parcel along 3rd St NW still has some native habitat in front and behind the single- family structure. This habitat is also contiguous to other native habitat. During this survey there was a lot of high traffic noise and human disturbance. Both corners are a high traffic area. The heavy traffic patterns and associate noise has a limiting factor on this parcel as suitable habitat. In is our conclusion that any mammal movement within these parcels probably occurs at night. The main vertebrates encountered were birds traversing the subject parcel. Our survey found no listed vertebrate species on site. Our survey did find a few Tillandsia's on site. Amphibian & Reptiles: Brown anole Birds: Dove- ground Dove - mourning Ringed Turtle Dove mockingbird Northern flicker Crow, American Common grackle Bluejay Gray catbird Cardinal Anolis sagrei Columbina passerina Zenaida macroura Streptopelia risoria Mimus polyglottos Colaptes auratus Corvus brachyrh n� chos Quiscalus quiscula Cvanocitta cristata Dumetella carolinensis Richmondena cardinalis EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 21 of 22 r-. n ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.C.1 a FLUCFCS MAP SUBJECT SITE 2 400 M O' Z�' FLUCCS LINE FLUCCS CODE FLUCCS DESIGNATION ACREAGE % 121 SINGLE FAMILY HOME 9.00 22.16 321 PALMETTO 2.40 5.91 411 PINE FLATWOODS 5.80 14.28 428 CABBAGE PALM 3.0 7.39 621 CYPRESS CANOPY WITH BRAZILIAN PEPPER 0.66 1.62 624D PINE, CYPRESS, CABAGE PALM — DRAINED 18.86 46.43 814 ROADS AND HIGHWAYS 0.81 1.99 8335 PUMP STATION 0.09 0.22 TOTAL 40.62 100.00 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH COPYRIGHT COWER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS OFFICE AERIAL DATE: JANUARY 2008 EXHIBIT V.C.2 Page 22 of 22 NOHTH ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT V.C.3 HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROBABILTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 Page 1 of 1 Sharon Umpenhour From: Marco Espinar [marcoe@prodigy.net] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 11:00 AM To: Bailey Erin Cc: Sharon Umpenhour Subject: Historical / Archaelogical Search Good Morning Erin, I need an archaelogical / historical search for Section 4, Township 49, Range 27 in Collier County. I have a project 41 ac +/- in the south east corner of the section. Can you please send me a letter and map of your records. Thank You Marco Espinar Collier Environmental Consultants Inc. n CP- 2008 -1 Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT V.C.3 8/6/2009 This record search is for informational purposes only and does NOT constitute a project review. This search only identifies resources recorded at the Florida Master Site File and does NOT provide project approval from the Division of Historical Resources. Contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850 - 245 -6333 for project review information. August 6, 2009 Florida Master Marco Espinar Site Collier Environmental Consultants, Inc. lFile 3880 Estey Ave. Naples, FL 34104 Email: marcoe @prodigy.net In response to your inquiry of August 6, 2009 the Florida Master Site File lists no previously recorded cultural resources in the following parcel of Collier County: T49S, R27E, Section 4 When interpreting the results of this search, please consider the following information: • This search area may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, historical structures or other resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources. • Federal, state and local laws require formal environmental review for most projects. This search DOES NOT constitute such a review. If your project falls under these laws, you should contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850- 245 -6333. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding the results of this search. Sincerely, Erin Michelle Bailey Archaeological Data Analyst Florida Master Site File 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0250 • www. flheritage .com /preservation/sitefile 850- 245 -6440 ph 1 850- 245 -6439 fax SiteFile @dos.state.fl.us CP- 2008 -1 Page 2 of 7 EXHIBIT V.C.3 � Y FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Kurt S. Browning Secretary of Stag . DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES August 7, 2009 RECEIVED AUG 12 20M Q. Brady Minor & Associates, P.A. Based on the additional information received that there are no hammock areas on this property; it is the opinion of this office that the proposed project will have no effect on historic properties listed, or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or otherwise of historical or archaeological value. 500 S. Bronough Street • Tallahassee, M 32399 -0250 • http: / /www.flheritage.com O Directors Office O Archaeological Research ./ Historic Preservation (850) 245 -6300 - FAX 245 -6436 (850) 245 -649.4 • FAX 245 -6452 (850) 245 -6333 • FAX 245.6437 CP- 2008 -1 Page 3 of 7 EXHIBIT V.C.3 Page 2 CP- 2008 -1 Page 4 of 7 EXHIBIT V.C.3 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.C.3 HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROBABILITY MAP _ RNG 27 1 RNG 28 ® PREVIOUSLY SURVEYED AREA BELLE MEADE NE QUADRANGLE - INDICATES AREAS OF HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROBABILITY ARE" OF HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROBABILITY * INDICATES HISTORIC STRUCTURE (NOTTO SCALE) INDICATES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE (NOT TO SCALE) l0 wow qw a� wi.r rw rc niww ��.r. CP- 2008 -1 Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT V.C.9- 48 49 )o1 i Al USGS BELLE MEADE NE: DATA SHEET General Description: This quadrangle is situated in the Flatwoods Zone in the central portion of Collier County. The land can be described as predominantly freshwater marshland with occasional areas of pine flatwoods. Curry Island and Big Corkscrew Island lie in the extreme northern portion of the quadrangle. SR 84 (Everglades Parkway /Alligator Alley) runs east -west through the southern half of the map area. The southeastern corner of the quadrangle is contained within the Golden Gate State Forest. The eastern and northern thirds of the quadrangle are part of the Golden Gate Estates development with Golden Gate Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard serving as the main avenues. These areas have been ditched and drained and access roads built in a grid pattern. It should be noted that a majority of this quadrangle is not divided into Sections within Township 49 South, Range 27 and 28 East. Thus, locational data, particularly soil type distribution, is not easy to evaluate. Previous Work: Several professional historical/archaeological survey have been undertaken within this quadrangle. One was performed for the Ford Vehicle Evaluation Facility (#4414 - ACI 1995), and no sites were discovered. In addition, the 1991 AHC survey targeted and investigated selected locales within this quadrangle and recorded one site (8CR729). In 1994, Weisman and Newman ( #4013) conducted a reconnaissance of the Golden Gate State Forest, but recorded no sites. The other recorded sites within this quadrangle were reported by John Beriault and other local archaeologists (FSF). Previously Recorded/Reported Sites: There are seven reported archaeological sites within this quadrangle. They are all black dirt middens; however, 8CR741 may have also been a Seminole campsite. The location of each site is depicted on the Probability Maps. Discussion/Recommendations: In general, much of the area is a broad, level expanse of wetlands. Potential site locations (probability zones) identified by the predictive model are shaded. These conform to the margins of Curry Island (Beriault, personal communication) or slightly elevated areas of hammock or pine vegetation with rapid internal drainage. All shaded areas on the Probability Map are recommended for professional archaeological survey. In addition, all previously recorded archaeological sites should be relocated and assessed as per their condition and significance. CP- 2008 -1 Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT V.C.3 USGS BELLE MEADE NE: Site No. CR00183 CROW 84 CR00185 CR00693 CR00729 CR00741 CR00780 Site Name Conch Deer Leg Lily Trema Lone Fallen Oak Garden Grove Kyle SITE INVENTORY SHEET Tyw(s) Comments A A A A A A,1 A CP- 2008 -1 Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT V.C.3 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT V.D.5 COMMERCIAL NEEDS ANALYSIS GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 ^ AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Sub district Commercial Needs Analysis April 15, 2008 Revised and Updated 8 -25 -09 Prepared for Mr. Rich Yovanovich, Esq. Goodlette Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Mr. Wayne Arnold Q. Grady Minor & Associates, Inc. Prepared by Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 1415 Panther Lane, Suites 346/347 Naples, Florida 34109 (239) 254 -8585 Page 1 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Table of Contents Executive Summa ............ • • • 3 of Page Left Intentionally Blank) ............................... 7 (Rest .......................................................... 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................... ............................... 8 1.1 Purpose ....................................................................................... ............................... 8 1.2 Overview of Needs Analysis ........................................................ ............................... 8 1.3 Definition of the Market Area and Target Population ................... ............................... 9 1.4 Analysis Process ....................................................................... ............................... 13 2.0 The Supply of Commercial Space .................................................... ............................... 14 2.1 Estates Shopping Center Sub district's Market ......................... ............................... 14 2.2 Additions to Supply from the Development of Receiving Lands . ............................... 16 2.3 Functional Utility of the Project site ............................................ ............................... 17 2.4 Functional Utility of the competing sites ..................................... ............................... 18 3.0 Analysis of the Need for the Proposed Amendments to the FLUM .. ............................... 19 3.1 Overview ................................................................................... ............................... 19 3.2 Commercial Demand and the Allocation Ratio .......................... ............................... 19 3.3 Impact of the Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment .................. ............................... 23 4.0 Commercial - Office Uses ................................................................... ............................... 24 5.0 Conclusions ..................................................................................... ............................... 27 APPENDIX1 ............................................................................................... ............................... 28 APPENDIX2 ............................................................................................... ............................... 36 APPENDIX3 ............................................................................................... ............................... 37 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 2 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 FA Executive Summary o Crown Management Services, Inc. ( "Client ") is proposing an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan ( "Plan "). The proposal is for mixed use development including a commercial office and retail component on a 41 +/- acre site located at the Northwest corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard ( "Project ") in the Golden Gate Estates Area of Collier County ( "County "). The Client has engaged Fishkind and Associates, Inc. ( "Consultant ") to prepare commercial needs analysis. o In the context of amending the adopted Plan, the applicant must demonstrate the need to amend the plan. Typically, this takes the form of a comparison of: ■ The supply of existing, vacant, and potential land /square footage planned for various commercial uses; ■ The demand for commercial land /square footage based on projected households in the market o Based on the current character of the region and proposed commercial development, the Consultant has analyzed the need for additional neighborhood and community retail ^ development within a custom 10- minute drive time market surrounding the Project. This trade area will be referred to throughout this report as the Custom Trade Area. o The metric utilized for the comparison of supply -to- demand is the allocation ratio. ■ The allocation ratio (supply /demand) measures the amount of additional acreage required in relation to directly utilized acreage. The additional acreage is required in order to assure proper market functioning in the sale, usage and allocation of land. The likelihood that certain lands will not be placed on the market for sale during the forecast horizon, or may be subject to future environmental or other constraints must be accounted for. Thus, the lands allocated in the FLUM should be considerably greater than those that will actually be used or developed. The Consultant believes that to ensure proper flexibility in the Plan, this area should have a commercial allocation ratio of approximately 2.0 for the short-term. o Summary results of the retail needs analysis are shown in Table E1 below. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 3 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 3 Table E1. Demand for Commercial Sq. Ft. General Commercial 2008 2010 2020 2030 Market Retail Demand (sq.ft) 119,100 131,190 174,964 200,340 Existing Supply Net GLA (sq.ft) 94,506 94,506 94,506 94,506 Vacant Commerical 14,701 14,701 14,701 14,701 Total Supply 109,207 109,207 109,207 109,207 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand 0.92 0.83 0.62 0.55 FLUM Potential Supply Total Supply WFLUM Potential 70,699 70,699 70,699 70,699 179,906 179,906 179,906 179,906 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand WFLUM Potential 1.51 1.37 1.03 0.90 o Table E1 above indicates that currently the retail allocation is substantially below the minimum desired level of 2.0. By 2030, the allocation ratio is expected to drop to 0.90, which supports good planning and economic policy to have a sufficiently high ratio to accommodate the expected demand in a meaningful fashion. As the situation currently stands, the lack of available retail choices creates a substantial impediment to proper market functioning. This market area can expect to increasingly experience: ■ Significantly higher than average travel costs for residents; ■ Impacted roadway networks needing higher than average operating and capital improvements; of which the burden of financing is apportioned County -wide; ■ Upward pressure on commercial land prices due to artificial restriction of supply; ■ Downward pressure on residential land prices due to a lack of support facilities. o Based on this analysis, there is a clear and compelling case for adding additional land with neighborhood and community commercial use to this market. Any ratio less than 2.0 justifies the addition of land to the inventory of the market. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 4 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Table E2. Demand for Commercial Sq. Ft. with Inclusion of Project General Commercial 2008 2010 2020 2030 Market Retail Demand (sq.ft) 119,100 131,190 174,964 200,340 Supply Net GLA (sq.ft) 109,207 109,207 109,207 109,207 Proposed Project Max Retail (sq.ft) 0 225,000 225,000 225,000 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand 0.92 2.55 1.91 1.67 FLUM Potential Supply 70,699 70,699 70,699 70,699 Total Supply w /FLUM Potential 179,906 404,906 404,906 404,906 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w /FLUM Potential 1.51 3.09 2.31 2.02 o In 2010, the additional land increases the allocation ratio from 1.37 to 3.09. An allocation ratio of 3.09 provides a sufficient degree of flexibility for this market to meet future demand. It also would provide for sufficient supply as to limit the future applications for similar centers in the central Golden Gate Area, thus reducing the potential for commercial sprawl. The allocation ratios are more than reasonable with the inclusion of the Project in the FLUM. o Based on this analysis, there are insufficient lands designated for commercial uses in the market or the lands are not expected to be developed within the planning horizon of 2030. The under - allocation of suitable commercial land supports the need for the additional retail acreage proposed by the applicant. o Community and Neighborhood centers which are grocery anchored are most common as they provide goods and services to support a general trade area. Since the grocery use is the main catalyst and attraction to the center, grocery tenants pay significantly less in annual rent. In order for a developer to make the project financially and economically feasible, local tenant rents provides for the majority of the income to the owner therefore allowing sufficient cash flow for development financing. o Based on the economics of typical grocery anchored centers, it is not financially feasible to assume a grocery store can be a self sufficient facility on the site. As evidenced by the closure of several stand alone groceries, i.e. Albertsons on the Northeast Corner of Immokalee Road and Livingston Road and the Albertsons in Ft Myers. Considering the lack of standalone stores, and the fact they are not being developed more readily due to high land cost, it is unreasonable to assume this area can financially and economically support a standalone grocer. Also due to the limited services in the area, a grocery Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 5 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 5 cannot provide all the goods and services needed nor would the market expect one provider, they would expect a choice. o The Consultant has analyzed the demand for new office space in the County, on a per capita basis, as well as the implied need for additional office acreage within the custom trade area surrounding the Project site. o Using records provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser's office and information from the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department and County Clerk's Office the Consultant has determined there are 156,940 potential square feet of office space within the custom trade area surrounding the Project. o Also using updated records from the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, the Consultant has determined that, on average, the County needs 14.7 Sq. Ft. of office space per person. o Table E3 below shows the Consultant's population forecast for the market surrounding the Project. Additionally, Table E3 indicates the office needs associated with these historic and forecast population levels. Table E3. Historic & Forecast Population for Custom Trade Area o According to the Consultant's analysis there is an immediate need for office uses in the custom trade area surrounding the Project. Unless the proposed amendment is added to the FLUM, by 2030 the allocation ratio for office land is expected to drop to 0..61. There is insufficient land within this market designated for office use or potentially available for office use, which reduces the amount of sufficient choices for a developer to accommodate the demand. o Based on the map located in Appendix 2, we can see the central and southeastern units of Golden Gate Estates would not be served at all would it not be for this project. It is our opinion there is sufficient current need for additional retail and office uses and the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 6 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 1.1 witnout the rro osea Amenament Per Capita Total Office Allocation Year Population Office Need Office Need Sqft Supplied Ratio Population (1990) 2,539 14.7 37,384 156,940 4.20 Population (2000) 8,224 14.7 121,090 156,940 1.30 Population (2008) 12,415 14.7 182,798 156,940 0.86 Population (2013) 15,173 14.7 223,406 156,940 0.70 Population (2020) 16,499 14.7 242,936 156,940 0.65 Population (2030) 17,379 14.7 255,887 156,940 0.61 o According to the Consultant's analysis there is an immediate need for office uses in the custom trade area surrounding the Project. Unless the proposed amendment is added to the FLUM, by 2030 the allocation ratio for office land is expected to drop to 0..61. There is insufficient land within this market designated for office use or potentially available for office use, which reduces the amount of sufficient choices for a developer to accommodate the demand. o Based on the map located in Appendix 2, we can see the central and southeastern units of Golden Gate Estates would not be served at all would it not be for this project. It is our opinion there is sufficient current need for additional retail and office uses and the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 6 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 1.1 demand will continue to grow at a rate higher than supply due to the affordability and availability of land in this area. (Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank) Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 7 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 7 REVISED AND UPDATED Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Project Commercial Needs Analysis 1.0 Introduction (August 25, 2009) 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this report is to present a commercial needs analysis for the proposed change to Collier County's Golden Gate Area Master Plan ( "Plan "). Crown Management Services, Inc. ( "Client ") is proposing an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan ( "Plan "). The proposal is for mixed use development including a commercial office and retail component on a 41 +/- acre site located at the Northwest corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard ( "Project ") in the Golden Gate Estates Area of Collier County ( "County "). The Client has engaged Fishkind and Associates, Inc. ( "Consultant ") to prepare commercial needs analysis. 1.2 Overview of Needs Analysis In the context of amending the adopted Plan the applicant must demonstrate the need to amend the plan. Typically, this takes the form of a comparison of. o The supply of existing land /square footage currently planned for various commercial uses o The demand for land /square footage based on projected population in the market Historically, these comparisons have focused their studies County -wide. This analysis studies the market for commercial retail demand around the project and portions of the County within a custom trade area based on driving distances from the site and adjacent areas unserved by retail uses. There are two related reasons for this type of analysis. First, consumers are assumed to maximize benefit over all goods and services consumed subject to their income. This type of analysis requires that travel costs are either explicitly or implicitly accounted for during the consideration of the consumers' income constraint. This analysis requires the Consultant to narrow the scope of the analysis from the county level down to a local market level. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 8 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Second, the Consultant considers whether the choice of location is a Pareto improvement for consumers. ( Pareto improvement means that no consumers are made worse off, and at least one is made better off.) That is, the Consultant asks the question whether additional retail space makes at least one local market better off, without reducing the welfare of all others. An analysis of commercial retail space over the whole of a county may lead to the wrong conclusion of where to develop new space. That is, the county as a whole may appear to need more retail space to support the aggregate level of demand generated by its residents. With many County -wide choices of commercially -zoned lands available, the development of one site over another may lead to an over supply in one location and an under supply in another. This is precisely the outcome the County wants to avoid. Therefore: o By narrowing the focus of this study to the local market, the Consultant determines if this market has a need for additional retail space; o The Consultant can replicate a competitive outcome, and ensure that the welfare of all other local markets is improved or unchanged. 1.3 Definition of the Market Area and Target Population According to the Urban Land Institute', "A neighborhood center's typical size is about 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area, but in practice, it may range from 30,000 to 100,000 or more square feet." Neighborhood centers sell convenience goods, groceries and personal services to the immediate neighborhood community. The typical market area for a neighborhood center is a 10- minute drive time. "A community center's typical size is about 150,000 square feet of gross leasable area, but in practice, it may range from 100,000 to 500,000 or more square feet. Centers that fit the general profile of a community center but contain more than 250, 000 square feet are classified as super community centers." Community centers sell a wider range of products that includes apparel, hardware and appliances. The typical market area for a community retail center is a 20- minute drive time. Beyard, Michael D., W. Paul O'Mara, et al. Shopping Center Development Handbook. Third Edition. Washington, n D.C.: ULI -the Urban Land Institute, 1999. p.11 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 9 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 0 Utilizing the above information as a guide, the proposed retail component of the ^ Project is classified as a hybrid combination of both neighborhood and community serving. Community and Neighborhood centers which are grocery anchored are most common as they provide goods and services to support a general trade area. Since the grocery use is the main catalyst and attraction to the center, grocery tenants pay significantly less in annual rent. In order for a developer to make the project financially and economically feasible, local tenant rents provide for the majority of the income to the owner therefore allowing sufficient cash flow for development financing. Based on the economics of typical grocery anchored centers, it is not financially feasible to assume a grocery store can be a self sufficient facility on the site. As evidenced by the closure of several stand alone groceries, ie Albertsons on the Northeast Corner of Immokalee Road and Livingston Road and the Albertsons in Ft Myers. Considering the lack of standalone stores, and the fact they are not being developed more readily due to high land cost, it is unreasonable to assume this area can financially and economically support a standalone grocer. Also due to the limited services in the area, a grocery cannot provide all the goods and services needed nor would the market expect one provider, they would expect a choice. The project is proposed for 225,000 square feet of commercial retail space of which some of the ancillary supportive uses will be office in nature. These office uses desire a retail exposure, however do not impact the parking as heavily as more traditional retail uses might. These uses may include offices for real estate, insurance and mortgage companies, banks, governmental offices, federal, state and local, securities firms, etc. The inclusion of some office uses in this area will help to further support the area. The Consultant concurs with County Staff's assessment that analysis of a 10- minute drive time market area surrounding the Project would be instructive in terms of determining the need for additional retail development. This is because the region surrounding the Project is generally rural in nature with a limited transportation network. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 10 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 10 Located below, is a map showing the 10- minute drive time with the addition of those sections of Golden Gate Estates located south of Golden Gate Blvd, hereafter called the "Custom Trade Area ". The map also illustrates 3 -mile trade area buffers surrounding the existing center at Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Blvd to the west, and the planned centers at Immokalee Road and Orange Blossom and at Big Cypress, to the north and north east respectively. As we can see from this map, the Estates Shopping Center Sub District serves the Central and southeastern units of Golden Gate Estates which cannot be effectively served by any other areas. (Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank) Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 11 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 11 R25 PLANNED - w UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, ! COMMERICALAND INDUSTRIAL ZONING Legend PUD" PUD COMMERCIAL PUD INDUSTRIAL - INDUSTRIAL - COM LIERCIAL Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis ... _ Legend UJI � Qos�+a�: xoer„ewar��[ to _ wk. &--Y 6 Miles Page 12 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 12 Although the Project is classified as a community center with a 20- minute drive time market area per the ULI guidelines above, the "Custom Trade Area" will be utilized for this analysis ^ due to the rural nature and limited roadway network of Golden Gate Estates. This Custom Trade Area consists of a 10- minute drive time surrounding the site and the addition of the units of Golden Gate Estates located along Everglades Blvd south of Golden Gate Blvd. The proposed center falls within the threshold of community serving centers and will sell a wider range of goods than a neighborhood center, therefore the Consultant has accounted for a portion of the trade area's community center expenditures in addition to neighborhood expenditures. Therefore, the need for additional retail development is based on an analysis of: o A 10- minute drive -time with the additional southeast GGE units market surrounding the Project; "Custom Trade Area" o The "Custom Trade Areas" need for additional neighborhood goods and services and a portion of community goods and services . Estimates of existing and projected housing units and households for the Custom Trade Area are provided for years 2008, 2010, 2020 and 2030 in Table 3. These figures were estimated using parcel data from the Property Appraiser and occupancy rates for the trade area from I -Site, Census -based Demographics package. 1.4 Analysis Process The process of determining the need for additional retail land is a four -step process, as outlined below. o Inventory existing supply of commercial space in the market area; • Inventory vacant commercial space and parcels designated as having the potential for commercial space by the Future Land Use Map (FLUM); • Project future housing unitsHhouseholds to determine future commercial land needs and compare against commercial land allocation ratios; • Determine impact of the Project's proposed commercial land on land allocation ratio within the market area. 2 See Appendix Al, 'Index of Sales by Center Type' for details Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 13 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 13 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 2.0 The Supply of Commercial Space 2.1 Estates Shopping Center Sub district's Market The analysis begins with the supply of existing, vacant, and potential commercial square feet in the market area. The site is located at the northwest corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard in the Golden Gate Estates area of the County. The Custom Trade Area, or market serving the Estates Shopping Center Sub district, is an aggregation of a 10- minute drive time radius surrounding the site and the addition of those units of Golden Gate Estates located east and south of the drive time radius surrounding the subject site (map in Appendix 2). Table 1 provides the current inventory of commercial space based on the Property Appraiser's ('PA ") data, as well as data provided by the Comprehensive Planning Department ( "CPD "). These data provide an estimate of 279,824 (rounded) square feet of existing, vacant, and potential commercial - retail space. Table 1. Current Supply of Vacant, Potential, and Existing Commercial - Retail Space in Mixed Use Project's Custom Trade Area *A: Folio Acres Sqft* Description 37280040002 2.41 14,701 N. of E's Country Store Potential Commercial Folio Acres Sqft* Description 37745120001 4.01 24,461 Randall Blvd Comm. Subdst. 37280080004 2.12 12,932 E. of E's Country Store 40629000001 5.46 33,306 Everglades' 40680004000 5.46 33,306 Blvd /Golden 40930760001 5.46 33,306 Gate Blvd 40930720009 5.46 33,306 Center 11.59 170,617 Existing Commercial Folio Acres Sqft Description 37221120101 5.00 42,000 Wilson Blvd Center 37169520009 4.19 15,000 Walgreen's (SW Quadrant) 37280040109 2.65 11,224 E's Country Store 37744040001 2.53 21,926 Randall Blvd 37745180009 1.14 4,356 Randall Blvd 15.51 94,506 Total Inventory 29.51 279,824 ;sumed 6,100 Square feet per Acre (94,506 SQFT / 15.51) = 6,093, Rounded to 6,100 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 14 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 14 The potential commercial includes the four separate corners that make up the Everglades Blvd /Golden Gate Blvd center. These parcels fall in the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict designation of the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. This neighborhood designation states the following; "The neighborhood center designation does not guarantee that commercial zoning will be granted. The designation only provides the opportunity to request commercial zoning ", The fact these parcels of land are located the furthest from the existing concentration of households, and are not of similar functional utility to the subject project, suggest the probability of commercial development is very limited before the end of the planning horizon used in this report. The inclusion of these sites increases the potential commercial supply by 47 percent, which is a substantial amount considering their inferior location and functional utility. Based on these factors, it is the Consultant's opinion these parcels be given 25% weighting or one parcel's development potential in the supply calculation to account for potential development which may occur within the planning horizon. Given the current limited population surrounding the Everglades Blvd /Golden Gate Blvd Center, the probability of commercial approval is low as this area is sparsely populated. The reasoning for including the demand of existing households in this area is to account for limited population which currently resides there. Future households are anticipated to be located closer to the employment centers of Collier County, which supports the increase in demand calculated in this report. Located below we have recalculated the allocation ratio assuming that one parcel within the Everglades Blvd /Golden Gate Blvd Center parcel is included. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 15 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 15 Table 2. Current Supply of Vacant, Potential, and Existing Commercial - Retail Space INCLUDING ONE PARCEL IN THE EVERGLADES BLVD /GOLDEN GATE BLVD CENTER in Mixed Use Project's Custom Trade Area Folio Acres Sqft* Description 37280040002 2.41 14,701 N. of E's Country Store Folio Acres Sqft* Description 37745120001 4.01 24,461 Randall Blvd Comm. Subdst. 37280080004 2.12 12,932 E. of E's Country Store 40629000001 5.46 33,306 ` Everglades %0680004000 5.46 33,306 Blvd /Golden 10930760001 5.46 33,306 Gate Blvd 40930720000 5.46 33,306 Center Total Inventory 11.59 70,699 Folio Acres Sqft Description 37221120101 5.00 42,000 Wilson Blvd Center 37169520009 4.19 15,000 Walgreen's (SW Quadrant) 37280040109 2.65 11,224 E's Country Store 37744040001 2.53 21,926 Randall Blvd 37745180009 1.14 4,356 Randall Blvd 15.51 94,506 Total Inventory 29.51 179,906 *Assumed 6,100 Square feet per Acre (94,506 SQFT / 15.51) =6,093, Rounded to 6,100 The exclusion of three of the four parcels located in the Everglades Blvd /Golden Gate Blvd Center reduces the total inventory by 100,000 sqft. The remaining inventory of 179,906 sqft of commercial inventory is considered reasonable within the planning horizon of 2030. 2.2 Additions to Supply from the Development of Receiving Lands County Staff has indicated two Rural Villages ranging in size from 300 to 1,500 acres are permitted in the Receiving Lands to the north and south of the Project. Portions of these Receiving Lands are within the periphery of the Custom Trade Area market surrounding the Project. According to the Collier County Future Land Use Element, these Rural Villages must include a Village Center and several Neighborhood Centers which would yield additional commercial development in the region. To date, landowners in these Receiving Lands have not given indication of any action or intent on initiating the lengthy permitting and review process necessary for development. However, the Consultant has not included potential commercial development within these Receiving Lands as supply for two additional related reasons: Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 16 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 16 o First, commercial development within Rural Villages is intended to be self - sustainable and serve the residents of the Village. According to the Collier County Future Land Use Element, "Rural Villages may be approved.....to reduce the need of residents of the District and surrounding lands to travel to the County's Urban area....... Village Centers shall be designed to serve the retail, office, civic, government uses and service needs of the residents of the village." o Second, development of Rural Villages in the Receiving Lands will generate a substantial increase in the number of households in the region. This information indicates the region's demand for commercial space would also substantially increase. Therefore, commercial development within the Rural Village would likely accommodate the incremental increase in demand generated by new, internal households and have a net neutral effect to the surrounding markets. 2.3 Functional Utility of the Project site Functional Utility is defined as; The ability of a property or building to be useful and to perform the function for which it is intended according to the current market tastes and standards; the efficiency of a building's use in terms of architectural style, design and layout, traffic patterns and the size and type of roomss. The Estates Neighborhood Centers were established as a means to direct new commercial development to areas where traffic impacts could be readily accommodated. The Project is located at the Northwest quadrant of the Wilson Boulevard /Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center. The Plan designates 4.98 acres for commercial development at this quadrant. The size of this parcel is not of adequate functional utility to develop a shopping center that fulfills a diverse set of commercial needs for the immediate area for three reasons: o Buffering /Setback Requirements — In order to preserve the rural character of the region, a buffer of 75 feet is required for projects abutting residential property which is consistent with the typical lot frontage of sites in this area. By minimizing developable area, this stipulation significantly reduces the ability of the 4.98 acre quadrant to accommodate commercial need in a meaningful fashion; o Utilities — There are no sewer /water connections available on the NW quadrant of the Neighborhood Center. New development must utilize a package plant system to provide utilities. This requirement minimizes developable area, thus even further reducing the ability of the 4.98 acre quadrant to accommodate commercial need in a meaningful fashion; 3 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fourth Edition © 2002, Appraisal Institute Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 17 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 17 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 o Financial Feasibility — A grocery store is proposed as part of the Project. It is not financially feasible for a tenant of this type, or any anchor tenant, to locate at this site without supporting periphery uses. The 4.98 acre size of the NW Neighborhood Center quadrant, coupled with the buffering and utility implications, does not provide adequate functional utility for a grocery store or other anchor tenant to be financially feasible. The Project is situated at the most optimum location for access at two arterial roadways in the center of Golden Gate Estates. The site's proposed 41 +/- acre size provides for adequate functional utility to develop a shopping center that fulfills a diverse set of commercial needs for the immediate area. 2.4 Functional Utility of the competing sites A review of sites within the Custom Trade Area reveals that no parcels are over 20 acres in size, which in the consultant's opinion, offers adequate physical and functional utility to accommodate a grocery anchored center, adequate buffers between residential uses, and additional land to accommodate central utilities. Access to the site is also considered, as no other sites offer similar ease of access from heavily traveled roadways. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 18 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 18 3.0 Analysis of the Need for the Proposed Amendments to the FLUM 3.1 Overview As noted above, the need for amendments to the adopted FLUM revolves around whether or not the FLUM contains a sufficient degree of flexibility to satisfy the future projected level of demand for land. The applicant must demonstrate that the amount of land allocated in the FLUM to neighborhood and community retail uses is insufficient to accommodate future demand while providing for a reasonable degree of market flexibility. For this study, the supply of land with existing commercial - retail development, vacant commercial designated land and the supply of lands having the potential for commercial as designated by the FLUM were compared to the demand for commercial - retail land as generated by the projected households growth of the market area. The discussion below provides this analysis. 3.2 Commercial Demand and the Allocation Ratio Table 3 provides Fishkind & Associates, Inc's housing unit projection for the Custom Trade Area. Parcel data from the Collier County Property Appraiser formed the basis for the forecast. Table 3. Housing Unit Projection for Project's Custom Trade Area Sources: Collier County Property Appraiser; -Site, Census -based Demographics Package; Fishkind & Associates, Inc. Occupied household growth data was used as the basis of projecting demand for commercial land. The housing unit projection above was used to project occupied households. According to [-Site Census -based Demographics Package, the occupancy rate within the Custom Trade Area is 94.9 %. The household projection is shown in Table 4. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 19 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 `F'7 Housing Housing Unit Year Units Growth Growth/Year 2008 3,711 -- -- 2010 4,020 309 155 2020 4,932 912 91 2030 5,195 263 26 Sources: Collier County Property Appraiser; -Site, Census -based Demographics Package; Fishkind & Associates, Inc. Occupied household growth data was used as the basis of projecting demand for commercial land. The housing unit projection above was used to project occupied households. According to [-Site Census -based Demographics Package, the occupancy rate within the Custom Trade Area is 94.9 %. The household projection is shown in Table 4. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 19 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 `F'7 Table 4. Housing Unit and Household Projections Sources: Collier County Property Appraiser; I -Site, Census -based Demographics Package; Fishkind & Associates, Inc. This new information indicates that the market's demand for commercial space will also increase. The Consultant has developed a retail demand model to project the demand for retail space based on the number of households and their income and demographic characteristics in the relevant market area. The documentation for the model along with the model projections is rather voluminous. This information is reproduced here as Appendix Al. Table 5 provides the projected retail demand and compares demand to the supply of commercial space and land available to accommodate commercial demand in the future. The comparison of retail demand to current retail supply and available supply n converts all vacant and potential acres and assumes full development within the market. For purposes of analysis, we have delineated the existing supply and the site's currently zoned commercial to determine the total supply of commercial square footage which is expected to be developed within the Custom Trade Area. Based on this demand, the current allocation ratio is near a one -to -one allocation. Below that analysis, we isolated the FLUM Potential Supply which is estimated at 70,699 square feet. With this added to the supply above, the supply -to- demand ratio increases slightly to 1.51 from 0.92. It is the Consultant's opinion this FLUM potential be separately analyzed in order to illustrate its percentage of the total supply. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 20 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 20 Housing Year Units Households Household Growth Growth / Year 2007 3,711 3,522 2010 4,020 3,815 293 98 2020 4,932 4,681 865 87 2030 5,195 4,930 250 25 Sources: Collier County Property Appraiser; I -Site, Census -based Demographics Package; Fishkind & Associates, Inc. This new information indicates that the market's demand for commercial space will also increase. The Consultant has developed a retail demand model to project the demand for retail space based on the number of households and their income and demographic characteristics in the relevant market area. The documentation for the model along with the model projections is rather voluminous. This information is reproduced here as Appendix Al. Table 5 provides the projected retail demand and compares demand to the supply of commercial space and land available to accommodate commercial demand in the future. The comparison of retail demand to current retail supply and available supply n converts all vacant and potential acres and assumes full development within the market. For purposes of analysis, we have delineated the existing supply and the site's currently zoned commercial to determine the total supply of commercial square footage which is expected to be developed within the Custom Trade Area. Based on this demand, the current allocation ratio is near a one -to -one allocation. Below that analysis, we isolated the FLUM Potential Supply which is estimated at 70,699 square feet. With this added to the supply above, the supply -to- demand ratio increases slightly to 1.51 from 0.92. It is the Consultant's opinion this FLUM potential be separately analyzed in order to illustrate its percentage of the total supply. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 20 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 20 Table 5. Demand for Commercial Sq. Ft. General Commercial 2008 2010 2020 2030 Market Retail Demand (sq.ft) Existing Supply Net GLA (sq.ft) Vacant Commerical 119,100 94,506 14,701 131,190 94,506 14,701 174,964 94,506 14,701 200,340 94,506 14,701 Total Supply 109,207 109,207 109,207 109,207 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand 0.92 0.83 0.62 0.55 FLUM Potential Supply Total Supply w /FLUM Potential 70,699 179,906 70,699 179,906 70,699 179,906 70,699 179,906 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w/FLUM Potential 1.51 1.37 1.03 0.90 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. As noted in Table 1, the supply of existing commercial space totals 94,506 square feet. As shown by Table 5, based on the demand projection estimates there is sufficient demand for 119,100, 131,190, 174,964, and 200,340 square feet of commercial space in the Custom Trade Area for the years 2008, 2010, 2020, and 2030 respectively. Also shown in Table 5, there are 109,207 square feet of total commercial square footage in existing and commercially approved projects. With the addition of the FLUM potential, the supply increases to 179,906. Therefore, the ratio of the total supply of land designated for commercial use, excluding the FLUM lands is 0.92, 0.83, 0.62, 0.55 and with the FLUM lands is 1.51, 1.37, 1.03, 0.90 for the years 2008, 2010, 2020, and 2030 respectively. The allocation ratio measures the amount of additional acreage required in relation to the directly utilized acreage to assure proper market functioning in the sale, usage and allocation of land. The additional acreage is required in order to maintain market level pricing and to account for the likelihood that certain lands will not be placed on the market for development during the forecast horizon, or may be subject to future environmental or other constraints. Thus, the lands allocated in the FLUM should be considerably greater than those that will actually be used or developed. Growth management practices suggest that the greater the time horizon of the comprehensive plan, the greater the allocation ratio needed to maintain flexibility of the comprehensive plan. Other factors that influence the commercial allocation ratio are the nature and speed of the developing area and the area's general exposure to growth trends in the market. It is the Consultant's opinion that to ensure proper flexibility in the Comprehensive Plan of an area like that of the Project, a commercial allocation ratio of a minimum of 2.0 is necessary in the short -term. As the time Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 21 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 21 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 horizon increases, the allocation ratio must increase as well. (Please refer to Appendix #3 for a detailed memo on the use of Allocation Ratios) Table 5 above indicates that currently the retail allocation is sufficiently below the minimum desired level of 2.0. By 2030, the allocation ratio is expected to drop to 0.90. As the situation currently stands, the lack of available retail choices creates a substantial impediment to proper market functioning. This market can expect to increasingly experience: ■ Significantly higher than average travel costs for residents; ■ Impacted roadway networks needing higher than average operating and capital improvements; of which the burden of financing is apportioned County -wide; ■ Upward pressure on commercial land prices due to artificial restriction of supply ■ Downward pressure on residential land prices due to the lack of access to support facilities. Figure 1 illustrates the trend of decreasing commercial allocation ratios. Figure 1. Commercial Allocation Ratio for Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project 1.60 1.40 0 1.20 1.00 0 0.80 ca 0 0.60 Q 0.40 0.20 i 2008 2010 2020 2030 Year auuice: rlsnKlna & Associates, Inc. Based on this analysis, there is a clear and compelling case for adding additional land with neighborhood and community commercial use to this Custom Trade Area market. As noted here, this market's commercial ratio will decrease to 0.90 by 2030. It is just Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 22 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 22 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 3.3 these types of situations that make it good planning policy to have a sufficiently high ratio to accommodate the expected demand in a meaningful fashion. Impact of the Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment As noted above, the proposal for the Project would add a maximum of 225,000 square feet of commercial - retail land to the market. The following Table 6 displays the impacts of adding this additional land to the inventory. In 2010, the additional land increases the allocation ratio from 1.37 to 3.09. An allocation ratio of 3.09 provides a sufficient degree of flexibility for this market to meet future demand. It also would provide for sufficient supply as to limit the future applications for similar centers in the central Golden Gate Area, thus reducing the potential for commercial sprawl. The allocation ratios are more than reasonable with the inclusion of the Project in the FLUM. This is illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2. Allocation Ratios with the Inclusion of the Proposed Additional Commercial Acreage for Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project 3.50 3.00 2.50 ca 2.00 0 a 1.50 0 Q 1.00 0.50 2008 2010 2020 Year Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis -1 2030 Page 23 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Table 6. Analysis of Adding the Mixed Use Project's Proposed Land Use Plan Change to the Inventory of Commercial Space _ General Commercial 2008 2010 2020 2030 Market Retail Demand (sq.ft) 119,100 131,190 174,964 200,340 Supply Net GLA (sq.ft) 109,207 109,207 109,207 109,207 Proposed Project Max Retail (sq.ft) 0 225,000 225,000 225,000 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand 0.92 2.55 1.91 1.67 FLUM Potential Supply 70,699 70,699 70,699 70,699 Total Supply w/FLUM Potential 179,906 404,906 404,906 404,906 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand w /FLUM Potential 1.51 3.09 2.31 2.02 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 4.0 Commercial -Office Uses The commercial office analysis utilized the same Custom Trade Area as the retail analysis because the office uses proposed cater to a wide market and are convenience oriented in nature. These office uses would include Real Estate, Insurance, etc, which accommodate the growing population of this affordable, lower density part of our community. Using records provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser's office and information from the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department and County Clerk's Office the Consultant has determined: o There are two planned unit developments within the custom trade area surrounding the Project. 1) The Wilson Blvd PUD on the Southeast Quadrant of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard has been approved to consist of 42,000 square feet of retail and /or office uses. To date, a 39,000 sqft retail strip center is complete. The bank is approximately 3,000 square feet and will compete with the Project in terms of office space. 2) The Snowy Egret Plaza CPUD is located at the southwest quadrant of the Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center. This CPUD consists of a single parcel owned by Walgreen Co. and is designated to comprise of 15,000 square feet of commercial Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 24 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.S 24 development on 4.19 gross acres — presumably a Walgreen's Store. It is unlikely this parcel will consist of office space. o There is one vacant commercial parcel on the Northeast quadrant of Golden Gate and Wilson Boulevards, folio 37280040002. This parcel is 2.41 acres in size located adjacent and to the north of E's Country Store and is under the same ownership. o There are three parcels totaling 6.92 acres on the Southeast quadrant of 1St SW and Golden Gate Boulevard approved to consist of approximately 60,000 square feet of office space. The folio numbers for these parcels are: 37169480000, 37169440008, and 37169560108. Utilizing a County -wide average density of 11,000 square feet of office space per acre as determined by Property Appraiser Records, there are 156,940 potential square feet of office space within the Custom Trade Area surrounding the Project. Located below is a Table showing the parcels and their potential or approved sqft. Table 7. Current Supply of Vacant, Potential, and Existing Commercial - Office Space in Mixed Use Project's Market Vacant Commercial Folio Acres Sqft* Description 37280040002 2.41 26,510 N. of E's Country Store 37221120208 2.08 3,000 Liberty Gold LLC Potential Commercial Folio Acres Sqft* Description 37745120001 4.01 44,110 Randall Blvd Comm. Subdst. 37280080004 2.12 23,320 E. of E's Country Store 37169440008 2.34 20,000 CP 2005 -2 ** 37169480000 2.81 20,000 CP 2005 -2 ** 37169560108 2.34 20,000 CP 2005 -2 ** (Total Office Supply 156,940 County Office Acreage 435 4,900,920 County Office Coverage Area 11,266 *Rounded to 11,000 ** Ordinance Number 08-44 is approved for 60,000 sqft of commerical office uses. When determining the demand for office uses, the Consultant utilized the Collier County Property Appraiser's database to determine the total square footage of all existing office uses as of 2008. This includes the total square footage of all office space irregardless of its current occupancy. This total was then divided by the 2008 Collier County total permanent population as determined by the Bureau of Economic Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 25 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 25 and Business Research (BEBR) to arrive at an implied per capita office need. Total ^ square footage of office space was utilized in the per capita calculation because the comparison of supply -to- demand is done utilizing the total supply of office space — assuming full occupancy. Table 8, indicates the total office development in Collier County, corresponding population, and per capita office need. Table 8. Collier County Per Capita Office Need Office Type 2008 Bldg Sgft 2008 Collier Pop. Per Capita One -Story Professional 802,460 Class A 3,666,971 Medical and Professional 431,489 Total 4,900,920 332,854 14.7 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. & Collier County Property Appraiser; BEBR Population Studies Through our analysis, the Consultant has determined that, on average, the County needs 14.7 Sq. Ft. of office space per person. This per capita estimate accounts for all office space currently existing in the county, including occupied and vacant space. In our opinion, the trade area analysis prepared below best illustrates need for office space in this area of limited support facilities. le-N, Within the Custom Trade Area the Consultant has determined that by the year 2030, the permanent population will reach approximately 17,379 persons. The Consultant's population forecast for the Custom Trade Area is shown in Table 9. Additionally, Table 9 indicates the office needs associated with these historic and forecast population levels. Table 9. Historic & Forecast Population for Custom Trade Area Without the Proposed Amendment Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. & Collier County Property Appraisers uttice, uoiiier county Comprehensive Planning; Collier County Clerk's Office Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 26 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 26 Per Capita Total Office Allocation Year Population Office Need Office Need Sqft Supplied Ratio Population (1990) 2,539 14.7 37,384 156,940 4.20 Population (2000) 8,224 14.7 121,090 156,940 1.30 Population (2008) 12,415 14.7 182,798 156,940 0.86 Population (2013) 15,173 14.7 223,406 156,940 0.70 Population (2020) 16,499 14.7 242,936 156,940 0.65 Population (2030) 17,379 14.7 255,887 156,940 0.61 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. & Collier County Property Appraisers uttice, uoiiier county Comprehensive Planning; Collier County Clerk's Office Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 26 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 26 According to the Consultant's analysis there is an immediate need for office uses in the Custom Trade Area surrounding the Project. Unless the proposed amendment is added to the FLUM, by 2030 the allocation ratio for office land is expected to drop to 0.61. There is insufficient land within this market designated for office use or potentially available for office use, which reduces the amount of sufficient choices for a developer to accommodate the demand. 5.0 Conclusions Taking into account all developed, vacant and FLUM designated commercial land in the market; there is currently an insufficient degree of flexibility in the market's ability to accommodate future demand. The 2030 retail allocation ratio of 0.90 indicates a very tight relationship between the demand for, and the supply of, retail space in the future. The 2030 office allocation ratio also indicates a tight relationship between the demand for, and supply of, office space. The commercial retail and commercial office components of this Project are designed to serve the community and neighborhood demand for commercial space. The location provides the access and visibility that are required for this type of development. The size and functional utility of the site offers the development of sufficient retail offerings which will limit future sprawl. The under - allocation of suitable commercial property supports the need for the additional commercial acreage. Based on the map located earlier in the report, we can see the central Golden Gate Estates area would not be served at all would it not be for this project. There is current demand for retail uses and the demand will continue to grow at a rate higher than supply, which is why this project fulfills sufficient commercial need. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 27 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 27 APPENDIX 1 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRCT MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS RETAIL DEMAND METHODOLOGY 1.0 Methodology The methodology employed in the analysis of the demand for retail space at this site is based on a consumer expenditures model. This model can estimate the aggregate market demand for retail space, the demand for retail space at a specific location, and the effective supply of competing retailers in the area. The net demand for retail space at the location being studied is determined as the difference between the site demand and the effective supply of competition. 2.0 Aggregate Market - Retail Demand Fishkind & Associates, Inc. ( "Fishkind ") has developed an in -house model to determine retail demand. This model estimates retail demand by square footage, shopping center type and store type. The model incorporates multiple data sources. These sources are census based ("- Site") local area households, local area household income data, and local area consumer expenditure profiles from the U.S. Department of Labor, Department of Revenue Gross Sales data, and Urban Land Institute shopping center tenant profiles, square footage requirements and average sales per square foot by store type from the publication Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. The model operates by first determining retail household expenditures for market area households. Expenditures are determined through application of the results of the 2000 Consumer Expenditure Survey, conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor. This survey of over 30,000 households nationwide provides detailed information on average dollar expenditure amounts and the expenditure percent of household income, for all household expenditures. The income expenditure percentage is determined for the specific market area and then applied to the average local area household income and multiplied by the number of households to determine market area spending potential for retail store goods. Next, the historic Department of Revenue (DOR) Sales data (for the county in question) is indexed by tenant classification 4, from the Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. The expected expenditures on retail goods are then applied to this county specific (DOR) index to determine an estimate of spending by major store type (tenant classification). The determination of sales by retail center (neighborhood, community, regional, super - regional) is determined through the construction of an index of surveyed sales by center type (also located in the Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers). Supportable square feet of a retail center is determined by applying the average sales per square foot of GLA, found in Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, to the expected sales by store type (tenant classification). In addition to determining the supportable square feet of retail 4 Tenant Classification are: general merchandise, food, food service, clothing and accessories, shoes, home furnishings, home appliances /music, building materials and hardware, automotive, hobby /special interest, gifts /specialty, jewelry, liquor, drugs, other retail, personal services, entertainment/community. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 28 Commercial Needs Analysis Page 28 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 space, Fishkind & Associates has determined the expected sales by DOR retail classification, which is a subset of the individual store types (tenant classifications). �. Provided below are income and expenditure data utilized in the analysis. Custom Trade Area - Households & Incomes Year HHs Median HH Income Total Income 2008 3,522 $60,627 $213,529,499 2010 3,815 $61,648 $235,204,435 2020 4,681 $67,017 $313,685,292 2030 4,930 $72,853 1 $359,181,467 Source: Collier County PA; [-Site Census -based Demographics Package Note: HH Income figures are inflation adjusted; not nominal Note: Calculations in figure reflect rounding Income Expenditure Percentages INCOME EXPENDITURE % ON RETAIL 32.83% Source: [-Site, Census -based Demographics Package For Project's Custom Trade Area Retail Expenditures and Sauare Foot Sunoortability Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 29 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 29 2008 2010 2020 2030 2008 2010 1 2020 2030 GENERAL MERCHANDISE $1,010,301 $1,112,855 $1,484,182 $1,699,444 7,114 7,837 10,451 11,967 FOOD $7,932,478 $8,737,688 $11,653,199 $13,343,351 23,091 25,435 33,922 38,842 FOOD SERVICE $3,409,799 $3,755,921 $5,009,162 $5,735,679 13,257 14,602 19,475 22,299 CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES $479,013 $527,637 $703,694 $805,756 2,492 2,745 3,661 4,191 SHOES $39,019 $42,980 $57,321 $65,635 202 1 223 297 1 340 HOME FURNISHINGS $1,860,375 $2,049,218 $2,732,983 $3,129,368 9,560 10,531 14,045 16,082 HOME APPLIANCES /MUSIC $671,735 $739,921 $986,811 $1,129,936 2,897 3,191 4,256 4,873 BUILDING MATERIALS /HARDWARE $2,544,327 $2,802,597 $3,737,741 $4,279,855 15,722 17,318 23,096 26,446 AUTOMOTIVE $8,184,852 $9,015,680 $12,023,949 $13,767,874 30,666 33,779 45,050 51,584 HOBBY /SPECIAL INTEREST WITH GIFT /SPECIALTY WITH GIFT /SPECIALTY GIFT /SPECIALTY $364,514 $401,515 $535,489 $613,155 2,340 1 2,578 3,438 3,936 JEWLERY $54,728 $60,283 $80,398 $92,059 133 147 196 224 LIQUOR WITH FOOD SERVICE WITH FOOD SERVICE DRUGS $395,400 $435,536 $580,862 $665,109 1,006 1,109 1,478 1 1,693 OTHER RETAIL $390,147 $429,750 $573,145 $656,272 1,923 2,118 2,825 3,234 PERSONAL SERVICERS $230,652 $254,065 $338,840 $387,984 1,626 1,791 2,389 2,736 ENTERTAINMENT $618,258 $681,016 $908,252 $1.039,982 7,069 7.787 10.385 11.891 TOTAL $28,185,600 $31 ,046,662 $41,406,027 $47,411,460 119,100 131,190 174,964 200,340 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 29 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 29 Distribution by Store Type DISTRIBUTIONS BY STORE TYPE NEIGHBORHOOD *COMMUNITY GENERAL MERCHANDISE 14.48% FOOD 15.27% FOOD SERVICE 10.73% CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES 4.48% SHOES 0.37% HOME FURNISHINGS 7.10% HOME APPLIANCES /MUSIC 3.67% BUILDING MATERIALS /HARDWARE 11.73% AUTOMOTIVE 23.35% HOBBY /SPECIAL INTEREST WITH HOBBY /SPECIAL GIFT /SPECIALTY 1.86% JEWLERY 0.56% LIQUOR WITH FOOD SERVICE DRUGS 0.87% OTHER RETAIL 1.44% PERSONAL SERVICERS 0.69% ENTERTAINMENT 3.40% Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute Index of Sales by Center Type INDEX OF SALES BY CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD *COMMUNITY GENERAL MERCHANDISE 1.0804% 17.7493% FOOD 50.1268% 47.9941% FOOD SERVICE 16.2423% 58.1773% CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES 1.7763% 26.9659% SHOES 2.1635% 25.4356% HOME FURNISHINGS 4.8325% 65.0722% HOME APPLIANCES /MUSIC 4.5826% 43.0018% BUILDING MATERIALS /HARDWARE 8.3074% 45.2640% AUTOMOTIVE 0.0000% 100.0000% HOBBY /SPECIAL INTEREST With Gifts and Specialty GIFT /SPECIALTY 7.06% 41.68% J EWLERY 2.0271% 11.8288% LIQUOR 34.2238% 65.7762% DRUGS 36.8476% 56.2922% OTHER RETAIL 11.3333% 54.8145% PERSONAL SERVICERS 22.9793% 49.1430% ENTERTAINMENT 8.7526% 34.4114% Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute *Note: Consultant has utilized only 50% of Community Center Sales Shown Above to Account for Projects Outside of the Trade Area that Will Capture a Portion of Retail Spending from Households within the Periphery of the Market. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 30 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 30 Median Sales per Square Foot of GLA uonars & cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 31 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 31 n NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY MED /SF MED /SF GENERAL MERCHANDISE $103.01 $148.87 FOOD 347.1 336.3 FOOD SERVICE 224.28 280.19 CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES 167.96 195.97 SHOES 165.39 198.66 HOME FURNISHINGS 147.35 204.32 HOME APPLIANCES /MUSIC 137.85 271.31 BUILDING MATERIALS /HARDWARE 143.3 169.9 AUTOMOTIVE n/a 266.9 HOBBY /SPECIAL INTEREST 163.15 201.46 GIFT /SPECIALTY 186.32 147.58 JEWLERY 280.09 445.74 LIQUOR 254.1 321.25 DRUGS 408.4 374.26 OTHER RETAIL 159.18 228.9 PERSONAL SERVICERS 127.73 158.14 ENTERTAINMENT 86.41 88 uonars & cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 31 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 31 n Retail Demand Calculation Guide Calculated figures are highlighted in yellow. Please note, this guide reflects calculations for year 2008 retail demand only. Repeat the same steps below for each year covered in the analysis. Figure 1 Source: [-Site Census -based Demographics Package & Fishkind & Associates, Inc. Please note not all figures above are whole numbers, and as such may yield slightly different results if hand - calculated. Figure 1 above: Column 'C' (Total Market Income) = Column `A' (x) Column 'B' Figure 1 above: Column `E' (Income Available for Retail) = Column `C' (x) Column 'D' Figure 2 A B C D E ( %1 Allocation Expenditures ($1 Total Market Income Exp. Income Avail. for Year HHs AVG HH Income Income % Retail 2008 3,522 $60,627 $213,529,499 32.8315% $70,104,926 Source: [-Site Census -based Demographics Package & Fishkind & Associates, Inc. Please note not all figures above are whole numbers, and as such may yield slightly different results if hand - calculated. Figure 1 above: Column 'C' (Total Market Income) = Column `A' (x) Column 'B' Figure 1 above: Column `E' (Income Available for Retail) = Column `C' (x) Column 'D' Figure 2 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute; Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 32 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 32 A B DISTRIBUTIONS BY STORE TYPE ALL CENTER TYPES ( %1 Allocation Expenditures ($1 GENERAL MERCHANDISE 14.48% $10,151,193 FOOD 15.27% $10,705,022 FOOD SERVICE 10.73% $7,522,259 CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES 4.48% $3,140,701 SHOES 0.37% $259,388 HOME FURNISHINGS 7.10% $4,977,450 HOME APPLIANCES /MUSIC 3.67% $2,572,851 BUILDING MATERIALS /HARDWARE 11.73% $8,223,308 AUTOMOTIVE 23.35% $16,369,500 HOBBY /SPECIAL INTEREST WITH GIFTS /SPECIALTY GIFT /SPECIALTY 1.86% $1,303,952 JEWLERY 0.56% $392,588 LIQUOR WITH FOOD SERVICE DRUGS 0.87% $609,913 OTHER RETAIL 1.44% $1,009,511 PERSONAL SERVICERS 0.69% $483,724 ENTERTAINMENT 3.40% $2,383,567 Total 100.00% $70,104,926 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute; Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 32 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 32 Figure 2 above: Column `B' (Expenditures by Store Tenant Classification) = Column 'E' from Figure 1 allocated along the distribution in column 'A' Figure 2. Figure 3 HOBBY /SPECIAL INTEREST I VVI I n b1r 1 010rCI,1/AL I r VVI I rl hlr 1 J /ZWtU1AL I Y DRUGS A B C D E INDEX OF SALES BY CENTER Neighborhood Center Community Center Neighborhood Center *Community Center $114,411 $276,679 Allocation M Allocation / %) Expenditures ($) Exoenditures ($) TOTAL GENERAL MERCHANDISE 1.08% 17.75% $109,673 $900,883 $1,010,556 FOOD 50.13% 47.99% $5,366,085 $2,568,890 $7,934,975 FOOD SERVICE 16.24% 58.18% $1,221,788 $2,188,123 $3,409,911 CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES 1.78% 26.97% $55,788 $423,459 $479,247 SHOES 2.16% 25.44% $5,612 $32,988 $38,600 HOME FURNISHINGS 4.83% 65.07% $240,535 $1,619,468 $1,860,003 HOME APPLIANCES /MUSIC 4.58% 43.00% $117,903 $553,186 $671,090 BUILDING MATERIALS /HARDWARE 8.31% 45.26% $683,143 $1,861,099 $2,544,242 AUTOMOTIVE 0.00% 100.00% $0 $8,184,750 $8,184,750 HOBBY /SPECIAL INTEREST I VVI I n b1r 1 010rCI,1/AL I r VVI I rl hlr 1 J /ZWtU1AL I Y DRUGS 36.85% 56.29% $224,738 $171,667 $396,405 OTHER RETAIL 11.33% 54.81% $114,411 $276,679 $391,090 PERSONAL SERVICERS 22.98% 49.14% $111,156 $118,858 $230,015 ENTERTAINMENT 8.75% 34.41% 208 624 1110-109 JE8 734 TOTAL $8,559,475 $19,605,123 $28,164,598 wuc L, V1 y VV /o VI LULQ1 VVIIIIIIUIIIIy UMILCI L:7,IR711UILUJt:b Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers - Urban Land Institute. In some instances figures may not match exactly due to rounding. Figure 3 above: Columns `C' & `D' (Expenditures by Store Center Type) = Expenditures by each tenant classification (each row item in Figure 2, Column 'B') allocated across the distributions in both Columns 'A' and `B' in Figure 3. Please note Column 'D' in Figure 3 above reflects a reduction of 50% of the calculated total for community center expenditures (see full report for further information). Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 33 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 33 Figure 4 Institute. In some instances figures may not match exactly due to rounding. Figure 4 above: Columns `C' & `D' (Square Feet Supportability) = Expenditures by center type (each row item in Figure 3, Column 'C' and Column `D') divided by the respective median sales /sqft in both Columns 'A' and 'B' in Figure 4. Figure 4 above: Columns `E' (Total Site Square Feet Supportability) = Figure 4, Column 'C' plus column `D.' 3.0 Determination of Expected Location Sales & Impacts to Competition The determination of sales is a multi part process. Sales to be made at the location of a proposed retail project are based on the constant sales per square foot measure used in the determination of the demand for retail space, and an estimate of excess spending at the existing and proposed retailers. Potential location specific expenditures are determined in accordance with Sections 3.1 and 3.2. From the potential expenditures and demanded space, a determination of "base -line" spending per square foot can be made for each store type. Spending per square feet of store space is then applied to the estimate of existing store space to determine a total "base -line" sales Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 34 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 34 A B C D E NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY TOTAL SITE MED /SF MED /SF SQFT SUPPORTABILITY SS( FT SUPPORTABILITY SSG FT SUPPORTABILITY GENERAL MERCHANDISE $103.01 $148.87 1,065 6,051 7,116 FOOD 347.1 336.3 15,460 7,639 23,098 FOOD SERVICE 224.28 280.19 5,448 7,809 13,257 CLOTHING &ACCESSORIES 167.96 195.97 332 2,161 2,493 SHOES 165.39 198.66 34 166 200 HOME FURNISHINGS 147.35 204.32 1,632 7,926 9,559 HOME APPLIANCES /MUSIC 137.85 271.31 855 2,039 2,894 BUILDING MATERIALS /HARDWARE 143.3 169.9 4,767 10,954 15,721 AUTOMOTIVE n/a 266.9 - -- 30,666 30,666 HOBBY /SPECIAL INTEREST 163.15 201.46 -- - -- 0 GIFT /SPECIALTY 186.32 147.58 494 1,841 2,335 JEWLERY 280.09 445.74 28 52 81 LIQUOR 254.1 321.25 - -- 0 DRUGS 408.4 374.26 550 459 1,009 OTHER RETAIL 159.18 228.9 719 1,209 1,927 PERSONAL SERVICERS 127.73 158.14 870 752 1,622 ENTERTAINMENT 86.41 88 2.414 4.660 7.075 TOTAL 34,669 84,384 119,054 Source: Fishkind & Associates. Inc: Florida Department of Revenue: Dollars & Cents of ShOnnino Centers - Urban Land Institute. In some instances figures may not match exactly due to rounding. Figure 4 above: Columns `C' & `D' (Square Feet Supportability) = Expenditures by center type (each row item in Figure 3, Column 'C' and Column `D') divided by the respective median sales /sqft in both Columns 'A' and 'B' in Figure 4. Figure 4 above: Columns `E' (Total Site Square Feet Supportability) = Figure 4, Column 'C' plus column `D.' 3.0 Determination of Expected Location Sales & Impacts to Competition The determination of sales is a multi part process. Sales to be made at the location of a proposed retail project are based on the constant sales per square foot measure used in the determination of the demand for retail space, and an estimate of excess spending at the existing and proposed retailers. Potential location specific expenditures are determined in accordance with Sections 3.1 and 3.2. From the potential expenditures and demanded space, a determination of "base -line" spending per square foot can be made for each store type. Spending per square feet of store space is then applied to the estimate of existing store space to determine a total "base -line" sales Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 34 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 34 estimate. This "base -line" estimate will be less than the total potential expenditures. Therefore, an estimate of excess spending can be made from the difference between the estimated total 1*0_11 expenditures and the "base -line" estimate. After the determination of "base -line" sales per square foot and excess sales per square foot, the proposed project needs to be added to the supply of retail space. At this point adjusted total sales can be determined from the "base- line" sales per square foot and the adjusted supply of retail space (existing plus proposed). The adjusted excess spending, as a result of the proposed retail project, is determined by the difference between the (adjusted) "base -line" expected spending and the estimate of total expenditures. An estimation of the expected sales for the proposed project is determined by the size of the project and the total estimated spending per square foot, which is the "base -line" sales per square foot plus the adjusted excess spending per square foot as a result of the project. The final impact to sales per square foot of competing retailers in the market surrounding the proposed project is calculated as the difference between the excess sales per square foot, with and without the proposed project. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 35 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 35 APPENDIX 2 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT [l •+C C - -- KZ0t KZ1t UU — F- - V4. y LU a .. . . . . . . . . . PLANNED - DEVELOPMENTS, _ COMMERICALAND -- ' INDUSTRIAL - '—'- ZONING _ Legend PUD r k p I PUD COMMERCIAL ' _-- ?= •-' Legend w PUD INDUSTRIAL hh sws" ___ - - • QGSO•ti+asraocr rrxatsr6F � - INDUSTRIAL F y -- %iJr . — ~- • o2�vte-mrs • as I- - COMMERCIAL c iv k' 1.5 6 Miles Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 36 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 9.1 APPENDIX 3 Letter to Mr. Mark Strain, Chairman of the Collier County Planning Commission explaining the 2.0 allocation ratio methodology. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Commercial Needs Analysis Page 37 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 37 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Mark Strain Chairman Collier County Planning Commission FROM: G. Russell Weyer Senior Associate SUBJECT: Explanation of 2.0 allocation ratio DATE: October 2, 2008 � VIA: E -Mail At your request, the following is an explanation of the 2.0 allocation ratio used in the data and analysis reports we provide to the County during Comprehensive Plan land use changes. The explanation begins with the data and analysis requirements in Rule 9J -5 (2). The rule states the following (with our emphasis added): "(2) Data and Analyses Requirements. (a) All goals, objectives, policies, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and their support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element. To be based on 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. Data or summaries thereof shall not be subject to the compliance review process. However, the Department will review each comprehensive plan for the purpose of determining whether the plan is based on the data and analyses described in this chapter and whether the data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner. All tables, charts, graphs, maps, figures and data sources, and their limitations, shall be clearly described where such data occur in the above documents. Local governments are encouraged to use graphics and other techniques for making support information more readily useable by the public. Page 38 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 (b) This chapter shall not be construed to require original data collection by local government; however, local governments are encouraged to utilize any original data necessary to update or refine the local government comprehensive plan data base so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. (c) Data are to be taken from professionally accepted existing sources, such as the United States Census, State Data Center, State University System of Florida, regional planning councils, water management districts, or existing technical studies. The data used shall be the best available existing data, unless the local government desires original data or special studies. Where data augmentation, updates, or special studies or surveys are deemed necessary by local government, appropriate methodologies shall be clearly described or referenced and shall meet professionally accepted standards for such methodologies. Among the sources available to local governments are those identified in "The Guide to Local Comprehensive Planning Data Sources" published by the Department in 1989. Among the sources of data for preliminary identification of wetland locations are the National Wetland Inventory Maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (d) Primary data sources such as United States Census reports, other government data documents, local computerized data, and original map sheets used to compile required maps need not be printed in their entirety within either the support documents or the comprehensive plan. Summaries of support documents shall be submitted to the Department along with the comprehensive plan at the time of compliance review to aid in the Department's determination of compliance and consistency. As a local alternative to providing data and analyses summaries, complete data and analyses sufficient to support the comprehensive plan may be submitted to the Department at the time of compliance review. The Department may require submission of the complete or more detailed data or analyses during its compliance review if, in the opinion of the Department, the summaries are insufficient to determine compliance or consistency of the plan. (e) The comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections. Resident and seasonal population estimates and projections shall be either those provided by the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, those provided by the Executive Office of the Governor, or shall be generated by the local government. If the local government chooses to base its plan on the figures provided by the University of Florida or the Executive Office of the Governor, medium range projections should be utilized. If the local government chooses to base its plan on either low or high range projections provided by the University of Florida or the Executive Office of the Governor, a detailed description of the rationale for such a choice shall be included with such projections." A variety of studies are used when we undertake a needs analysis within the State of Florida. They are basically broken down into three categories depending on the type of land use being studied. They are residential needs analysis, commercial needs analysis and a peculiar needs analysis that economically does not fit the standard residential and commercial models. Our analysis has evolved over time with input primarily coming from County Staff with regard to the analysis at hand. In looking at comprehensive plan changes, we first must collect the data that goes into the analysis. That data includes population estimates, existing inventory, approved inventory and potential inventory. 2 Page 39 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 With regard to population estimates, we generally try to use the population data that is used by the County when and where it is available. Our second source is the population data from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. Our third source is I -Site, Site Selection Software, produced by GeoVue, Inc. These estimates and projections are compiled by Applied Geographic Solutions, Inc. AGS uses historic Census data from 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000; USPS and commercial source ZIP +4 level delivery statistics; Census Bureau population estimates and projections at varying levels of geographic detail; Internal Revenue Service statistics on tax filers and year -to -year migration; as well as the Census Bureaus Current Population Survey. The next required data set pertains to the particular land use we are analyzing. We primarily utilize the Collier County Property Appraiser data to determine the existing inventory of that particular land use, the approved inventory of that land use and finally all of the lands on the Future Land Use Map that have potential for that particular land use. We have also used data sources provided by Collier County staff such as the commercial inventory list and the planned unit development list. We then use a variety of models from retail demand gravity models to office employment demand models to determine the current and future demand for the land use type in the designated market area. The future demand generally looks out to the Comprehensive Plan's horizon year, which is currently either 2030 or 2035 depending on the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and growth management plan horizon year 110*1-1 requirements. rdlilh It is at this point of the analysis that has caused an anomaly in determining a true economic supply and demand result. On the supply side, it is relatively easy to determine the amount of existing and approved supply from the property appraiser data. The difficulty lies in the vacant non - approved potential lands. The staff has required us to take all of those lands that have a commercial or residential overlay on them and include them as supply by putting a floor area ratio figure to the acreage. The issue becomes apparent when all of the lands that are not in the existing or approved category are included in the particular land use analysis. By putting all of the potential lands in the supply category, the assumption is that all of that land would be developed as that particular land use and nothing else. For example in the case of the Airport- Corradi parcel, there were 117 potential commercial parcels totaling 270.68 acres in the 20 minute drive time market (Table 1 on the next page). Those parcels represent a potential of 1,469,723 square feet of office space. K3 Page 40 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Table 1. Current Supply of Vacant, Potential, and Existing Commercial -Office Space in Project's Market Existing # of Parcels 340 Acres 457.97 Square Feet 2,549,138 Vacant # of Parcels 523 Acres 1092.59 Square Feet 6,075,006 Potential # of Parcels 117 Acres 270.68 Square Feet" 1,469,723 Total # of Parcels 980 Acres 1821.24 S uare Feet 10,093,867 Source: Collier County Property Appraiser "Assumed 5,430 square feet per acre based on market average There are a number of flaws in the representation of total capacity (supply) which suggest a greater number of acres be designated in the Comprehensive Plan than would be indicated simply by an analysis of forecast demand. First, all of those vacant approved parcels and parcels designated by the Future Land Use Map ( "FLUM ") as having the potential to be developed as office, in reality, also have the potential to be retail space or some other commercial use. The same parcels are also counted as competing supply when a commercial needs analysis is performed for another commercial use. To include these lands in both retail and office analyses would be double counting the supply. These lands will actually be developed as the market demand dictates, with some lands used for office and the remainder for retail and other permissible uses. A general economic principal states that all markets are efficient and that supply for the most part is generated as demand dictates. It is a rare situation where supply generates demand. Second, though the lands in question are designated with a FLUM category, this does not mean that 100% of these lands are developable. Within these lands there may be wetland areas, conservation areas, water bodies, incompatible adjacent uses, policy setback requirements, drainage and road requirements and infrastructure or access constraints. As a result of these and other myriad conditions, the maximum density /intensity of lands designated through the FLUM does not represent the holding capacity of these lands. Typically, development thresholds are found to be from 50% to 75% of maximum allowable density due to the physical characteristics of the land. 0 Page 41 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Third, while lands are designated with a FLUM land use, there is no requirement they be used at all over the planning horizon. Many properties are held in land bank trusts, held by absentee owners, held in estate transfer litigation or held in family ownership with no intent or desire to use or sell the land. Florida and Collier County in particular have very large tracts of land held in long term family trusts where lands are not developed or are purposefully held off the market. In these and other similar instances, a land use designation on the FLUM does not assure the capacity allocated to these lands will be available to accommodate future growth within the planning horizon of the Comprehensive Plan. Fourth, even if all the lands designated were developable and available it would be inappropriate to limit supply to exactly the level of forecast demand, represented by a ratio of 1:1 where there is one acre of land supply allocated for every acre of land demand identified. Doing so would limit choices, limit market flexibility and constrain the market. Constraining supply will drive prices artificially high and decrease the attractiveness of the market due to price. For example in choosing a new home one does not typically look at only one house in the selection process. The selection process may involve multiple properties, perhaps a dozen or more. So too for commercial land investments, choice and flexibility are required in the selection process. Fifth, the supply of land is determined and allocated such that it will accommodate the forecast demand. The forecast demand is most often based on population forecasts provided by the University of Florida Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BEBR). Research has shown the BEBR forecasts to be highly accurate in locations where the local economic structure does not change substantially over time. In locations where structural change does occur, the error rate for BEBR medium forecasts can be from 30% to more than 100% too low in terms of forecasting population levels over a 25 year forecast period. Rapidly growing locations, locations which benefit from major highway or interstate expansions, locations which benefit from enhanced airport facilities and locations which benefit from major employer locations are all examples of conditions which represent structural change and tend to result in faster population growth than is forecast in the BEBR projections. Collier County is subject to these structural change forces, and as such, it can be expected that BEBR forecasts will have a comparatively higher degree of error than in other locations across the State. This supports the need for additional flexibility in the allocation of developable land to accommodate a higher probability of population forecast error. Table 2 on the next page documents the analysis of forecast error findings. Page 42 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Table 2. Comparison of Long -Term Population Projections. Counties DeSoto 36,700 1975 BEBR Year 2000 without Highlands 81,400 87,366 projections for 2000 Actual Variance Counties Flagler 21,700 49,832 - 129.6% with St. Johns 71,000 123,135 -73.4% Structural Lake 143,300 210,527 -46.9% Shift Marion 191,000 258,916 -35.6% St. Lucie 149,800 192,695 -28.6% Counties DeSoto 36,700 32,209 12.2% without Highlands 81,400 87,366 -7.3% Structural Polk 471,300 483,924 -2.7% Shift Pasco 343,600 344,768 -0.3% Counties with Shift Total 576,800 835,105 -44.8% Counties without Shift Total 933,000 948,267 -1.6% Source: Projections of Florida Population Bulletin 33, June 1975, U. FL and US Census 2000 These conditions have been well documented and supported in administrative hearings. In the course of the evolution of Florida's comprehensive planning process, allocation of land in the FLUM often exceeds the 1:1 ratio. In general, the allocation ratio of between 2.0 and 2.5 has been determined to be a reasonable level, has been supported in administrative legal hearings and has been implicitly adopted in comprehensive plans across the State. To account for the conditions described above, comprehensive plan FLUMs typically represent an allocation of acres for land use by category in excess of a 1:1 allocation ratio. The allocation ratio measures the amount of additional acreage required in relation to the directly utilized acreage over the course of development in the jurisdiction to assure proper market functioning in the sale, usage and allocation of land. For the reasons discussed, the additional acreage is required in order to maintain market level pricing, to account for the likelihood that certain lands will not be placed on the market for sale during the forecast horizon, and that the property will develop at historic average densities, not maximum allowable densities, or may be subject to future environmental or other constraints. Thus, the lands allocated in the FLUM should be considerably greater than those that will actually be used or developed. As a result of these discussions, analyses and rulings, growth management practices have evolved such that the greater the time horizon of the comprehensive plan, the greater the allocation ratio needed to maintain flexibility of the comprehensive plan. Other factors that influence the residential acreage allocation ratio are the nature and speed of the developing area and the area's general exposure to growth trends in the market as shown in the discussion regarding population forecasts and structural change. Fishkind believes that to ensure proper flexibility in the comprehensive plan of a rapidly growing county like Collier, a commercial allocation ratio in the range of 2.0 is necessary to maintain planning flexibility and to account for the multiple sets of conditions which might otherwise restrict land usage. Page 43 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Although the allocation ratio figure has fluctuated over time depending on who is reviewing the amendment at the state level, Fishkind's recent experience with the Florida Department of Community Affairs indicates that the DCA has seen and approved allocation ratios in the 1.8 to 2.4 range and in some cases even larger allocation ratios for longer forecast horizons. Otherwise, if allocation ratios are not used in the analysis, the likely outcome is the Comprehensive Plan will fail to adequately accommodate growth resulting in higher than normal land prices, constrained economic development and a less efficient pattern of growth which results from market inflexibility due to lack of investment choices. 7 Page 44 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Mark Strain Chairman Collier County Planning Commission FROM: G. Russell Weyer Senior Associate SUBJECT: Examples of 2.0 Allocation Ratio Acceptance DATE: October 2, 2008 VIA: E -Mail Mark, You have asked for specific examples where the Allocation Ratio measurement has been used elsewhere. Here is one example of a legal case and two other examples in Florida where is has been approved and accepted by both the local jurisdiction and in some cases the Department of Community Affairs. Panhandle Citizens Coalition Inc. versus Department of Community Affairs In the matter Panhandle Citizens Coalition Inc. (PCC) vs. Department of Community Affairs (DCA), a petition was filed by PCC to challenge DCA's finding that the West Bay Detailed Specific Area Plan (WB DSAP) was in compliance as an amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan. The findings of fact in this case include item #92 which reads: "In addition to projecting population growth and assessing capacity to accommodate growth an allocation needs ratio (or multiplier) is necessary to ensure housing affordability and variety in the market; otherwise, the supply and demand relationship is too tight, which may cause a rapid escalation of housing prices. Because the farther in time a local government projects growth, the less accurate those projections tend to be, actual need is multiplied by an allocation needs ratio to produce an additional increment of residential land to accommodate this potential error." 1 Page 45 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Finding #93 states: "Small Counties that experience above - normal growth rates may use allocation ratios as high as three more in order to realistically allocate sufficient buildable land for future growth. The County's allocation ratio of 2.2 before the WB DSAP and FLUM amendments was low from a long term forecasting perspective. When the WB DSAP amendments are factored into the allocation ratio, such growth would raise the allocation ratio to 2.3, which is still relatively low." Further, in finding #94 it is stated: "A land use plan should allow for sufficient inventory to accommodate demand and to provide some choice in order to react to economic factors." The Administrative Law Judge found the proposed land use amendments in compliance with section 163.3184 (1) (b) in part because the demonstration of need with respect to the allocation ratio indicated the allocation ratio of 2.3 was too low to properly accommodate projected future growth over the planning horizon. Acceptance of 2.0 Allocation Ratio in the case of Newberry Village Retail in Alachua County Newberry Village is a development of approximately 250,000 square feet of retail space in unincorporated Alachua County. A comprehensive plan change was required to allow for this use in the County. The applicant performed a commercial needs analysis as a requirement for their data and analysis portion of their application. The analysis is attached as Exhibit A. The Florida Department of Community Affairs found the plan amendment compliant with no requests for further data analysis. We have attached the notification of compliance as Exhibit B. City of Leesburg, Florida implicit Allocation Ratio The City of Leesburg, Florida has an adopted comprehensive plan where the implicit residential allocation ratio of 2.5 is embedded in the plan. The estimated land requirement projections are found in the approved 2003 Housing Element of the Leesburg Comprehensive Plan on page III -17. The Housing Element of the Leesburg Comprehensive Plan indicates an allocation ratio of 2.5 in the following passage: "Based on figures provided by the Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, a total of 8,295 dwelling units will be needed to serve the household population of the City by year 2010 ...... the City will be able to accommodate approximately 13,292 additional units, for a total of 21,031 residential units by 2010." 2 Page 46 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Given the 2010 demand for 8,295 units and 21,031 unit capacity, the empirical allocation ratio found is 2.5 in the current and approved 2003 Leesburg Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. Allocation Ratios of other Florida Counties with updated Comprehensive Plans Allocation ratios are not only used in analyzing commercial comprehensive plan amendment changes. The ratios are also used in analyzing residential comprehensive plan amendment changes as noted here and in the City of Leesburg, Florida above. In reviewing a number of needs analysis reports submitted for residential comprehensive plan amendment changes around the state, Fishkind has discovered that there are number of counties across the state that have substantial allocation ratios that are embedded in their comprehensive plans. Fishkind has analyzed allocation ratios in counties across the state with recently updated comprehensive plans that have been approved by the Department of Community Affairs. As shown in Table 5.6.1, the future land use maps of these counties contain allocation ratios that are consistent with those suggested by Fishkind. Table 5.6.1. Allocation Ratios in other Florida Counties County Allocation Ratio Forecast Horizon (years) Hendry 5.38 15 St. Johns 3.08 15 Nassau 4.54 15 Martin 3.92 15 Indian River 4.62 20 Source: Fishkind and Associates, Inc. The counties noted above have incorporated significant allocation ratios into their comprehensive plans to adequately accommodate growth and limit higher than normal land prices, constrained economic development and less efficient patterns of growth which result from market inflexibility due to lack of investment choices. K Page 47 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 EXHIBIT A Newberry Village Retail Needs Analysis Page 48 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Newberry Village Retail Needs Analysis Prepared For: NewUrban WORKS Development Prepared By: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 12501 Corporate Blvd. Orlando, Florida 32817 (407) 382 -3256 October 25, 2005 Page 49 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Table Of Contents Section Title Page 1.0 Introduction ............................................ ............................... 1 2.0 Current market Conditions ...................... ............................... 2 3.0 Community -Type Retail Allocation Ratio . ............................... 3 4.0 Need for Additional Community -Type Retail Zoning ............... 3 5.0 Conclusion ............................................. ............................... 4 Appendix 1 — Existing Competitive Supply Appendix 2 — Vacant Future Supply Appendix 3 — 20 Minute Drive Time Demographics Page 50 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Newberry Village — Retail Needs Analysis 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose This report analyzes the need to amend the Alachua County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the proposed Newberry Village development. The development program calls for development of approximately 250,000 square feet of retail space in unincorporated Alachua County. 1.2 Overview of needs analysis In the context of amending the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Alachua County the applicant must demonstrate the need to amend the plan. Typically, this takes the form of a comparison of: • The supply of existing land currently planned for retail uses • The demand for retail lands based on market conditions The applicant must determine whether there is sufficient supply of retail land in the Plan to accommodate future retail space demand. The analysis was conducted based on a 20 minute drive time market area surrounding the project site, comparing demand and supply, both existing and future, within the project market area. The retail market study further considered both demand and supply for community -type retail space only. Figure 1 shows the 20 minute drive time market area. Figure 1 — 20 Minute Drive Time Market Area Page 1 of 8 �Wh aF L Page 51 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 1 i YI E i lNvbrr NII . 7 i (5 i Page 1 of 8 �Wh aF L Page 51 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Newberry Village — Retail Needs Analysis 2.0 Current Market Conditions 2.1 Existing Supply The community -type retail supply in the market was determined using the US Shopping Center directory, listing community type retail centers in Alachua County. Based on a gravity model of retail shopping patterns, calibrated for local market conditions, Fishkind & Associates, Inc. determined the effective competitive retail square footage surrounding the site, applicable to the subject location. Of 1.6 million square feet of community type retail space within 20 minutes of the site, Fishkind determined 1.3 million square feet of this existing supply directly competes with community type retail space at the subject site. Appendix 1 lists the existing competitive community -type shopping centers within 20 a minute drive time of the site, the square feet associated with each center, and its competitive characteristics based on the market conditions. 2.2 Future Supply To determine future supply, Fishkind & Associates, Inc. examined all vacant commercial parcels within the 20 minute market area. Vacant commercial parcels as designated by the Property Appraiser were then checked for current zoning. Parcels with current zoning of Business (BR), highway oriented business (BH), and Automotive (BA) were determined to represent competitive vacant supply. The analysis showed there are 38 vacant parcels meeting the criteria for future competitive supply. The criteria include, vacant parcels having the required zoning, and of sufficient size to accommodate community -type retail space, meaning parcels generally greater than 10 acres and less than 30 acres in size. Parcels with proper zoning in excess of 30 acres were excluded, as these more appropriately accommodate regional -type retail demand. Parcels with proper zoning under 10 acres were excluded as these more appropriately accommodate neighborhood -type retail demand. Numerous parcels under 10 acres were also included in the analysis as these are parcels with adjacency allowing combined parcel sizes of approximately 10 acres or greater. The sum total of competitive sites is 215 acres. An additional 57.7 acres were added to the supply based on further planning analysis of properties which appear to qualify for community type capacity. The vacant competitive supply is 272.7 acres. At .18 FAR this translates to potential future community -type retail supply of 2.1 million square feet, within the Newberry Village market area. The combined existing competitive supply plus future supply equals 3.4 million Page 2 of 8 Page 52 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Newberry Village - Retail Needs Analysis square feet of Community -type retail space capacity in the Newberry Village market area, through year 2020. Appendix 2 shows the list of parcels designated for future community type supply. No representations are made as to the availability for sale or whether there is owner intention to develop the vacant lands at any time in the future. Because there is no assurance as to whether these lands will be developed, a market flexibility factor (allocation ratio) must be included to assure proper supply over the long term. 2.3 Community -Type Retail Space Demand The market analysis shows there are 76,090 households within the 20 minute drive time surrounding the site, as of 2005 (see appendix 3). Average household income is $45,260. This generates community -type retail demand of 1.6 million square feet of space as of year 2005. Household growth to year 2020 is expected to raise market area households to 96,208 households and 2.0 million square feet of demand by year 2020. 3.0 Community -Type Retail Allocation Ratio The community -type retail allocation ratio in the Newberry Village market area is 1.7. This is determined by dividing the 3.4 million square feet of supply /capacity by the 2.0 million square feet of demand, through the planning horizon year of 2020. The addition of 250,000 square feet of retail space through the proposed Newberry Village retail land use change results in a marginal increase in the overall Plan allocation ratio from 1.7 to 1.8. Fishkind & Associates believes an allocation ratio of under 2.0 leaves insufficient flexibility to accommodate long term retail space needs. Table 1 shows the supply /demand calculation and resulting allocation ratio. Table 1- 2020 Summary Community Retail Market Conditions Vacant Community Retail Acres 272.7 Future Community SQ FT. Supply 2,138,043 Existing Competitive Supply 1,266,947 TOTAL SUPPLY 3,404,990 Proposed Newberry Village 250,000 Total Demand 2,045,865 Community Commercial Allocation Ratio 1.8 Page 3 of 8 Ke` �hft �s a Page 53 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 100-111. /0"N, Newberry Village — Retail Needs Analysis 4.0 Need for Additional Community -Type Retail Zoning With the revised allocation ratio so low in the Newberry Village market area, there is a need for additional retail capacity to be allocated for the long -term. 4.2 Acceptable Over - Allocation Ratio The Department of community Affairs has indicated an acceptable over - allocation rate for future land use planning purposes is 2.0. Many communities have considerably higher allocations for retail land uses. The Newberry Village market area has a current allocation ratio of 1.7. The addition of 250,000 square feet of community -type retail space in the proposed project will increase the allocation ratio to 1.8, leaving the market below 2.0 and only slightly above the original County allocation. 5.0 Conclusion Newberry Village has petitioned Alachua County to revise the Comprehensive Plan to allow the inclusion of 250,000 square feet of additional community -type retail space in the Newberry Village market area. The current analysis of available community -type retail lands indicates a need for additional retail acres in the market area by year 2020, in order to provide proper long range planning flexibility. This report concludes there is an under - allocation of available community -type retail lands in the Newberry Village market area. The conversion of lands to retail uses will still provide the ability of the remainder of the site to reach 80% of the maximum residential density allowed under the existing zoning and land use. However, by including the mixed use component, needed additional retail capacity is provided while still achieving a high proportion of the maximum residential capacity. Based on this finding, there is justification to include the Newberry Village lands in the Future Land Use Map as inventory of future retail lands. Page 4 of 8 sr� a Page 54 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Newberry Village — Retail Needs Analysis APPENDIX 1 - Existing Competitive Supply CENTER NAME GLA SITE DIST %, COMPETING SF COMPETING NEWBERRY SQUARE 180,524 0.63 98.01% 176,939 NEWBERRY CROSSING 111,010 1.37 95.68% 106,217 OAKS SQUARE 119,000 1.37 95.68% 113,862 OAKS MALL PLAZA 105,252 1.55 95.12% 100,111 TOWER CENTRE 165,000 1.92 93.95% 155,018 CENTRAL PLAZA 132,000 10.00 68.97% 91,043 GAINESVILLE SHOPPING CENTER 186,173 10.08 68.73% 127,959 GAINESVILLE MALL 289,850 11.02 65.92% 191,077 WAL -MART PLAZA 177,766 11.33 65.00% 115,552 n WINN DIXIE MARKETPLACE PLAZA 139,337 11.67 64.00% 89,171 TOTAL 1,605,912 1,266,947 Page 5 of 8 LALL rLb Lb L Page 55 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Newberry Village - Retail Needs Analysis Page 56 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 APPENDIX 2 - Future Vacant Supply OBJECTID_1 ZONEDISTRI ZONEDEFIN PIN CALCACRES SQFT 200 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06041 - 003 -001 21.8 0.000000 89 BP Business and Professional (BP) 06041 - 002 -005 9.3 0.000000 135 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331 - 002 -003 6.0 0.000000 142 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06800- 028 -000 1.0 0.000000 277 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344- 005 -003 1.5 0.000000 278 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344 - 005 -005 4.0 0.000000 117 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344 -005 -003 1.5 0.000000 118 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344 -009 -000 1.1 0.000000 119 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345 -003 -000 0.5 0.000000 120 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345 - 004 -000 1.0 0.000000 121 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345 - 006 -000 6.2 0.000000 122 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345 - 010 -000 0.5 0.000000 354 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344 - 001 -000 8.6 0.000000 355 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345 -006 -000 6.2 0.000000 313 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 04350 - 005 -000 9.0 0.000000 132 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06038 - 022 -000 10.5 0.000000 353 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345 - 006 -000 6.2 0.000000 59 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 04344 - 001 -000 8.6 0.000000 205 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06233 - 006 -001 1.3 0.000000 100 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331 - 002 -003 6.0 0.000000 101 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331 - 005 -000 2.9 0.000000 102 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331- 006 -000 1.0 0.000000 315 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04350 - 005 -000 9.0 0.000000 284 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 04345 - 006 -000 6.2 0.000000 124 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344 -009 -000 1.1 0.000000 285 BA Automotive Oriented Business (BA) 04344- 001 -000 8.6 0.000000 286 BA Automotive Oriented Business (BA) 04345 - 006 -000 6.2 0.000000 160 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 07251 - 017 -000 1.2 0.000000 10 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 06655 - 002 -003 29.4 0.000000 116 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344- 009 -000 1.1 0.000000 312 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344 - 009 -000 1.1 0.000000 314 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 04350 - 005 -000 9.0 0.000000 134 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06655 - 015 -000 4.9 0.000000 263 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06656 - 002 -008 3.4 0.000000 152 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331 - 002 -003 6.0 0.000000 153 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331 - 005 -000 2.9 0.000000 154 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331 - 006 -000 1.0 0.000000 316 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04350 - 005 -000 9.0 0.000000 215.0 O Page 6 of 8 Lakes Jklika a Page 56 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Newberry Village — Retail Needs Analysis Appendix 3 — Newberry Village 20 Minute Drive Time Demographics FISIOM Page 7 of 8 rrLc rEr LL h Page 57 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Site Location: Lat: 29.661634 Lon: - 82.430144 Prepared By: FISHKIND AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Household Trend Report Page A -1 10/25/05 Source: AGS Report Created with (SITE, Version: 2005.01.16 Page 58 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 s,rE,valwE. Newberry Village = TRADE AREA SIZE. ZQ Rlln :', zu''•Y VALUE % raffic Settings: Heavy, Travel Speeds: 30,50,65,20,30,40 Population Population (1990) 143,256 Population (2000) 172,121 Population (2005) 174,990 Population (2010) 177,778 Pct. Population Growth ('90200) 20.15 Pct. Population Growth ('00 -'05) 1.67 Pct. Population Growth ('05210) 1.59 Geographic Area Size 221.5974 Population Density (2005) 789.68 Daytime Marketplace (2005) Total Business Establishments 7,406 Total Daytime Employment 112,110 Households Households (1990) 57,054 Households (2000) 70,015 Households (2005) 76,090 Households (2010) 81,946 Married Couple Family With Children (2005) 11,417 15.0% Gender (2005) Male (2005) 85,523 48.9% Female (2005) 89,466 51.1% Race & Ethnicity (2005) Race: White (2005) 128,502 73.4% Race: Black (2005) 31,825 18.2% Race: Asian or Pacific Islander (2005) 7,914 4.5% Race: Other Race (2005) 3,122 1.8% Race: Two or More Races (2005) 3,627 2.1% Ethnicity: Hispanic (2005) 11,907 6.8% Age Distribution (2005) Age 0 -4 (2005) 9,448 5.4% Age 5 -9 (2005) 8,564 4.9% Age 10 -13 (2005) 7,049 4.0% Age 14 -17 (2005) 8,516 4.9% Age 18 -24 (2005) 30,904 17.7% Age 25 -34 (2005) 40,035 22.9% Age 35-44 (2005) 19,947 11.4% Age 45 -54 (2005) 19,857 11.3% Age 55 -64 (2005) 13,756 7.9% Age 65 -74 (2005) 8,384 4.8% Age 75 -84 (2005) 5,839 3.3% Age 85+ (2005) 2,288 1.3% Source: AGS Report Created with (SITE, Version: 2005.01.16 Page 58 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Site Location: Lat: 29.661634 Lon: - 82.430144 Prepared By: FISHKIND AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Household Trend Report Page A -2 10/25/05 Source: AGS Report Created with iSITE, Version: 2005.01.16 Page 59 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 /0-- SITENAME Newberry Village ' 7R4DEAREASIZE 20 1 , Traffic Settings: Heavy, Travel Speeds: 30,50,65,20,30,40 Median Age Median Age (2005) 31.31 Median Household Income Median Household Income (1990) 24,711 Median Household Income (2000) 34,389 Median Household Income (2005) 37,442 Median Household Income (2010) 41,571 Per Capita Income Per Capita Income (1990) 12,221 Per Capita Income (2000) 17,795 Per Capita Income (2005) 20,389 Per Capita Income (2010) 23,469 Average Household Income Average Household Income (1990) 30,686 Average Household Income (2000) 43,960 Average Household Income (2005) 45,268 Average Household Income (2010) 49,184 Median Disposable Income Median Disposable Income (2005) 32,082 Aggregate Income Aggregate Income ($MM) (2005) 3,567.80 Income Distribution (2005) HH Inc. $ 0 - $ 15k (2005) 20,657 27.1% HH Inc. $15 - $ 25k (2005) 10,641 14.0% HH Inc. $25 - $ 35k (2005) 8,865 11.7% HH Inc. $35 - $ 50k (2005) 10,143 13.3% HH Inc. $50 - $ 75k (2005) 10,976 14.4% HH Inc. $75 - $100k (2005) 6,092 8.0% HH Inc. $100k - $150 (2005) 5,471 7.2% HH Inc. $150 - $200k (2005) 1,608 2.1% HH Inc. $200K+ (2005) 1,637 2.2% Employment By Industry (2000) Employment Status: Total Labor Force 90,720 52.7% Employment Status: Employed 83,786 48.7% Industry: Agriculture (2000) 505 0.6% Industry: Mining (2000) 12 0.0% Industry: Construction (2000) 3,550 4.2% Industry: Manufacturing (2000) 2,804 3.3% Industry: Wholesale Trade (2000) 1,237 1.5% Industry: Retail Trade (2000) 9,348 11.2% Industry: Transport. and Warehousing (2000) 1,444 1.7% Industry: Utilities (2000) 714 0.9% Source: AGS Report Created with iSITE, Version: 2005.01.16 Page 59 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 /0-- Site Location: Lat: 29.661634 Lon: - 82.430144 Prepared By: FISHKIND AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Household Trend Report Page A -3 10/25/05 slrElvaMe "Newberry,Village TRADE AREA SIZE Traffic Settings: Heavy, Travel Speeds: 30,50,65,20,30,40 VALUE % Employment By Industry (2000) Industry: Information Services (2000) 2,640 3.2% Industry: Finance and Insurance (2000) 3,076 3.7% Industry: Real Estate (2000) 1,635 2.0% Industry: Professional Services (2000) 4,721 5.6% Industry: Management (2000) 16 0.0% Industry: Admin. Services And Waste Mgmnt (2000) 2,296 2.7% Industry: Educational Services (2000) 18,924 22.6% Industry: Health Care and Social Assist. (2000) 13,505 16.1% Industry: Arts, Entertainment and Recreation (2000) 1,567 1.9% Industry: Food and Hospitality Services (2000) 7,821 9.3% Industry: Other Services, except public (2000) 3,815 4.6% Industry: Public Adminstration (2000) 4,156 5.0% Housing (2000) Housing Units (2000) 76,020 Housing Units, Occupied (2000) 70,015 92.1% Housing Units, Vacant (2000) 6,005 7.9% Housing Units, Owner - Occupied (2000) 33,624 48.0% Housing Units, Renter - Occupied (2000) 36,391 52.0% Median Rent (2000) 441 Median Home Value (2000) 99,302 Consumer Expenditures (2005, $ /HH) Total Consumer Expenditures (2005) 40,661.64 Total Retail Expenditures (2005) 17,708.70 Educational Attainment (2000) Education: Less than 9th Grade (2000) 2,903 3.1% Education: Some High School (2000) 6,492 7.0% Education: High School Graduates (2000) 15,973 17.2% Education: Some College (2000) 17,634 19.0% Education: Associate's Degree (2000) 9,039 9.7% Education: Bachelor's Degree (2000) 20,404 22.0% Education: Graduate School (2000) 20,408 22.0% Population, Age 25+ (2000) 92,852 53.9% Source: AGS Report Created with iSITE, Version: 2005.01.16 Page 60 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 EXHIBIT B Newberry Village Retail Comprehensive Plan Amendment Florida Department of Community Affairs Notice of Compliance Page 61 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" CHARLIE CRIST THOMAS C,. PELHAM Govemor Secretary July 22, 2008 The Honorable Rodney- J. Long Chairman. Board of County Commissioners Alachua County P.O. Box 2877 Gainesville, FL 32602 -2877 RE: Alachua County Adopted Amendment 08 -R1 Dear Chairman Long: The Department has completed its review of the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Ordinance Number 08 -10; DCA Amendment Numbers 06 -2 and 08 -RI) for Alachua County, as adopted on August 17, 2006 and June 10, 2008, and determined that it meets the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, for compliance, as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The Department is issuing a Cumulative Notice of Intent to find the plan amendment in compliance. The Cumulative Notice of Intent was sent to the Gainesville Sun for publication on July 23, 2008. The Department's cumulative notice of intent to find a plan amendment in compliance shall be deemed to be a final order if no timely petition challenging the amendment is filed. Any affected person may file a petition with the agency within 21 days after the publication of the notice of intent pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes. No development orders, or permits for a development, dependent on the amendment may be issued or commence before the plan amendment takes effect. Please be advised that Section 163.3184(8)(c)2, Florida Statutes, requires a local government that has an internet site to post a copy of the Department's Notice of Intent on the site within 5 days after receipt of the mailed copy of the agency's notice of intent. Please note that a copy of the adopted County Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and the Notice of Intent must be available for public inspection Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays, during normal business hours, at the Alachua County Growth (Management Office, 10 SW 2"`' Avenue. Third Floor. Gainesville. Florida, 32601 -6294. 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD ♦ TALLAHASSEE. FL 32399 -2100 850- 468 -8466 Ipj ♦ 350 - 921 -0781 (f) • Webslte* .v 4.v do a.s'a`.= f. • COMMUNITY PLANNING s • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 850488 956 !pj 850- 522 -:553 tf-i Page 62 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 a The Honorable Rodney J. Long July 22, 2008 Page 2 If this in compliance determination is challenged by an affected person. you will have the option of mediation pursuant to SubsectionI63.3189(3)(a). Florida Statutes. If you choose to attempt to resolve this matter through mediation, you must file the request for mediation with the administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings. The choice of mediation will not at3ect the right of any party to an administrative hearing. If you have any questions, please contact Ana Richmond, Planner, at (850) 922 - 1793. Sincerely. (Mike McDaniel Chief, Office of Comprehensive Planning MM!ar Enclosure: Notice of Intent cc: Mr. Scott Koons, AICP, Executive Director, North Central Florida RPC Mr. Steven Lachnicht, AICP, Director of Growth Management Mr. C. David Coffey Mr. Bradley Stith Page 63 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS CUMULATIVE NOTICE OF INTENT TO FIND THE ALACHUA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REMEDIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(S) IN COMPLIANCE DOCKET NO. 08 -R I -NOI- 0102- (A) -(I) The Department issues this cumulative notice of intent to find the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 06-26 on August 17, 2006 and the remedial amendment(s) adopted by Ordinance No. 08 -10 on June 10, 2008 IN COMPLIANCE, pursuant to Sections 163.3I84, 163.3187 and 163.3189, F.S. The adopted Alachua County Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Department's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report, (if any), are available for public inspection Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays, during normal business hours, at the Alachua County Growth Management, 10 S.W- 2°d Avenue, Third Floor, Gainesville, Florida 32601 -6294. Any affected person, as defined in Section 163.3184, F.S., has a right to petition for an administrative hearing to challenge the proposed agency determination that the Remedial Amendments are In Compliance, as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), F.S. The petition must be filed within twenty-one (2 1) days after publication of this notice, and must include all of the information and contents described in Uniform Rule 28- I06.201, F.A.C. The petition must be filed with the Agency Clerk, Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100 and a copy mailed or delivered to the local government. Failure to timely file a petition shall constitute a waiver of any right to request an administrative proceeding as a petitioner under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. If petition is filed, the purpose of the administrative hearing will be to present evidence and testimony and forward a recommended order to the Department. If no petition is filed, this Notice of Intent shall become final agency action. If a petition is filed, other affected persons may petition for leave to intervene in the proceeding. A petition for intervention must be filed at least twenty (20) days before the final hearing and must include all of the information and contents described in Uniform Rule 28- 106.205, F.A.C. A petition for leave to intervene shall be filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3060. Failure to petition to intervene within the allowed time frame constitutes a waiver of any right such a person has to request a hearing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., or to participate in the administrative hearing. After an administrative hearing petition is timely filed, mediation is available pursuant to Subsection I63.3189(3)(a), F.S., to any affected person who is made a party to the proceeding by filing that request with the administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings. The choice of mediation shall not affect a party's right to an administrative hearing. Mike McDaniel, Chief Division of Community Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100 Page 64 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 Q Z O () � O O (n W 06 t- I-- zz� Q g � Z 3f � ::) i _ co �000 J Q Z M _J _J Q J 00 0 It 0 �0 w r-I Q W f-~ J O CL OWoQ 01�U,t-Z Page 65 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 n YOUR OPINION IS VERY IMPORTANT Collier County will soon be considering the. application to create a neighborhood shopping center up to 225,000 square feet on approximately 40 acres at the Northwest area of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. It is anticipated that this center will offer a major grocer, restaurants, banks and various other retail and service businesses. CD This survey is an important part of the public outreach effort to gauge public opinion of this concept. We will appreciate your completing and returning the attached, postage-paid reply card before March 6, so your voice will be heard. Thank you. Please note that surveys are being returned to the Certified Public Accounting firm of Rogers Wood Hill Starman & Gustason, PA, who will tabulate results in accordance with standards established by the American institute of Certified Public Accountants. M X Si Usted desea una copia de esta encuesfia en espanol por favor (lame a Marta 0 Suarez al numero (239) 262 -2588. NOTI'CEH Due to a printing company error, the survey you received last week contained a return date that does not allow adequate time for everyone to respond to the survey. Please accept our apologies. To rectify that error, we have reprinted and re- mailed the survey (see enclosed) with the correct return date of March.6, 2008. If you have already completed and returned the survey, we ask you to do so again (only surveys on this blue paper will be tabulated). if you have not yet completed 0 the survey, we ask that you discard the earlier one, and fill out and return this one before the deadline. We are truly sorry for any inconvenience we may have caused, but we want to make sure that everyone in the market area is given ample opportunity to express their opinion. Thank you so much for your cooperation. M X Dolly Roberts, 0 For the proposed Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Shopping Center. 00 0 M X __ Co 0 Proposed Neighborhood Shopping Center at the Northwest area of Wilson & Golden Gate Boulevard I support the concept of this neighborhood shopping center Yes ❑ No ❑ Within the center, I would like to see (check as many as applicable ❑ Major grocer ❑ Fast Food Restaurant ❑ Banks 0 Drugstore ❑ Post Office ❑ Coffee Shop CI Convenience Store /Gas /Car Wash Beauty Salon ❑ Hardware Store ❑ Video Store ❑ Garden /Farm /Pet Supply ❑ Family Restaurants ❑ Dry Cleaner ❑ Child Day Care ❑ Clothing Store ❑ Ice Cream Shop ❑ Adult Day Care C]` Other (please specify) Please return by Thursday, March 6, 2008 to be included in results. Thank you. Apr 24 08 0132p Jay Bishop 354 -3353 p.2 Page 69 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 to ?0-1*1 Apr 24 08 01:32p Jay Bishop SHELD"q, i W S PAW.%'L C.P.A. RONALD W. GUSTAWK CAA TH(MASE BMW -LP.A. SNNtLW A. MCNER C .P.A. 3543353 ROGERS WOOD HILL STARMAN & GUSTASON PROFESSIONAL ASSMATION CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 4MTAMWJ TRAL NORTH. SUM *W YAP)E''i.FL 31101 SCOT A. SNEPAPJ. C.P.A. INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED -UPON PROCEDURES Development Properties, Inc. Naples, Florida p.3 MERESEAS WOMAN ;NSIITUIE CF CEMTED PUBLIC ACCOARRAMM FLORIDA IMMUTCO:'CERTIFED WBL1C ACCO"RIFANTS OFFICES NAPLES 9-10M AIAECOIELAND 3S4•I503 We have performed the procedures enumerated below, which were agreed to by Development Properties (the Company), solely to assist the Company in the tabulation of surveys to determine if a shopping center is supported, and, if so, what type of tenants would be preferred. The Comparry was responsible for creating the survey and distributing the survey to Golden Gate residents. This agreed -upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility. of the Company. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. Our procedures and results are as follows: 1, We received in the mail from Golden Gate residents, surveys that had been distributed to them by Naples Printsource. 2. We tabulated all surveys received. We received 1632 surveys in the mail through March 24, 2008 with the following results: 1351 Yes 217 No 64 Did not vote 1632 Total . Of the 217 respondents voting "No ", there were 13 surveys listing prospective tenants they want included in the shopping center. Of the 64 respondents that "Did not vote ", there were 60 voting for prospective tenants they want included in the shopping center. The prospective tenants and related votes for those tenants areas follows. Major Grocer 1305 Fast Food Restaurant Banks 926 Drug Store Post Office 1153 Coffee Shop Convenience Store 677 Hardware Store Beauty Salon 401 Garden/Pet Supply Video Store 482 Family Restaurant .I- Page 70 of 71 832 Dry Cleaner 450 1071 Child Day Care 376 615 Clothing Stare 425 992 ice Cream Shop 687 687 Adult Day Care 224 1133 ' EXHIBIT V.D.5 Apr 24 08 01:32p Jay Bishop 354 -3353 p•4 Development Properties. Inc. Naples, Florida Other prospective tenants listed by survey respondents were as follows: Medical offices 67, Bar 45, Auto parts store 42, Gym 25, Dollar store 23, Movie theater 21, Liquor store 19, Waimart/Target 15, Nail salon/spa 14, Home improvement 13, Health food store 12, Vet 12, Bakery 7, CVSAVaigreens 7, Bait & Tackle 6, Hallmark 6, Chinese restaurant 6. Sporting goods store 6, Craft store 6, F ire/Police station 5, Barber shop 5, Flower shop 4, Church 4, Auto repair 4, Computer store 4, Park 4, Goodwill 3, Hospital 3, Pool supply 3, Electronics store 3, Book store 3, Gun store 3, Martial arts 3, Cuban restaurant 3, Shoe store 3, Children's activity center 3, Check cashing 2, Credit Union 2, UPS store 2, Fresh fish market 2, Butcher 2, Bowling alley 2, Coin laundry 2, Amphitheater 2. The following prospective tenants were listed on only one survey each: Wine shop, Car rental, Electrical supply. Photo studio, Chefs warehouse, Casino, Tractor supply, Car dealer, H &R Block, , Fresh Water supplies, Equestrian store, Everglades National Park info Center, Insurance agent, Hooters, Tree farm, Tax ffice call Paint store, fruit market, Storage, Cell phone store, Dance studio, Italian restaurant, Carriag ri HorsefATV trails, and 1 -75 Ramp. We were not engaged to, and did not, conduct an audit, the objective of which would be to express an opinion on the results of the election. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. This report is intended for the information and use of the Company and its legal counsel. At your instruction, we are holding the ballots in our office until you notify us to dispose of them. Rogers Wood Hill Starman & Gustason, P.A. Certified Public Accountants April 10, 2008 \ e,cx- -2- Page 71 of 71 EXHIBIT V.D.5 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT V.D.6 HB 697 CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Sub - District /_�' CP- 2008 -1 Exhibit V.D.6 HB 697 Consistency Analysis The Florida legislature approved in the 2008 session an amendment to Chapter 16.3177, F.S., which requires local government comprehensive plans to address energy efficient land use patterns and greenhouse gas reduction strategies. The pending Estates Shopping Center Sub- district amendment to the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan proposes to establish a grocery- anchored community shopping center within close proximity to several thousand households located within the Northern Golden Gate Estates subdivision. Approval of this plan amendment will provide convenient shopping and job opportunities for the central portion of Golden Gate Estates which will reduce vehicle trips and driving distances for many residents. By capturing these trips presently on the local roadway network, the amendment will assist in reducing future road network improvements and traffic impacts to other areas within the more urbanized area of Collier County. The reduction in vehicle miles traveled will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Golden Gate Estates is one of the largest subdivisions in the United States and encompasses approximately 175 square miles (112,000 acres), and is an example of urban sprawl. Almost all of the Golden Gate Estates area has been platted into 1.25 acre or larger single - family home sites with very little commercial development planned to serve the residents of the area, requiring residents to travel by automobile into the more urbanized portions of Collier County for most of their daily shopping and service needs. While the area provides for a semi -rural lifestyle because of the large lots and zoning that permits the keeping of horses, fowl and other livestock, it has a population exceeding 36,000 in 2008 and is anticipated to continue to grow to a population n approaching 45,000 by year 2020. There is presently a large deficit of commercial land in Golden Gate Estates; thereby, exacerbating the need to utilize the automobile for daily commercial needs and increasing the vehicle miles traveled for residents of this subdivision. It is documented that the automobile is the largest generator of green house gases for most communities. The proposed amendment provides conveniently located retail services, including a grocery store where none currently exists or can exist under the current comprehensive plan. The grocery store and other retails services will result in the reduction of vehicle trip lengths. House Bill 697 encourages energy efficient land use patterns. The proposed plan amendment is located at the intersection of two major roadway corridors serving the Northern Golden Gate Estates area is an efficient land use pattern. The proposed grocery- anchored shopping center located at this prominent intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard will capture numerous trips that otherwise would be passing through the intersection in route to the urban area for daily shopping needs. This location is also well- suited for a community sized shopping center due to its location along a current Collier Area Transit (CAT) route serving Golden Gate Estates. Proximity to a transit route is an efficient land use pattern and is an example of smart growth by allowing residents to have an alternative to automobile use for shopping or employment. Locating goods and services in closer proximity to the residents will equate to reduced dependence on the automobile, reduced vehicle miles traveled and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT V.D.7 CONSISTENCY WITH GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 n AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 Estates Shopping Center Sub - District CP- 2008 -1 Exhibit V.D.7 Consistency with Golden Gate Area Master Plan Goals 3 and 5 of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) relate to commercial services and maintenance of rural character of Golden Gate Estates. Goal 3 states: Provide for basic commercial services for purposes of serving the rural needs of Golden Gate Estates Residents, shortening vehicular trips, and preserving rural character. Goal 5 states: Future growth and development within Golden Gate Estates will balance the desire by residents for urban amenities with the preservation of the area's rural character, as defined by wooded lots, the keeping of livestock, the ability to grow crops, wildlife activity, low- density residential development, and limitations on commercial and conditional uses. The applicant has conducted a series of professional surveys and resident interviews to establish the types of goods and services desired by area residents, and further, how they would like a shopping center to function/feel. A market demand analysis has also been prepared by a professional economist to analyze the current and future demand for additional commercial development. The analysis concludes that Golden Gate Estates is underserved by commercial development and additional commercial development can be supported. The applicant has also held numerous public meetings in the community to speak with residents about how the proposed shopping center could function while maintaining their community character. The application as proposed attempts to respond to feedback received to date. The application includes both uses that are permitted in the newly created Subdistrict and those uses that are specifically prohibited. Many of the area residents have indicated that a grocery store and other uses commonly found in urban area community sized shopping centers are needed for this area. The Subdistrict text requires that a grocery store is the first use that can obtain a certificate of occupancy for the site. At the present time, there are no full service grocery stores or shopping centers available within several miles of the site, thereby requiring additional vehicular trips on the road network within both Golden Gate Estates and the urban area of Collier County to obtain basic goods and services. The Subdistrict uses are compatible and consistent with the estates community. The Subdistrict intensity is approximately half the intensity found in the urban area and is in keeping with the estates community. A conceptual plan CP- 2008 -1 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit V.D.7 is included as part of the Subdistrict. The conceptual plan provides for appropriate setbacks from residential uses. The proposed amendment is located at the intersection of two of the major roadway corridors serving the Northern Golden Gate Estates area. Wilson Boulevard is being designed to be a 4 -lane road and Golden Gate Boulevard is under design to become a 6- lane road adjacent to the subject property. By providing for services at this located, vehicle miles traveled can be substantially reduced, which will have a positive transportation impact on both Golden Gate Estates and urban area roadway segments. The applicant intends to submit a Planned Unit Development rezoning application that can track concurrently with the comprehensive plan amendment application. The PUD will contain additional information relating to community character by specifying building setbacks, building heights, lighting standards, landscape buffer details, and conceptual architectural details. The level of commercial intensity proposed is far less than that typically found in the urban area of Collier County CP- 2008 -1 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit V.D.7 1-1\ ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT V.D.8 SURVEY AREA GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 cQ (D 0 N) m x O 3: K2 C= LA M m < m > cn C W L m n m v N O_ N m X 0 bo 5urveJ boundary Lt Ne cn m m O° -G --i m D 00 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT V.E.l PUBLIC FACILITIES GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.E.1 PUBLIC FACILITIES La. Potable Water Public facilities are not available in the immediate area and therefore the development of the parcel will require installation of a potable water well to be permitted consistent with the applicable provisions of the GMP, LDC and other jurisdictional agencies including FDEP and SFWMD and capacity will minimally meet the standards of the Florida Administrative Code. It is likely that the site will be developed with approximately 60,000 square feet of office space, 148,500 square feet of retail space and 19,500 square feet of restaurants. In this scenario, the following water demand may be anticipated: Water Demand: Office: 60,000 sq. ft. x 0.15 gpd/sf = 9,000 gpd Retail: 148,500 sq. ft. x 0.10 gpd/sf. = 14,850 gpd Restaurant: 19,500 sq. ft. x 0.5 gpd /sf = 9,750 gpd Total = 33,600 gpd Assumed incidental use for irrigation near seating areas per health code requirements: 3,000 gpd New Subdistrict Generation = 36,600 gpd Existing Residential: 17 units x 250 gpd/unit = 4,250 gpd Net Impact = (New Subdistrict — Existing Residential) = (36,600 — 4,250) gpd = 32,350 gpd Data Source: Tables in Chapter 64E -6 F.A.C. Lb. Sanitary Sewer Public facilities are not available in the immediate area and therefore the development of the parcel will require installation of a private sector package sanitary sewer or septic system treatment system permitted consistent with the applicable provisions of the GMP, LDC and other jurisdictional agencies including FDEP and SFWMD. Revised August 2009 Page 1 CP- 2008 -1 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT V.E.1 It is likely that the site will be developed with approximately 60,000 square feet of office space, 148,500 square feet of retail space and 19,500 square feet of restaurants. In this scenario, the following water demand may be anticipated: Sewer Generation: Office: 60,000 sq. ft. x 0.15 gpd/sf = 9,000 gpd Retail: 148,500 sq. ft. x 0.10 gpd/sf. = 14,850 gpd Restaurant: 19,500 sq. ft. x 0.5 gpd/sf = 9,750 gpd New Subdistrict Generation = 33,600 gpd Existing Residential: 17 units x 200 gpd/unit = 3,400 gpd Net Impact = (New Subdistrict — Existing Residential) _ (33,600 — 3,400) gpd = 30,200 gpd l.c. Arterial & Collector Roads Please refer to Exhibit V.E.Ic, the Traffic Impact Statement. Project Transportation Consultant, TR Transportation Consultants, Inc., has prepared a Transportation Analysis for the conceptualized development program for the subject property. n The proposed subdistrict is expected to result in a significant capture rate from pass by traffic as well as mitigating (reverse) directional flows (opposite of the rush hour directional pattern). The result shall be a more efficient use of the roadway capacity. This shall be one result of the satisfaction of community commercial need in the Estates. Another result will be the shortening of the trip lengths taken on the roadway system which is presently necessitated by the lack of commercial availability and services in the Estates. The roadway link LOS for Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard is not ideal under 2013 background conditions, but all intersections and turning movements are shown to operate acceptably. Additionally, the shorter trip lengths as a result of the added commercial development in the Estates will improve the LOS conditions on Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road as well. 1. d. Drainage The proposed development will be designed to comply with the 25 year, 3 -day storm standards and other applicable standards of the LDC and other jurisdictional agencies including the SFWMD. August 2009 Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT V.E.1 Le. Solid Waste The established Level of Service (LOS) for the solid waste facilities is two years of landfill disposal capacity at present fill rates and ten years of landfill raw land capacity at present fill rates. No adverse impacts to the existing solid waste facilities from the proposed project of 225,000 square feet of commercial uses. Solid Waste Generation: Office: 60,000 sf x 0.01 lb /sf/day x 1 cy /250 lbs = 630 cy /yr Retail: 148,500 sf x 0.025 lb /sf /day x 1 cy /180 lbs = 6,450 cy /yr Restaurant: 19,500 sf x 0.05 lb /sf /day x 1 cy /300 lbs = 1,010 cy /yr New Subdistrict Generation =8,090 cy /yr Existing Residential: 17 units x 25 cy /unit/yr = 425 cy /yr Net Impact = (New Subdistrict — Existing Residential) _ (8,090 — 425) cy /yr = 7,665 cy /yr Data source: "Solid Wastes: Engineering Principles and Management Issues ", Tchobangolous /Theisen and "Environmental Engineering and Sanitation ", Salvato. LE Parks: Community and Regional The proposed development will not significantly increase the population density and therefore will have no effect on the community and regional parks beyond those mitigated by the payment of associated impact fees. The site, as presently allowed by the Future Land Use Element, Density Rating System and the Land Development Code, may be developed with up to 17 dwelling units. Using the average County household occupancy rate of 2.39 people per unit, this could represent 40 -41 residents. Conversion to the proposed commercial subdistrict represents a slight reduction in the County population. The 2007 Annual Update and Inventory Report establishes two Level of Service Standards (LOSS) for Parks and Recreation. The Board of County Commissioners requires 1.2 acres of community park land per 1,000 residents and 2.9 acres of regional park land per 1,000 residents. If the subdistrict is approved, the County will be required to provide 0.05 acres less community park space and 0.12 acres less regional park land. In this case, the County would be required to account for an additional 0.22 acres of community park land and 0.53 acres of regional park land. In any event, these impacts are usually mitigated by the payment of impact fees during permitting. August 2009 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT V.E.1 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT FOR ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (PROJECT NO. 0801.31-10) PREPARED BY: TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. 13881 Plantation Road, Suite 11 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 -4339 Certificate of Authorization #27003 239 - 278 -3090 REVISED August 24, 2009 Page 1 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. EXISTING CONDITIONS III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IV. TRIP GENERATION V. TRIP DISTRIBUTION VI. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS VII. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY AND IMPROVEMENTS VIII. CONCLUSION Page 2 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. I. INTRODUCTION TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. has conducted a traffic impact statement for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment submittal for the +/- 41 -acre Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict site located along the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard between its intersections with 3`d Street NW and Wilson Boulevard in Collier County, Florida. This report has been completed in compliance with the guidelines established by the Collier County Transportation Planning Division for developments seeking approval for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The site location is illustrated on Figure 1. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would modify the existing land use designation on the subject site to allow a total of 225,000 square feet of commercial floor area on the subject site. This report examines the impact of the development on the surrounding roadways. Trip generation and assignments to the area intersections will be n completed and analysis conducted to determine the impacts of the development on the surrounding intersections. An initial methodology meeting was held with Collier County Staff on February 21, 2007 to discuss the parameters required as a result of this analysis. No methodology notes were created in 2007 since none were required at the time of this meeting, however, this Traffic Impact Statement is consistent with the items discussed at that meeting, such as trip generation, pass -by trip reduction and trip distribution. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site currently contains vacant land and some single family dwelling units. 1St Street NW divides the subject site into two parcels. The site is bordered to the north by vacant land and additional single family dwelling units. To the east of the subject site is Wilson Boulevard. Golden Gate Boulevard borders the site to the south. To the west of the site is 3rd Street NW. Page 1 Page 3 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LOCATION MAP CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 1 Page 4 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1 c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Golden Gate Boulevard is an east/west four -lane divided arterial roadway to the south of the subject site. The intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard allows full turning movements under signalized conditions. Currently, the intersections of Golden Gate Boulevard with 3`d Street NW and 1St Street NW allow full turning movements under unsignalized conditions. Golden Gate Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 45 mph and is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. The Level of Service Standard on this section of Golden Gate Boulevard from Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard is LOS "D ", or 2,350 vehicles. Wilson Boulevard is a north/south two -lane roadway that borders the subject site to the east. Wilson Boulevard's intersection with Golden Gate Boulevard currently provides full turning movements operating under signalized conditions. Wilson Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. Wilson Boulevard has a Level of Service Standard of LOS "E", or 920 vehicles. 1St Street NW is a north /south two -lane local roadway that divides the subject site into two parcels. The intersection of 1St Street NW and Golden Gate Boulevard currently provides full turning movements under unsignalized conditions. l" Street NW is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. Concurrency is not currently measured on 1St Street NW. 3`d Street NW is a north /south two -lane local roadway that borders the subject site to the west. The intersection of 3`d Street NW and Golden Gate Boulevard currently provides full turning movements under unsignalized conditions. 3`d Street NW is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. Concurrency is not currently measured on 3`d Street NW. In order to gain a better understanding of the traffic conditions in the vicinity of the subject site based on the methodology meeting held with County Staff, AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were performed at the intersections of Golden Gate Boulevard with Collier Boulevard, 3`d Street NW, 1St Street NW, and Wilson Boulevard as well as the Wilson Boulevard /Immokalee Road intersection. These turning movement Page 3 Page 5 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc 1#01\ n TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. counts were performed during the peak season of the adjacent street in March based on the information contained within the 2006 FDOT Traffic Information CD, so no peak season adjustment was required. Figures 2A and 2B indicate the resultant 2007 peak season turning movements at the subject intersections. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict site will amend the current future land use designation on the subject site to allow commercial retail uses. The property owner has agreed to cap the maximum amount of retail uses at 225,000 square feet of floor area. Specifically, Table 1 summarizes the uses for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the subject site. Table 1 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Proposed Use Land Use I ]Proposed Uses Shopping Center 225,000 square feet At the map amendment stage, a detailed site plan has not been prepared. Therefore, it is difficult to asses the access that will be provided to the subject site. Preliminary discussions with the County were held regarding access. It is understood that access is not specifically approved at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment stage, but rather at the Planned Development stage and even as much at the Site Plan Approval stage. Therefore, a "conceptual" access plan was developed in order complete the traffic impact analysis. Access to the subject site must ultimately be approved by the Department of Transportation and the Board of County Commissioners. For this analysis, assumptions were made regarding the proposed access to the subject site. It was assumed access would be provided directly to Golden Gate Boulevard via a full access, to Wilson Boulevard via a full access and additional access drives on 3`d Page 4 Page 6 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc I W co / N )E S W W 0 U) Z 0 N. r- 47 � � z 3(7) -0) k co 1 k42 N'4- 1, 112 (877) C-) L-0 3 (6) -*-1,092 (881) "S! m (0 N (46) -4-714 (645) z 2(10) 0 (4) co (18) 8 + GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD (9) 01 147 (1,068)395-0,- O20 � (1,052)404-- (167) (878)255-lo. �25�a (22) 6 N1 G�at� (17) 1 (18)4%. 'V I - S Cc�- N. r- 47 � � z z w 0 w w m w z 0 co c/) COO LEGEND 4- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC A— (000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 2007 PEAK SEASON TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 2A Page 7 of 99 EXHIBITV.E.1c 2007 PEAK SEASON TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 2B Page 8 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Street NW and 1S` Street NW. The access points to I" Street NW were shown to provide access to the subject site on both sides of the roadway. Again, this is a conceptual access plan that will be further developed as the project proceeds through the re- zoning and site plan approval process. IV. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation calculations were performed for the proposed uses as a part of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the site. Upon approval of this Amendment, as conditioned, the Comprehensive Plan allocation on the subject site will allow a total of 225,000 square feet of various mixed commercial floor area. The site will be analyzed based upon the use that indicates the highest trip generation in order to perform a "worst case" analysis on the County Roadway network. The resultant trip generation for each use was determined by referencing the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) report, titled Trip Generation, 7`h Edition. A comparison of the 8"' 10-11, Edition to the 7`h Edition of the ITE report, included in the Appendix, indicates that the total weekday P.M. peak hour trip generation would increase by a total of 25 vehicles (in and out) and the peak direction would only increase by one (1) vehicle during this same time period. Therefore, the trips generated for the project based on the 70' Edition trip generation, as previously utilized in the studies submitted to Collier County in January 2008, remained in this report as the resultant change to the 8`h Edition would make no appreciable difference in the analysis conducted herein. Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) was utilized in order to perform the necessary trip generation on the subject parcel. According to the land use description for the shopping center use, "A shopping center is an integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed, owned and managed as a unit. A shopping center's composition is related to its market area in terms of size, location and type of store. A shopping center also provides on -site parking facilities sufficient to serve its own parking demands. " The retail floor area proposed as a part of this development will function most similarly as a shopping center based on the ITE land use description. Page 7 100"141 Page 9 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Table 2 indicates the trip generation of the retail use proposed as a part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the site. The trip generation equations utilized to calculate the trip generation can be found within the Appendix of this report for reference. Table 2 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Trin C- Pnornfian Land Use A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily (2-way) In Out Total In Out Total Shopping Center __j225,000 _s9. ft.) 155 T 100 255 513 557 1,070 11,504 ITE estimates that a shopping center use of comparable size may attract a significant amount of its traffic from vehicles already traveling the adjoining roadway system. This n traffic called " pass -by traffic, reduces the developments overall impact on the surrounding roadway system but does not decrease the actual driveway volumes. Collier County allows a maximum "pass -by" traffic reduction of 25% for shopping centers. However, as a part of the methodology meeting held with County Staff, there was discussion on the fact that the site would primarily serve the Golden Gate Estates area, which is currently lacking in commercial goods and services. A retail center in this area would attract a higher percentage of "pass -by" trips due to the fact that there are very few commercial services available to the residents within a five mile radius of the subject site. Therefore, a "pass -by" rate of 35% was approved for the site by Staff in the methodology meeting. In addition, a greater pass -by reduction is reasonable (beyond the 25 %) for the subject site due to the significant amount of commuter traffic experienced during the peak hours of the adjacent street along Golden Gate Boulevard. For this analysis, the "pass -by" traffic was accounted for in order to determine the number of "new" trips the development will add to the surrounding roadways. Table 3 summarizes the pass -by reduction percentages utilized. Table 4 summarizes the development traffic and the breakdown between the total project trips and the net new Page 8 Page 10 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc n TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. trips the development is anticipated to generate after the pass -by reduction is applied. It should be noted that the driveway volumes are not reduced as a result of the "pass -by" reduction, only the traffic added to the surrounding streets and intersections. Table 3 Pass -by Trip Reduction Factor �..�..4.... Cl,.,.,,, -n Vpnfvr gnhdiStriet Land Use Perceu`tage T "rip Reduction: . Shopping Center 35% Table 4 Trip Generation — New Trips Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Land Use Weekday AM Real{ Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour , ... liaiiy �2 y ay)' :. In Out , Total In .. , Out Total Total Trips 155 100 255 513 557 1,070 11,504 Less Retail Pass -by (35% ass -by) -45 -45 -90 -187 -187 -374 -4,026 New Traffic IT..tol Trines _ P-1— Tr ffi 110 55 165 326 370 696 7,478 The Level of Service analysis and the intersection analysis at Golden Gate Boulevard/Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road/Wilson Boulevard performed within this report is based solely on the new trips generated as a result of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the subject site. The intersection analysis at the intersections surrounding the subject site was performed based on the total trips. EM-17h Page 9 Page 11 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc n TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. V. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The new trips based on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment indicated within Table 4 were then assigned to the surrounding roadway system based on the anticipated routes the drivers will utilize to approach the site. The resultant traffic distribution is indicated in Figure 3 as approved within the methodology meeting held with Staff. Based on the traffic distribution indicated within Figure 3, the new development traffic was distributed to the surrounding roadway network. Figure 4A and 411 indicates the site traffic assignment to the conceptual site access plan utilized in this analysis and previously described. The assignment was also carried to the external intersection beyond the site boundary and within the Study area. The new site related traffic was assigned to the significantly impacted roadway links as a paid of the net new project trips graphic identified as Figure 4C. Furthermore, an assignment of the pass -by traffic generated as a result of the subject site can also be found within the Appendix of this report for reference. Page 10 Page 12 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc IMMOKALEE ROAD VANDERBILT 101% BEACH ROAD ♦5 %♦ -4-5% 0% 1 10% DROP OFF TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS /N W E S N.T.S. OIL WELL ROAD Q m o 10% DROP OFF TO RESIDENTIAL _ ♦30 %♦ AREAS L _ J o 20% ♦30 %—► 15% DROP OFF TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS *! 4% ♦ ♦ 2% —10- GOLDEN GATE ♦40 %♦ ♦ 15 %♦ ♦ T DROP OFF BOULEVARD 4% TO RESIDENTIAL W 10% AREAS J + o O Q U ? w Ix 20% Q w O co ♦ 5% —00- 5% DROP OFF ? W TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS m J PINE RIDGE ROAD z O 10% 0 w • 3: w * BOULEVARD AND THE TSITE ALONG GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AND BETWEENEMMO BETWEEN LEE ROAD AND THE SITE ALONG WILSON BOULEVARD. LEGEND ♦20 %-► PERCENT DISTRIBUTION TRANSPORTATION PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION UPDATED 8/24/09 CONSULTANTS, INc. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 3 Page 13 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c n N W E S N.T.S. z z W w W It w J O m Z O m >J_ 7 M O � N �% 1 (71)15-14'4%t (60) 15� -" o co u- I .. 0p M N 5 (10) N I m k 15 (64) C LO'T (34 LO ) �52 145 ° ♦57 (155 °"° � ♦35 (198 N M. � ( ) r. ) N � r ♦40 (120) —O (0) -- -- ---4/_% R x-15 S70) - -- -0(0) - -- -`► r 0 (0) (30) 10 (115) 35 GOLDEN GATE ° BOULEVARD (60) 16 ■% (40) 5 (17) 1 ♦ o (60) 16 ♦ (20 (0) 0 ♦ ° (1 (4125♦ cv o M i Z J � Z � W W W ED w Z co h O m m m � F J M � r LEGEND 4- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC -4- (000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT CONSULTANTS, INc. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 4A Page 14 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT CONSULTANTS, INc. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 4B Page 15 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c 0 —7 LEGEND 4— 000 AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC ♦(000) PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC NE I NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ON SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED ROADWAYS Figure 4C CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Page 16 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. VI. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS In order to determine which roadway segments surrounding the site will be significantly impacted, Table 1A, contained in the Appendix, was created. This table indicates which roadway links will accommodate an amount of project traffic greater than the 2 % -2 % -3% Significance Test. The new project related traffic from Table 4 was compared with the corrected 10 -month Level of Service Standard for Peak Hour — Peak Direction traffic conditions in order to determine the project impact percentage. Based on the information contained within Table 1A, Golden Gate Boulevard from Collier Boulevard to Everglades Boulevard, Wilson Boulevard from south of Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road, and Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard to Pine Ridge Road are shown to experience a significant impact as a result of the added project traffic associated with the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Comprehensive Plan Amendment in accordance with the Collier County 2 % -2 % -3% Significance Test. Therefore, Level of Service analysis is only required on these roadway links as a result of the proposed development. In addition to the significant impact criteria, Table 1A also includes a buildout consistency analysis on the Collier County Roadway network. The Collier County TIS Guidelines require analysis of the adjacent roadway network based on the buildout of the project or the five (5) year planning window, whichever is longer. It is likely that this project will be constructed prior to the end of the year 2013 due to the need for commercial services in the Golden Gate Estates. Therefore, it was necessary to analyze the surrounding roadway network based on the 2014 traffic conditions. The total volume indicated within the 2008 Collier County Concurrency Spreadsheet reflects the current remaining capacity on the adjacent roadway network. The remaining capacity was subtracted from the 10 -month service volume on each roadway in order to determine the 2008 peak season, peak hour, peak direction traffic volume on the adjacent Page 15 Page 17 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc n TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. roadway network. The appropriate annual growth rate for these roadways was taken by comparing information from the 2006 AUIR report to data in the 2008 AUIR report. An example of the calculations to determine the annual growth rates can be found within the Appendix of this report for reference. These annual growth rates were then used to factor the 2008 peak season, peak hour, peak direction traffic volume to 2014 peak season, peak hour, peak direction background traffic conditions. The resultant 2014 peak season, peak hour, peak direction traffic volume was subtracted from the Level of Service Standard in order to determine the remaining capacity in the year 2014. The project generated traffic was then subtracted from the remaining capacity in order to determine the remaining 2014 capacity after the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict traffic is added to the surrounding roadway network. Figure 5 indicates the results of the capacity analysis along Collier Boulevard, Golden Gate Boulevard, and Wilson Boulevard. VII. PROJECTED CONSISTENCY AND IMPROVEMENTS Based upon the information contained within Table IA and Figure 5, several roadway deficiencies are expected under 2014 with the proposed development traffic. Several road improvements are shown in either the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) or the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan in this area of Golden Gate Estates that will specifically address these deficiencies. Golden Gate Boulevard is shown on the 2030 Needs Plan as a 4 lane roadway from Collier Boulevard to Everglades Boulevard. A parallel facility is planned (the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension) but funding for the segment between Collier Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard has not been identified. The funding for the design services for the widening of Wilson Boulevard to a four lane divided roadway is shown in the Five Year CIP and funding for construction is in the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. A small deficiency is noted on Golden Gate Boulevard between Wilson Boulevard and Collier Boulevard in 2014 with the project. Growth along this segment has been on the Page 16 Page 18 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c IMMOKALEE ROAD 0.5 %- 98 (87). [61 ] 4.0% h VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD L Q O m o! Y2 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD O 828 (806) 106 106 J(34) 06 [754] (73) (62) 2.2% [ -5] [42] [ -157] PINE RIDGE ROAD 4.7% 6.3% 11.20/c 1.1% 0.7% F- —1 ar w J O m z O J E OIL WELL ROAD 0.5% 98 (76) [24] -8.0% 98 (63) [ -22] 13.0% 1,036 1,003) [925] 892 4.7% (881) [855] 4.0% N.T.S. Q 1,036 1,019) [980] m 2.4% w ❑ g c� w W LEGEND 000 2014 REMAINING CAPACITY (000) 2014 REMAINING CAPACITY W/ AM PROJECT TRAFFIC [000] 2014 REMAINING CAPACITY W/ PM PROJECT TRAFFIC 0.0% PROJECT IMPACT PERCENTAGE 1.6% 0.7% 1.6% TRANSPORTATION 2014 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS UPDATED 8124/09 � CONSULTANTS, INc. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 5 Page 19 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c n TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. decline over the past three (3) years, however the number of trips in the "trip bank" column have continued to increase (from 278 in 2006 to 300 in 2008). The Developer has committed to provide the right -of -way along the project frontage to accommodate the future widening of Golden Gate Boulevard, should it be necessary in the future. In addition, the Developer has also committed to provide the necessary right -of -way to develop intersection improvements at the Golden Gate Boulevard/Wilson Boulevard intersection, which will improve the capacity of the link due to the added capacity created at the intersection. The impacts to the Long Range Transportation Plan as a result of this amendment would be minimal since the parallel corridor of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension is included in that plan and will accommodate a large volume of east/west commuter traffic in the Estates area. The analysis included the additional capacity on Golden Gate Boulevard between Wilson Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard since this segment is programmed to be widened to n four lanes in the year 2012, within the 5 -year planning window of this project. As a four lane roadway, this segment has sufficient capacity to accommodate this land use change. The Level of Service deficiency on Wilson Boulevard is only noted on the segment of Wilson Boulevard directly fronting the project site. North of the project site, Wilson Boulevard is shown to operate at an acceptable Level of Service with remaining trips available. The Developer has committed to provide the necessary right -of -way at no cost to the County for the future widening of Wilson Boulevard along the frontage of the project site. It should be noted that the remaining capacity shown in Figure 5 for Wilson Boulevard is based on the 2007 AUIR volumes. The 2008 AUIR report does not show a volume for Wilson Boulevard between Immokalee Road and Golden Gate Boulevard. Traffic volumes on other links in the area (Golden Gate Boulevard, Immokalee Road) have all shown a marked decrease in volumes between the 2007 and the 2008 AUIR report. There is no reason why Wilson Boulevard would not show the same decrease in volume. If that were the case, there would be sufficient capacity available on Wilson Boulevard adjacent to the site projected in 2014 with the proposed land use change Page 18 Page 20 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. The proposed Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict development is the first commercial development of its kind proposed within the Golden Gate Estates area. Therefore, it is likely that the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict development will have a positive impact on the traffic conditions in the area. The Developer has committed, through the Text of the Growth Management Plan Amendment, to include a Grocery Store in the first 100,000 square feet of development that is constructed on the site. The nearest grocery shopping opportunity for residents of Golden Gate Estates is along Collier Boulevard to the north and south of Golden Gate Boulevard, a distance of approximately six (6) miles. The addition of a grocery store and other neighborhood commercial uses in this area would significantly shorten trip lengths that are related to this purpose as well as potentially reduce traffic volumes on Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard due to the fact that the retail trip would be intercepted prior to reaching these roadways. In addition, further analysis of the future traffic conditions in this area will be required at the re- zoning and SDP phase for the proposed development. Intersection analysis was performed as a result of the added Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict traffic. Based on the methodology meeting, intersection analysis was required on Golden Gate Boulevard at its intersections with Collier Boulevard, 3`d Street NW, the site access, 1St Street NW, and Wilson Boulevard as well as at the intersections of Wilson Boulevard with the site access and Immokalee Road. It should be noted that the intersection analysis was completed based on the assumption that the existing through lane capacity currently in place on Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard would remain (four lanes on Golden Gate Parkway and two lanes on Wilson Boulevard). In order to perform the required intersection analysis, it was necessary to determine the 2014 background peak hour turning movements at these intersections. Therefore, the background turning movements indicated within Figures 2A and 2B were factored by the appropriate annual growth rates over a seven (7) year period. The calculation to determine the background turning movements is indicated below: Page 19 Page 21 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc n TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 2014 Turning Movement = 2007 Turning Movement)* (1 +AGR)(201a -2007) 2014 Turning Movement = 1,112 veh)* (1 +0.0242)(') 2014 Turning Movement= 1,112 veh)* (1.182 2014 Turning Movement =1,372 vehicles The above illustrated calculation was applied to all of the turning movements indicated within Figures 2A and 213 in order to determine the 2014 background turning movements. It should be noted again that the access to the subject site assumed as part of this analysis is conceptual and has not yet been approved by the Collier County Department of Transportation or the Board of County Commissioners. The Growth Management Plan Amendment process does not specifically identify turning movements permitted at site access drives to projects within the Sub - district. This will be further analyzed and access determined in the re- zoning and SDP process n The resultant 2014 background turning movements are illustrated within Figures 6A and 6B. The. site traffic indicated within Figures 4A and 4B was then added to the 2014 background turning movements in order to determine the 2014 buildout turning movements at the area intersections. The resultant 2014 buildout turning movements are indicated within Figures 7A and 7B. It is important to note that the pass -by traffic assignment contained within the Appendix of this report was subtracted from the volumes within Figure 4B prior to adding those volumes to the 2014 background turning movements at the Collier Boulevard /Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard/Immokalee Road intersections. This was done in an effort to back out the pass -by traffic at the external intersections because the pass -by traffic is already accounted for within the 2014 background conditions. However, the intersections surrounding the site were analyzed as if no pass -by traffic reductions were taken. Page 20 Page 22 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc N F W E N.T.S S . 0 z z w w w Of �—1 I m U) U) z O N O w 00 co 0 LO >J_ 00 -- I (,01 h t (0)0�o0 oN LL I T _ N ~ �5 10 0 0 % *-5 (10) M�s I �51 (56) M A-1,372 (1,08 (1,089) o CD lk 0 (0) r -4 -1,367 (1,097) v F- ( '4-864 10 81) (15) _ -- - `► x'.1,382 (1,114 - -- -4' `�5 (5) - -- -� -`►'� 21) 101 (0) 0'' GOLDEN GATE 15 51 (197) 1741 t ( BOULEVARD ( ) (1,257) (2) 10♦ M (1,276) 469 ♦ (1,24 (20) 5♦ N (1,038) (1) 5♦ N N o J Z Z � W W m W UO ° N M � LEGEND f- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC A- (000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ZU14 bAVfthKuuvi TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS ^ CONSULTANTS,INc. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 6A Page 23 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc N W E F S N.T.S. N r N k17 (29) I � ♦1,456 (710) IMMOKALEE ROAD 4j ,� ,,le-245 (287) RANDALL (59) 101 't' /� BOULEVARD (1,033)302-No- (78) 18 o :S-O) 0 M VANDERBILT o BEACH ROAD 0) M N N M� k463 (170) 1, x1,021 (441) GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD I w tico O -- m O m w Z O � U LEGEND ♦ 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ♦(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC zu'14 WAUKUKUUNU n TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 6B Page 24 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c 4 N W E S N.T.S. 0 z z j � w w w m u~i U) z y O M U) LO LO SJ S to M dam' L (71) 15 I "' (60) 15 j �M :Soo ci co U- I .. r DD M 00 — -. Nom. �10 (20) z'2°' —��- k20 (74) cl, ' ' ( k58 90 *-1,407 (1,287) cc' Co N ♦1,424 (1,252) ♦904 (901) M ( ) N M 52 (145) 5 (5) 5 (10) -.. -5 (15)- - ...._ "_._�%_t► f -1,397 (1,184) - -- - — -- - ♦ (51)20--* (115)35-- GOLDEN GATE 75 211 (237)179-- 1 ° (1,336) 485♦ BOULEVARD (1,444) 489♦ N (1,160) 321 —► ( 4(26) 90 (20) 5 N LO (62) 10•� w 0 z Z w w O m W Uj Z � O U) U) M LEGEND ♦ 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC —(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC /0-1- 2U14 tSUILU -UU I TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS ^ CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 7A Page 25 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c N W E S N.T.S. k17 (29) 1,456 (71M ♦0) IMMOKALEE ROAD 251 (303 + RANDALL BOULEVARD (1,033)302♦ (94) 24N 0 M VANDERBILT o BEACH ROAD u a co 2s N M k469(207) 1, 01,032 (515) GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD I J oC-4O > oC0 Q cno aco0 W J m O of m W Z J O J (n O -j U LEGEND ♦ 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ♦ (000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 1U14 BUILD -OUT n. TRANSPORTATION TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Figure 7B Page 26 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. The appropriate lane arrangements and the turning movements indicated within Figures 7A and 7B were inputted into the HCS+ software in order to perform the necessary intersection analysis at the previously mentioned intersections. The lane arrangements utilized in this analysis can be found in graphical format in the Appendix. It should be noted that no truck factors were applied to turning movements into and out of the subject development at the site access intersections. The results of the intersection capacity analyses can be found within Table 5 below. Table 5 Intersection Analysis Results Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Based on the results of the intersection analysis listed above, all intersections and turning movements at the subject intersections are shown to operate acceptably. Based on the conceptual access plan analyzed as part of this report, the site access driveway to Golden Gate Boulevard was analyzed both with and without a traffic signal. The analysis of this Page 25 Page 27 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1 c n 2014;LOS .(Dela AM Peak Hour PM Peak our i LInte"r's'ection/M Background Byildout Background, Burldout_, Collier Blvd @ Golden Gate Blvd LOS C (2l .7 sec) LOS C (21.7 sec) LOS B 19.7 sec) LOS C 21.5 sec EB Left LOS B 12.9 sec) LOS B (13.5 sec) LOS B (11.2 sec) LOS B Golden Gate Blvd @ 3� St NW WB Left LOS A (8.3 sec LOS A 8.5 sec LOS B 12.3 sec) r1sec) NB Approach LOS A (9.9 sec) LOS B (10.1 sec) LOS B (14.4 sec) SB Approach LOS C (15.7 sec) LOS C 16.2 sec) LOS B (13.1 sec) (15.3 see) Golden Gate Blvd (with Si Golden Gate Blvd @ 15` St NW @ Site Access nal) EB Left __ LOS B (12.8 sec) LOS B (14.8 sec) LOS B (13.7 sec) __ LOS B (11.2 sec) LOS B 15.6 sec) LOS B (13.8 sec) WB Left LOS A (8.4 sec) LOS A (8.5 see) LOS B (12.0 sec) --LO-SB (13.5 see) NB Approach LOS A (9.9 sec) LOS A 10.0 sec) LOS B 14.1 sec) LOS C (15.8 sec) SB Approach LOS C (15.1 sec) LOS C (16.0 see) LOS B 13.1 sec LOS C (16.0 sec) Golden Gate Blvd @Wilson Blvd LOS C 25.1 sec) LOS C (26.0 sec LOS C (20.8 sec) LOS C (22.9 sec Wilson Blvd @ Site Access NB Left __ LOS A (8.7 sec) __ LOS A (8.5 sec EB Approach LOS B 14.3 sec LOS C (16.4 sec) Immokalee Rd @ Wilson Blvd LOS B (18.0 sec) LOS B (18.1 sec LOS C (23.2 sec) LOS C (23.4 sec) Based on the results of the intersection analysis listed above, all intersections and turning movements at the subject intersections are shown to operate acceptably. Based on the conceptual access plan analyzed as part of this report, the site access driveway to Golden Gate Boulevard was analyzed both with and without a traffic signal. The analysis of this Page 25 Page 27 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1 c n n TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. intersection without a traffic signal showed Level of Service deficiencies on the site access approach to Golden Gate Boulevard during only the PM peak hour, but no Level of Service deficiencies on the public roadway. Regardless, this intersection is shown to function acceptably after the addition of a traffic signal, which is approved, would be installed at the sole expense of the Developer. Therefore, beyond the potential additional traffic control improvements to the site access intersection to Golden Gate Boulevard, no additional intersection improvements will be required as a result of the proposed Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, as previously noted, the Developer has agreed to stipulations as part of the text of the Growth Management Plan Amendment that state the following: Development within this Sub - district shall be phased and the following commitments n related to area roadway improvements shall be completed within the specified timeframes: I. Right -of -Way for Golden Gate Boulevard Expansion and Right -of -Way for the Wilson Boulevard Expansion will be donated to the County at no cost within 120 days of a written request from the County. 2. The applicant will pay its fair share for the intersection improvements at Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard within 90 days of County request for reimbursement. 3. Until the intersection improvements at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard are complete, the County shall not issue a Certificate(s) of Occupancy (CO) for more than 100, 000 square feet of development. The applicant must obtain a C. O. for a grocery store as part of this 100, 000 square feet, and the grocery store must be the first C.O. obtained. Specific site related turn lanes and improvements to the Golden Gate Boulevard /Wilson Boulevard intersection will be analyzed further at the re- zoning and SDP phase of the project. Page 26 Page 28 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. VIII. CONCLUSION The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict development may result in minor roadway Level of Service issues in the immediate vicinity of the project site along Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. However, based on Developer commitments in the Text of the Growth Management Plan amendment, these impacts will be mitigated. The project will not be able to exceed 100,000 square feet of uses until certain improvements have been completed. Furthermore, with the addition of a commercial development such as the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict in this area, significant impacts to trip lengths will occur based on the fact that residents in the area will travel much shorter distances to obtain the same goods and services that are now only available on Collier Boulevard or along Immokalee Road. Therefore, the proposed development will provide a significant benefit n to the public within the Golden Gate Estates area. Based on a conceptual access plan for the project, intersection analysis was performed as a part of this report at the Golden Gate Boulevard intersections with Collier Boulevard, 3`d Street NW, the proposed site access, 1" Street NW, and Wilson Boulevard along with the Wilson Boulevard intersections with the site access and Imrnokalee Road. These intersections and approaches are shown to operate acceptably after the addition of the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict development related traffic after the addition of a traffic signal at the site access driveway to Golden Gate Boulevard. Turn lane analysis will be performed in depth at the SDP phase for the proposed development. Page 27 Page 29 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc APPENDIX Page 30 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1 c TABLE IA & 2A Page 31 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c w W Z W a' W J Ui j3 F LL IL I } 1 Z Z Z>W >W I I I �NU Y Z} I 1 1 Z Z V w w w m m N N Q MU6' U a a ¢I 1 a�o 1 m g o I I i ano e I I I c LLI U W Z p Z 2FF5 CL ry a m l o o '8 � a U t 3 m z = Z U � o m W Z v V T- Q,' rL N f< V Q V V p ? ?tV � NV N LL m F m ai ¢ W eE 32 ZR g eB OF S o° o g o g 1 I m Z Q C N fV tV fV tV N fV tV fV tV � Q G IL U w t c ci N JO 1 N I S i rn 1 ry o t Q F- > Z Q F y y S a _ z W H� l O O 0 O O w � O E Zz Z z Z w w Z O g E z ° y E FA a c > q Ti o_ U C U Q p W c W Q u o e N� X e eC a 3" e e 2• 3C o y w -! W V m O z N n <n n c n In u� o o °. o ro m n r^ m a H m J¢� N v cd o ci o 6 o d .n v d o m n t d Q m $ a ti r a ° = TL U V 6I M m v 10 n m m n N m m a+ v m Q Z a (V r M O n M N m m .- N M V 7 m $ 3 n Q E m $ a bLL �? ~ ~ YI m z v pp Z N lux O LL O$ O M Y I M N N Ivry N I O O Q N W m a a w e F F c m = m O _ m m \° O O °o u°i 1°n U' m a N O 10 "'1 a fl l+l M N N N N N M t� m O ml Of m$ O yG E N o m m°o m m m C� m N } m o m o ¢ 0 5 c Z Z O ¢ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J O U a a 10 0 c 2 a { m m d S 2 w > N m o m m .2 O c m m m _ 11 11 N 3 'm° > LL ILLi m m a >> a > > > J m > w 'mo° w 15 1 O c 0 CL L) `o ii rn ^ v S o z ai Cd w 3 ui 3 w vi z a 0 z 0 3 €€ r 0 0 N m 0 aS 2 W W -E D V m m O > O a s } ? Q m O O it U E 0 i � w a Page 32 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1 c Page 33 09 EXHIBIT V Elc I#-,- � ƒ o m cco ) CD 00 m Lf) e n § -i \ § / { LL % n = 7 m ® / � Cl) � A z § Cl) 3 Q - n ° N ® 04 ® ° - § 0 ) 0 0- > w w Q 2 ^ LL ¢ m w = n � � m n x m w Co 0 z > gU z && g o E §__= r w e e w n e n e w n e n w = e =_ \\ _ & = G w m 2 $ R 3 §§ §\ k} ? q 5 5 5/ S R z q k w \ w L U n �ƒ 4 6 - * $ $ $ ® @ « m o - ° e - - S a n - _ ( A 2 w § ) G b LL § � ) K 3 O i i �ƒ \ §$ n� ($& , n« N N § t Z W w z CL J \ W � o / Q § G R % ) § -t a g / f ? ) ) (L ± c 2 m ) > > ! } { k( ) § . 2 cc k , co } , ) § ) d d & k o [ ) k _ 6 ` - 2 g ) ) ) : } D e i f ) E§ k 4\ § Eƒ\ \ 1 � / \ { ] 2 \ E \ HI / E \ ' \ \ / \ j \ j \ j / j j j \ \ \ j \ \ j \ j ! } } § _ ) _ cc > 3 \ / j \ - / _ In &a } § \ \ LU \ Page 33 09 EXHIBIT V Elc I#-,- SUPPORTING INFORMATION GRAPHICS Page 34 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1 c 2014 LANtz 10 TRANSPORTATION AT ANALYZED INTERSECTIONS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Page 35 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c 2014 LANE ARRANGEMENTS TRANSPORTATION AT ANALYZED INTERSECTIONS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Page 36 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc LEGEND 411- 000 AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC ♦ (000) PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC Nt I NtVV FKVJr -u I I me rriu TRANSPORTATION ON SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED ROADWAYS CONSULTANTS, INC. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Page 37 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc n N W E S N.T.S. 0 0 0 0 (0) 000 x-0(0) IMMOKALEE ROAD �J �, j2 (10j ANDALL (0) 0 f BOULEVARD (0)0,,. NON (10)2 o�orn 0 ci VANDERBILT C3 BEACH ROAD LL O 00 c, 4 (19) _ r 9 37 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD _ J +� 0 orn w > J w O m O m W Z O J in O -� U LEGEND ♦ 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4 —(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC n TRANSPORTATION PASS -BY SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT CONSULTANTS,INc. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT Page 38 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT RESULTS Page 39 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: March 1, 2007 DAY: THURSDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS COLLIER BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY 15 MIN BEGIN COLLIER NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT 0 79 107 0 86 121 0 93 105 0 95 93 0 107 BS 0 75 94 0 124 93 0 101 82 0 760 783 TOTAL 186 207 198 188 195 169 217 183 1,543 BOULEVARD SOUTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT 26 86 D 7 69 0 34 35 D 10 38 p 23 41 0 25 61 0 27 61 0 23 49 0 175 440 0 TOTAL 112 76 69 48 64 86 88 72 615 GOLDEN EASTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT 0 0 0 0 p D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 GATE TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PARKWAY WESTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT 372 0 106 212 0 109 157 0 96 123 0 81 96 0 76 133 0 104 120 0 67 99 0 69 INTER - SECTION TOTAL TOTAL 476 321 253 2pq 172 237 187 168 7:OD AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM BA SAM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM TOTAL: 776 604 520 440 431 492 492 423 1,312 0 708 2,020 4,178 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR COLLIER BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY BEGIN NORTHBOUND 11 SOUTHBOUND INTER - LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU TB RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT D TOTAL SECTION 7:00 AM 0 353 426 779 77 228 0 305 0 0 0 0 664 0 392 1,256 2,340 Page 40 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS COLLIER BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY HOUR BEGIN 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM NORTHBOUND COL IER BOULEVARD SOUTHBOUND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEfT THRU RIGHT 0 p 0 0 884 D 392 p 0 0 0 588 0 362 0 0 0 509 0 357 0 p 0 0 0 472 0 328 0 0 0 448 0 316 TOTAL 1,256 950 866 800 7a4 INTER - SECTION TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL D 353 426 779 77 226 0 305 0 381 407 788 74 163 0 0 370 380 750 92 175 0 267 D 401 368 769 85 201 0 286 0 407 357 764 98 212 0 310 2,340 1,895 1,883 1,855 1 1.1. PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR COLLIER BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY BEGIN NORTHBOUND 11 SOUTHBOUND INTER - LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU TB RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT D TOTAL SECTION 7:00 AM 0 353 426 779 77 228 0 305 0 0 0 0 664 0 392 1,256 2,340 Page 40 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 0 .-► 0 J 0 0% 0 y 0 0 Note: Percents ( %) represent movement volumes divided by the total intersection traffic 226 77 1 %* DATE: COLLIER BOULEVARD DAY: THURSDAY 1,050 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 45% INTERSECTION: COLLIER BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE 1,092 PARKWAY 779 305 Y 745 1 1,871 t 226 77 1 %* DATE: March 1, 2007 DAY: THURSDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM INTERSECTION: COLLIER BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE 1,092 PARKWAY Page 41 of 99 L392 0 4 864 1,256 1,759 75% 503 EXHIBIT V.E.1 c A*—", ■ to 0 353 426 1 t 1,092 779 Y 1,871 80% Page 41 of 99 L392 0 4 864 1,256 1,759 75% 503 EXHIBIT V.E.1 c A*—", /1-11 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: March 1, 2007 DAY: THURSDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS COLLIER BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY 15 MIN COLLIER BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION COLLIER BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 0 137 243 380 37 66 0 103 0 0 0 0 64 0 57 121 604 4:15 PM 0 98 307 405 23 75 0 98 0 0 0 0 116 0 60 176 679 4:30 PM 0 148 299 447 23 93 0 116 0 0 0 0 119 0 26 145 708 4:45 PM 0 122 315 437 20 46 0 66 0 0 0 0 6 9 0 42 111 614 5:00 PM 0 118 313 431 24 95 0 119 0 0 0 0 109 0 24 133 683 5:15 PM 0 123 383 506 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 37 342 0 5:30 PM 0 151 368 519 43 51 0 94 0 0 0 0 92 0 41 82 588 5:45 PM 0 147 372 519 70 56 0 126 0 0 0 0 127 0 42 133 �146 TOTAL: 0 1,044 2,600 3 644 240 482 0 722 0 0 0 0 741 0 329 169 1,070 14 36 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR COLLIER HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION 5:OD PM -1 LEFT THRU RIGHT 0 539 1,436 COLLIER BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY LEFT THRU RIGHT 11 137 202 0 I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT 1 339 0 0 TOTAL I LEFT THRU RIGHT 1 373 0 144 HOUR TOTAL 2,831 COLLIER BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY INTER- BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 0 505 1,164 1,669 103 280 0 383 0 0 0 0 368 0 185 553 2,605 4:15 PM 0 486 1,234 1,720 90 309 0 399 0 0 0 0 413 0 152 565 2,684 4:30 PM 0 511 1,310 1,821 67 234 0 301 0 0 0 0 342 0 129 471 2,593 4:45 PM 0 514 1,379 1,893 87 192 0 279 0 0 0 0 315 0 144 459 2,631 5:00 PM 0 539 1,436 1,975 137 202 0 339 D 0 0 0 373 0 144 517 2,831 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR COLLIER BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION 5:OD PM -1 LEFT THRU RIGHT 0 539 1,436 TOTAL 1 1,975 LEFT THRU RIGHT 11 137 202 0 I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT 1 339 0 0 TOTAL I LEFT THRU RIGHT 1 373 0 144 I TOTAL 1 517 TOTAL 2,831 Page 42 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. a 4► 0 J - 0% �.., 0 y 0 0 COLLIER BOULEVARD 1,022 36% I 339 1 202 137 1 %+ Note: Percents ( %) represent movement volumes divided by the total Intersection traffic 575 683 1 DATE: March 1, 2007 DAY: THURSDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM INTERSECTION: COLLIER BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY ■ to - 0 539 1,436 1 1,975 I 2,550 90% Page 43 of 99 L144 4= 0 r373 517 4111111111111111. 2,090 y 74% 1,573 EXHIBIT V.E.lc /0-111 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Page 44 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c PEAK HOUR SUMMARY 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER. BEGIN E7: NORTHBOUND 3RD STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD SOUTHBOUND 3RD STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD WESTBOUND HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT 15 M N 3RD STREET GOLDEN GATE 3RD STREET LEFT THRU RIGHT- GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD NORTHBOUND INTER- BEG EASTBOUND NORTHBOUND 8 395 6 SECTION 2 1,112 3 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND RIGHT WESTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL SECTION LEFT THRU LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM 3 0 0 3 1 0 9 10 3 99 2 104 1 319 2 322 439 7:15 AM 4 0 2 6 1 0 6 7 1 87 4 92 0 287 0 287 392 7:30 AM 5 0 4 9 0 0 3 3 2 103 0 105 0 241 0 241 358 7:45 AM 6 0 1 7 1 0 6 7 2 106 0 108 1 265 1 267 389 8:00 AM 8 0 0 8 0 0 5 5 2 79 2 83 1 230 1 232 328 8:15 AM 9 0 1 10 0 0 6 6 2 72 3 77 1 0 135 0 135 228 8:30 AM 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 3 1 65 7 73 0 174 0 174 252 8:45 AM 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 B7 4 93 0 160 1 161 258 TOTAL: 41 0 8 49 4 1 36 41 15 698 22 735 3 1,811 5 1,819 2,644 Page 44 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER. BEGIN E7: NORTHBOUND 3RD STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 3RD STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT- INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND 25 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 8 395 6 SECTION 2 1,112 3 LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 7-00 AM 18 0 7 25 3 D 24 27 8 395 6 - 409 2 1,112 3 1,117 1,576 7:15 AM 23 0 7 30 2 0 20 22 7 375 6 388 2 1,023 2 1,027 1,467 7:30 AM 28 0 6 34 1 0 20 21 8 360 5 373 2 871 2 875 1,303 745 AM 25 0 2 27 2 1 18 21 7 322 12 341 2 804 2 808 1,197 8:00 AM 23 0 1 24 1 1 12 14 7 303 16 326 1 699 2 702 1,066 Page 44 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c PEAK HOUR SUMMARY 3RD STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER. BEGIN E7: NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT- TOTAL TOTAL 18 0 7 25 H 3 0 24 1 27 11 8 395 6 409 2 1,112 3 1,117 1. 1,578 Page 44 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 1,154 4-► 8 J 1,563 99% am* 395 M+ 409 6 Note: Percents N represent movement volumes divided by the total Intersection traffic 3RD STREET 38 2% I t DATE: 27 DAY: TUESDAY 1 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM 24 0 3 4j 1 4 t DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM INTERSECTION: 3RD STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD Page 45 of 99 L3 4m 1,112 1,117 �t 2 a 1,522 —* 96% 405 EXHIBIT V.E.lc 10—*-, `1 1 1* 18 0 7 1 t 8 25 I 33 2% Page 45 of 99 L3 4m 1,112 1,117 �t 2 a 1,522 —* 96% 405 EXHIBIT V.E.lc 10—*-, TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Page 46 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 3RD STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 3RD STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD SECTION HOUR TOTAL LEFT 15 MIN TOTAL 3RD STREET 3RD STREET TOTAL GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD BEGIN 0 11 INTER - BEGIN SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND 2,032 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND LEFT WESTBOUND RIGHT SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTALI LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 3 0 1 4 0 0 5 'S 4 252 4 260 1 270 1 272 541 4:15 PM 1 0 1 2 2 0 4 6 6 271 10 287 3 272 2 277 572 4:30 PM 5 0 3 8 0 0 1 1 2 286 6 294 6 183 0 189 492 4:45 PM 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 2 1 6 259 2 267 0 152 4 156 427 5:00 PM 1 0 2 3 0 0 3 3 3 320 3 326 2 117 2 121 453 5:15 PM 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 7 344 1 352 3 104 1 108 463 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 t 441 6 448 1 135 1 137 587 E0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 6 364 4 374 1 134 0 135 512 l 14 0 10 24 JI 3 0 17 1 20 11 35 2,537 36 1 2,608 17 1,367 71 1,395 4,047 Page 46 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 3RD STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD WESTBOUND SECTION HOUR TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 3RD STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TOTAL 4:00 PM INTER - BEGIN 0 11 NORTHBOUND 18 1,068 22 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 2,032 SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 9 0 7 16 3 0 11 14 18 1,068 22 1,108 10 877 7 894 2,032 4:15 PM 7 0 8 15 3 0 9 12 17 1,136 21 1,174 11 724 8 743 1,944 4:30 PM 8 0 7 15 1 0 6 7 18 1,209 12 1,239 11 556 7 574 1,835 4:45 PM 3 0 5 8 1 0 6 7 17 1,364 12 1,393 6 508 8 522 1,930 5:00 PM 5 0 3 8 0 0 6 6 17 1,469 14 1,500 7 490 4 501 2,015 Page 46 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR 3RD STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 9 0 7 16 3 0 11 14 18 1,068 22 1,108 11 10 877 7 894 2,032 Page 46 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 897 ~► 18 J 2,005 99 % y 1,068 111111111 1,108 22 MV Note: Percents (%) represent movement volumes divided by the total intersection traffic 3RD STREET 39 2% 1 14 1 1 0 3 1 94 25 1 DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM -6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM INTERSECTION: 3RD STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD Page 47 of 99 L7 *= 877 4=• f10 894 ♦♦ 1,972 97% 1,078 EXHIBIT V.E.1c I 9 0 7 1 t 32 16 I 48 2% Page 47 of 99 L7 *= 877 4=• f10 894 ♦♦ 1,972 97% 1,078 EXHIBIT V.E.1c /0-111 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Page 48 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c PEAK HOUR SUMMARY 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS 1ST STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER BEGIN 1ST STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD SOUTHBOUND HOUR 15 MIN - SECTION 1ST 1ST STREET THRU RIGHT TOTAL GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - BEGIN INTER. BEGIN fLET �TIRU UND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND THRU SECTION TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL IGHT TO TAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM 5 0 1 6 0 0 3 3 0 100 0 100 1 314 3 318 427 7:15 AM 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 3 0 90 0 90 1 282 0 283 378 7:30 AM 5 0 1 6 0 0 1 1 0 106 1 107 1 235 0 236 350 7:45 AM 4 0 0 4 0 0 2 2 0 108 0 108 1 261 0 262 376 8:00 AM 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 4 0 78 1 79 1 227 0 228 312 8:15 AM 4 0 1 5 0 0 1 1 0 73 0 73 1 130 1 132 211 8:30 AM 4 0 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 64 2 66 1 167 1 8:45 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 85 2 87 169 244 TOTAL: 25 0 6 31 0 0 18 1 18 0 704 6 1 710 IL 1 160 0 1 161 1 250 8 1,776 5 1,789 1 2,548 Page 48 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS 1ST STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER BEGIN 1ST STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD SOUTHBOUND HOUR WESTBOUND - SECTION 1ST STREET GOLDEN GATtBOULEVARD THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL INTER - BEGIN 76 0 2 NORTHBOUND 0 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 1,531 SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL T THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM i6 0 2 18 0 0 9 9 0 404 1 405 4 1,092 3 1,099 7:15 AM 12 0 1 13 0 0 10 10 0 382 2 384 4 1,005 0 1,009 7:30 AM 14 0 2 16 0 0 8 8 0 365 2 367 4 853 1 858 F41 7:45 AM 13 0 3 16 0 0 10 10 0 323 3 326 4 785 2 791 8:00 AM 9 0 4 13 0 0 9 9 0 300 5 305 4 684 2 680 Page 48 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR 1ST STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND - SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 7:OOAM 76 0 2 16 0 0 9 9 0 404 1 1 405 11 4 1,092 3 1 1,099 0 1,531 Page 48 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 1,117 ♦-► 0 J 1,522 99% y 404 0* 405 1 1 Note: Percents ( %) represent movement volumes divided by the total intersection traffic 1ST STREET 12 1% I 9 I 0 0 1 4 1 DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM INTERSECTION: 1ST STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD Page 49 of 99 L3 1,092 M 4 1,099 / IM 1,505 98% 406 EXHIBIT V.E.1 c ■ e 16 0 2 1 t 5 18 I 23 2% Page 49 of 99 L3 1,092 M 4 1,099 / IM 1,505 98% 406 EXHIBIT V.E.1 c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS 1ST STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 15 MIN 1ST STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND - SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 5 247 1 253 1 269 2 272 528 4:15 PM 1 0 0 1 2 0 5 7 1 267 6 274 0 271 1 272 554 4:30 PM 2 0 0 2 2 0 1 3 1 279 9 289 2 186 2 190 484 4:45 PM 0 0 6 6 1 0 1 2 2 259 1 262 1 155 1 157 427 5:00 PM 4 0 1 5 1 0 0 1 7 312 3 322 0 117 4 121 449 5:15 PM 3 0 0 3 0 0 2 2 4 338 2 344 2 103 2 107 456 5:30 PM 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 4 5 436 1 442 1 133 0 134 582 5:45 PM 4 0 1 5 2 0 0 2 1 360 3 364 0 131 2 133 504 TOTAL: 17 0 8 25 10 0 13 23 26 2,498 26 2,550 7 1,365 14 1386 3,984 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY E��U1ST STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - OUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 6 10 5 0 9 14 9 1,052 17 1,078 11 4 881 6 891 1,993 Page 50 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS 1ST STREET &GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD HOUR 1ST STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER- BEGIN LEFT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION THRU RIGHT I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4 7 0 0 6 10 5 0 9 14 9 1,052 17 4 881 6 891 1,993 4:30 PM 9 0 7 7 14 6 0 7 13 11 1,117 19 3 729 8 740 1.914 4:45 PM 9 0 7 16 16 4 0 4 8 4 14 1,188 15 J1472 5 561 9 575 1,816 5:00 PM 13 0 2 15 0 5 9 5 18 1,345 7 4 508 7 519 1,914 0 4 9 17 1,446 9 3 484 8 495 1 991 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY E��U1ST STREET GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - OUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 6 10 5 0 9 14 9 1,052 17 1,078 11 4 881 6 891 1,993 Page 50 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 894 .-► 9 J 1,972 99% 1,052 y 1,078 17 WV Note: percents ( %) represent movement volumes divided by the total Intersection traffic 1ST STREET 29 1% I 14 1 0 5 1 4 1 21 4 Y 31 2% Page 51 of 99 DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM INTERSECTION: 1ST STREET & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 15 ■ 0 6 1 10 L6 #= 881 r 4 891 1,954 98% 1,063 EXHIBIT V.E.1c A10-11, �1 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR SUMMARY WILSON BOULEVARD 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS E7:00AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION WILSON BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT WILSON BOULEVARD BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 23 6 366 INTER - INTER - 15 MIN NORTHBOUND 757 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL BEGIN LEFT THRU NORTHBOUND TOTAL TOTAL SOUTHBOUND 19 2 EASTBOUND 25 WESTBOUND 147 255 4 406 SECTION 42 LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM 6 0 0 6 6 3 106 115 32 68 1 101 0 206 8 214 436 7:15 AM 8 2 2 12 3 0 92 95 33 55 2 90 0 183 17 200 397 7:30 AM 4 0 2 6 13 3 73 89 36 70 1 107 1 159 11 171 373 7:45 AM 1 0 0 1 1 0 95 96 46 62 0 108 0 166 6 172 377 8:00 AM 4 0 0 4 4 7 87 98 18 59 1 78 2 137 12 151 331 8:15 AM 3 3 2 8 6 2 19 27 8 65 1 74 0 110 15 125 234 8:30 AM 2 0 0 2 4 0 56 60 5 60 1 66 1 111 16 128 256 8:45 AM 1 2 0 3 7 2 67 1 76 24 62 0 86 1 93 11 105 270 TOTAL: 0 29 7 6 1 42 44 17 595 656 202 501 7 710 5 1 ,165 96 1 1,266 2674 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY WILSON BOULEVARD HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS E7:00AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION WILSON BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT WILSON BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 25 23 6 366 INTER - HOUR BEGIN 406 NORTHBOUND 757 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM 19 2 4 25 23 6 366 395 147 255 4 406 1 714 42 757 1,583 7:15 AM 17 2 4 23 21 10 347 378 133 246 4 383 3 645 46 694 1,478 7:30 AM 12 3 4 19 24 12 274 310 108 256 3 367 3 572 44 619 1,315 7:45 AM 10 3 2 15 15 9 257 281 77 246 3 326 3 524 49 576 1,198 8:00 AM 10 5 2 17 21 11 229 261 55 246 3 304 4 451 54 509 1,091 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY WILSON BOULEVARD E7:00AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TAL TOTAL 19 2 4 25 23 6 366 395 147 255 4 406 1 714 42 757 1,583 Page 52 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 4- 1,099 ~, 147 J 1,505 95% 255 406 4 OV Note: Percents I %) represent movement volwnes divided by the total intersection traffic WILSON BOULEVARD 586 37% I 395 1 6 6 23 1 L► 191 DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM -9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM INTERSECTION: WILSON BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE 1 BOULEVARD Page 53 of 99 L42 714 41111111111111111 757 1,039 66% 282 EXHIBIT V.E.1 c I 1 1* 19 2 4 1 t 11 25 T 36 2% Page 53 of 99 L42 714 41111111111111111 757 1,039 66% 282 EXHIBIT V.E.1 c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR SUMMARY 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WILSON BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD WILSON BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT 15 MIN TOTAL LEFT WILSON BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD BOULEVARD TOTAL INTER. BEGIN BEGIN NORTHBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 2,057 SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 2 1 1 4 13 3 91 107 43 199 5 247 1 179 11 191 549 4:15 PM 3 0 1 4 9 4 75 88 44 222 3 269 2 194 23 219 580 4:30 PM 1 0 1 2 12 0 37 49 49 228 4 281 2 152 4 158 490 4:45 PM 2 0 1 3 6 0 35 41 31 229 6 266 0 120 a 128 438 5:00 PM 4 0 0 4 4 0 32 36 63 248 3 314 0 85 4 89 443 5:15 PM 0 1 2 3 13 1 53 67 1 73 262 3 336 1 54 3 58 466 5:30 PM 1 0 1 2 12 1 43 56 131 304 3 438 1 90 4 95 591 5:45 PM 1 1 0 2 8 2 51 61 109 253 1 363 0 81 2 83 509 TOTAL: 14 3 7 24 77 11 417 1 505 11 543 1,945 28 1 2,516 1 955 59 1 1,021 11 4,066 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WILSON BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT HOUR TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT WILSON BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TOTAL 4:00 PM INTER - BEGIN 1 285 11 NORTHBOUND 878 18 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 2,057 SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTALl LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 8 1 4 13 40 7 238 285 167 878 18 1,063 5 645 46 696 57 4:15 PM 10 0 3 13 31 4 179 214 167 927 16 1,130 4 551 39 594 51 4:30 PM 7 1 4 12 35 1 157 193 216 967 16 1,199 3 411 19 433 37 :2,009 4:45 PM 7 1 4 12 35 2 163 200 298 1,043 15 1,356 2 349 19 370 38 5:00 PM 6 2 3 11 37 4 179 220 376 1,067 10 1,453 2 310 13 325 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 8 1 4 13 11 40 7 238 1 285 11 167 878 18 1,063 5 845 46 696 2,057 Page 54 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 891 ~, 167 J 1,954 95% y 878 1,063 18 Note: Percents I %) represent movement volumes divided by the total Intersection traffic WILSON BOULEVARD 499 24°% t 285 1 8 7 40 1 4 214 1 DATE: March 13, 2007 DAY: TUESDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM INTERSECTION: WILSON BOULEVARD & GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD Page 55 of 99 L46 645 698 r5 «••► 1,618 !1♦ 79% 922 EXHIBIT V.E.lc AO-1- +1 1 to 8 1 4 1 t 30 13 43 2% Page 55 of 99 L46 645 698 r5 «••► 1,618 !1♦ 79% 922 EXHIBIT V.E.lc AO-1- TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: February 28, 2007 DAY: WEDNESDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD IMMOKALEE 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT WILSON BOULEVARD & IMMOKALEE ROAD WILSON BOULEVARD & IMMOKALEE ROAD LEFT THRU RIGHT T TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM HOUR 15 MIN 120 8 237 14 257 WILSON BOULEVARD IMMOKALEE ROAD ROAD INTER - BEGIN BEGIN NORTHBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION SECTION LEFT LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM 20 1 65 86 12 4 20 36 1 65 6 72 82 273 4 359 553 7:15 AM B 0 15 23 3 2 22 27 2 60 2 64 23 294 3 320 434 7:30 AM 4 0 35 39 11 3 9 23 2 66 3 71 46 324 2 372 505 7:45 AM 3 0 28 31 10 5 19 34 1 46 3 50 41 250 4 295 410 8:00 AM 9 1 38 48 11 1 8 20 2 39. 4 45 31 260 8 299 412 8:15 AM 2 0 21 23 6 4 6 16 2 34 3 39 25 235 6 266 344 8:30 AM 4 0 20 24 4 6 12 22 5 51 8 64 21 196 7 224 334 8:45 AM 2 0 24 1 26 1 3 2 12 17 1 54 4 59 37 178 6 221 323 22TAL: 52 2 246 1 300 60 27 108 195 16 415 33 484 306 2,010 40 2,356 3,315 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD IMMOKALEE HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT WILSON BOULEVARD & IMMOKALEE ROAD TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT T TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM HOUR 179 11 36 14 70 120 8 237 14 257 WILSON BOULEVARD IMMOKALEE ROAD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 7 ;00 AM 35 1 143 179 36 14 70 120 6 237 14 257 192 1,141 13 1,346 1,902 7:15 AM 24 1 116 141 35 11 58 104 7 211 12 230 141 1,128 17 1,266 1,761 7:30 AM 18 1 122 141 38 13 42 93 7 185 13 205 143 1,069 20 1,232 1,671 7:45 AM 18 1 107 12B 31 16 45 92 10 170 18 198 118 941 25 1,084 1,500 8:00 AM 17 1 103 121 24 13 38 75 10 178 19 207 114 869 27 - 1,010 1,413 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR WILSON BOULEVARD IMMOKALEE ROAD INTER - BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT T TOTAL TOTAL 7:00 AM 35 1 143 179 11 36 14 70 120 8 237 14 257 192 1,141 13 1 1,346 1 1,902 Page 56 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 1,246 4111-111. ! J 6 79% No+ 237 y 257 14 lllll Note: Percents ( %) represent movement volumes divided by the total Intersection traffic WILSON BOULEVARD 140 7% I 120 1 14 36 1 %* 20 1 DATE: February 28, 2007 DAY: WEDNESDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM -9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM INTERSECTION: WILSON BOULEVARD & IMMOKALEE ROAD Page 57 of 99 L13 4M 1,141 ♦p 4r 182 1,346 1,762 93% 416 EXHIBIT V.E.lc ■ 35 1 143 1 1 220 179 i 399 21% Page 57 of 99 L13 4M 1,141 ♦p 4r 182 1,346 1,762 93% 416 EXHIBIT V.E.lc TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: February 28, 2007 DAY: WEDNESDAY COUNT TIME: 4 :00 PM - 6 :00 PM 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS WILSON BOULEVARD & IMMOKALEE ROAD 15 MIN WILSON BOULEVARD IMMOKALEE ROAD BEGIN 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM TOTAL: NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT 6 1 29 8 4 77 6 4 Be 6 5 86 2 4 64 7 3 28 15 1 96 5 2 80 55 24 546 TOTAL 36 89 96 97 70 38 112 87 625 SOUTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT 0 3 2 2 1 9 1 4 5 4 1 4 6 3 7 7 1 5 4 5 5 2 3 1 26 21 38 TOTAL 5 12 10 9 16 13 14 6 i5—, EASTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT 11 51 4 10 111 9 12 163 9 13 189 21 12 193 B 8 202 10 13 226 22 8 176 27 87 1,311 110 TOTAL Be 130 184 223 213 220 261 211 7,508 WESTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT 57 150 7 54 149 fi 69 158 4 66 140 6 72 140 q 34 141 6 53 136 7 28 129 5 433 1,143 45 1 INTER - SECTION TOTAL TOTAL 214 209 231 212 216 181 196 182 321 440 521 541 515 452 583 466 1,621 11 3,839 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR WILSON BO LEVARD IMMOKALEE ROAD BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT THRIHTOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 4:45 PM 30 13 274 317 21 10 21 52 48 810 61 917 225 557 23 805 ESECTION HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS WILSON BOULEVARD & IMMOKALEE ROAD HOUR OULEVARD IMMOKALEE ROAD BEGIN LEFT NORTHBOUND THRU RIGHT �TOTALI SOUTHBOUND LEFT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INTER - SECTION 4:00 PM 26 14 278 THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:15 PM 22 17 313 318 352 7 9 20 36 13 9 25 46 514 43 603 246 597 23 866 1,823 4:30 PM 21 16 264 301 47 18 9 21 48 47 656 47 750 261 587 20 868 2,017 4:45 PM 30 13 274 317 21 10 21 52 45 747 48 840 46 241 579 20 840 2,029 5:00 PM 29 10 268 307 19 12 18 49 810 61 917 41 225 557 23 ,gp5 pOgi 797 67 905 187 546 22 755 2,016 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR WILSON BO LEVARD IMMOKALEE ROAD BEGIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT THRIHTOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 4:45 PM 30 13 274 317 21 10 21 52 48 810 61 917 225 557 23 805 ESECTION Page 58 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. AI-- 608 4-i 46 Mt 73% 810 y 917 61 Note: Percents ( %) represent movement volumes divided by the Iota[ intersection lratric WILSON BOULEVARD 134 6% I 82 1 DATE: 52 DAY: WEDNESDAY 1 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM 21 10 21 «j 1 4► 82 1 DATE: February 28, 2007 DAY: WEDNESDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:45 PM - 5:45 PM INTERSECTION: WILSON BOULEVARD & IMMOKALEE ROAD Page 59 of 99 L23 557 225 805 1,910 91% 1,105 EXHIBIT V.E.lc 10-11, t III+ 30 13 274 1 t 296 317 T 613 29% Page 59 of 99 L23 557 225 805 1,910 91% 1,105 EXHIBIT V.E.lc 10-11, 2006 FDOT TRAFFIC INFORMATION CD - PEAK SEASON FACTORS Page 60 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c a m o I pdp, 1 >r I H u U u U I .0 � a u i o i a i v i x I ,j u O O W >+ A 0 H 03 aN N H 41 ro O U O U 0 ox u W U H roa w a m o m 0 U Id O al A b O � O U] m x° Ul ? 4L 0 0 w lr o d x O 41 Ul N ro Ul U 3 l c o r- V 1-Im wt, w of m omin wmomo r- ON N N mm C o In %D r- hl- [ � wln In N ri m w r rte � m0 r1 r- 1.-- 1000616 010101010100 oc> rl ri r-I N NN NN N N NNNNN NNNNNN NN r -1'i -! -I -ri r1 -1 -1 4 N ri ri ri o O O O O o o •4 ri r _; ri ri ri ri 4 ri r-I N ri r-1 r-I ri rl 4 ri r-I ri H ri ri -1 r-1 H ri r-I H ri H -1 r-1 ri ri ri ri H ri 1 I C'rl m �nM oml�win C'whOl r-im cwmON C�wmmm0l OlOrl r- iNMMMMMMNr -1 �--IOm l� If1M 0 0 01 01 01 01 mmm m mm mm 010101 0101000000000. --I ri ri ri ri r♦r♦ r-1 ri r/r-1 r-1 r-I ri O Oo9O 0 000001 I ri ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri ri ri H ri ri ri ri ri ri � ri ri ri ri �-+ ri ri .-� ri ri ri ri ri ri .-I ri .-� ri ri ri ,-� ri o ID w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w WD w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 0 w to w w w WD w w 00000 o00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ w \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ [- H N N 0 ri mNC' e-f m N o mHN01w m0"M O1i"C>m In N 01 In NHwN 01 wm0[D C' N m OH m"N 0lw"0 m Or-1 N N O ri r-INO ri riN No OH NNO riNN O c-1 riN OOri NN O ri riN00 riN MOriN N OH riNO Oe-1 N mm \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ri00 riN "NN M mM000 C 0 C 0to In Inw www 0 Q m mm mm 010101010000 Hr ri riN N N NN N -4 14 000000000000000000000 o Ooo 0000000 000 o00ori ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri .-i ri ri ri ri 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N (N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \\ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\ \\\\ \\\ 0 rl) CD \\\\ \\\\\ \\ \ \\ 0 0 -, N N C1 N 01 w In N m w N 01 w M 0 1, C' r♦ m C' ri m cj 0 0 -1 M O w m O h M° r C' 0 0 to N m N N H" (n 0 1� N m OOr-I N N Ori r-IN O ri ri N OOr -INM O'-IN NO fi riN001--I NMO' -1NN Or-1 r-INOO r-IN NO rl riN (D 'A r-i Nm \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ri 0 0NN NN C, 0 C' u'100 In w w w wl>h tD ID 0 m m mm 0101010100000 H rirl ri N"" NN 000000 ° o0 0 000 0 000000000000000 o OOOOO o0 o Ori ri ri ri ri ri ri ri r-i r-1 ri r-1 riN riNM C' NwI�m01 O ri N my In w �m Ol O ri Nm - � w �mm 0H N m v In w � m Ol O -1N m O1O r-I N ri.-1N1i r 11 ri r-Ir -I N N N N N N N N N N m m M m m M m m m m In Lo ul in Page 61 of 99 9 O 0 44 m O x ri ro a o ro a EXHIBIT V.E.1c ANNUAL GROWTH RATE CALCULATIONS Page 62 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c ANNUAL GROWTH RATE CALCULATIONS BASED ON AUIR HISTORICAL DATA 2006 2008 ANNUAL ACTUAL CURRENT AUIR AUIR YRS OF GROWTH GROWTH ROADWAY SEGMENT ID# VOLUME VOLUME GROWTH RATE RATE Collier Boulevard S. of Vanderbilt Beach Rd 30.2 2,012 2,414 2 9.54% 9.54% S. of Golden Gate Blvd 31 2,938 2,195 2 2.00% - 13.56% S. of Pine Ridge 32.1 2,400 1,997 2 2.00% -8.78% Immokalee Road E. of Collier Blvd 44 2,027 1,819 2 2.00% -5.27% E. of Wilson Blvd 45 1,773 1,909 2 3.76% 3.76% Golden Gate Blvd E. of Collier Blvd. 17 2,018 1,993 2 2.00% -0.62% W. of 3rd Ave 17 2,018 1,993 2 2.00% -0.62% Project Frontage 17 2,018 1,993 2 2.00% -0.62% E. of Wilson Blvd 123 1,480 1,167 2 2.00% - 11.20% W. of Everglades Blvd. 123 1,480 1,167 2 2.00% - 11.20% Wilson Blvd S. of Immokalee Rd. 4 2.00% N. of Site 4 118 2.00% Project Frontage 3,4 118 2.00% S. of Golden Gate Blvd 2 118 2.00% All traffic volumes were taken from the 2006 & 2008 Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR) In instances where the historical data indicates a reduction in traffic or insufficient data was available to calculate a growth rate due to construction, a minimum annual growth rate of 2.0% was assumed. A 2% growth rate was assumed for Wilson Blvd. due to the lack of data in the AUIR report SAMPLE GROWTH RATE CALCULATION 2008 AUIR "(lNrs of Growth) Annual Growth Rate (AGR) _ -1 2006 AUIR 2,414 "(112) AGR (Collier Blvd.) = 1 2,012 AGR (Collier Blvd.) = 9.54% Page 63 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc HCS+ INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Page 64 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c COLLIER BOULEVARD @ GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD Page 65 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc M-0101 Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP Agency or Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @Collier Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Background Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 2 1 3 2 2 3 Lane Group L R T R L T Volume (vph) 1021 463 442 533 114 337 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95. 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 WB Oni 02 03 04 SB Onl Thru & RT 07 08 fPhasin G= 65.0 G= G= G= f�Y = 10.0 G= 25.0 G= 1 G= Y= 7 Y= Y= Y= = 6 Y= 7 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Len th C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 1075 414 465 561 120 355 Lane Group Capacity 1862 857 1057 2266 286 1734 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.48 0.44 0.25 0.42 0.20 Green Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.21 0.81 0.08 0.34 Uniform Delay d1 16.3 17.1 41.4 2.8 52.2 28.0 Delay Factor k 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.1 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 18.8 17.5 41.7 2.8 53.2 28.0 Lane Group LOS B B D A D C Approach Delay 18.4 20.4 34.4 Approach LOS 8 C C Intersection Delay 21.7 Intersection LOS C Copyright C 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 4124/2008 9:02 AM fileWCADoeuments and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k20E.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 66 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c Short Report General Information Analyst RLP Agency or Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 4/23/2008 Time Period AM Peak Hour Volume and Timing Input EB LT TH Number of Lanes Lane Group Volume (vph) % Heavy Vehicles PHF Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) Startup Lost Time Extension of Effective Green Arrival Type Unit Extension Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume Lane Width Parking /Grade /Parking Parking /Hour Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT Site Information Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @Collier Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Buildout WB NB SB RT LT TH T RT LT TH RT LT TH 2 L 1 R 3 T 2 R 2 L 3 T 1032 Phasing WB Only 02 469 Thru & RT 07 08 442 G= G= G= 10.0 125 337 Y= Y= Y= 6 2 Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 2 C cle Len th C = 120.0 2 r55 2 2 WB 0.95 SB 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 420 A 465 A 132 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 2266 3 1734 3 3 3 3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0.44 12.0 0.46 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 0.54 N 0 N N 0 N N 0 Uniform Delay di n 18.4 n n 0 0 qtr N bus flops /riour a 3.2 - 3.2 3.2 Minimum Pedestrian Time Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Onl Thru & RT 07 08 G= 65.0 G= iY= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 25.0 G= G= Timing 7 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 7 1Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 C cle Len th C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB 1086 420 465 584 132 355 Adjusted Flow Rate 1862 857 1057 2266 286 1734 Lane Group Capacity v/c Ratio 0.58 0.49 0.44 0.26 0.46 0.20 Green Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.21 0.81 0.08 0.34 Uniform Delay di 18.4 17.2 41.4 2.8 52.4 28.0 Delay Factor k 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 1.2 0.1 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 18.9 17.6 141.7 2.8 53.6 28.0 Lane Group LOS B B D A D C Approach Delay 18.5 20.1 35.0 Approach LOS B C C Intersection Delay _ 21.7 Intersection LOS C n..... �.. ...1• AMA Mnf1A O•n7 AAA Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved muz5l. • version o.c f1leWCADocumellts and Settings\rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k21F.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 67 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c n Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP Agency or Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 4/23/2008 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @Collier Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Background Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 2 1 3 2 2 3 Lane Group L R T R L T Volume (vph) 441 170 675 1798 203 299 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing E:WB On l 02 03 04 SB Onl Thru & RT 07 08 Timing 44.0 G= G= G= G= 11.0 IY= G= 45.0 G= G= Y= 7 Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 7 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 464 153 711 1893 214 315 Lane Group Capacity 1260 580 1903 2242 315 2622 Vic Ratio 0.37 0.26 0.37 0.84 0.68 0.12 Green Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.80 0.09 0.52 Uniform Delay d1 27.8 26.6 27.3 7.4 52.8 14.9 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.38 0.25 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.2 0.2 0.1 3.2 5.8 0.0 PF Factor 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 28.0 26.9 27.4 10.6 58.6 15.0 Lane Group LOS C C C B E B Approach Delay 27.7 15.1 32.6 Approach LOS C B C Intersection Delay 19.7 Intersection LOS B Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 4/2412008 9:02 AM file: //C: \Documents and Settings\r1p \Local Settings \Temp \s2k230.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 68 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c Page 1 of 1 Short Report 5HUK 1 Ktrum i Site Information General Information Golden Gate 81vd @Collier Analyst RLP Intersection Blvd TR Transportation Agency or Co. Consultants Area Type All other areas Co nsulta Date Performed 412312008 Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Buildout Time Period PM Peak Hour Volume and Timin Input NB SB EB WB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 2 1 3 2 2 3 Number of Lanes T L R R L T Lane Group 515 207 675 1863 236 299 Volume (vph) % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasin WB 02 03 0 4 SB Onl Thru & RT 07 0B gnlyJ G= G= G= G= G= 11.0 G= 45.0 G= G= Timing Y= Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 7 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 C --le I eni h C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 542 192 711 1961 248 315 1260 580 1903 2,242 315 2622 Lane Group Capacity v/c Ratio 0.43 0.33 0.37 10.87 0.79 10.12 Green Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.80 0.09 0.52 Uniform Delay di 28.6 27.4 27.3 8.0 53.4 14.9 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.33 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.2 0.3 0.1 4.2 12.5 0.0 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 28.8 27.7 127.4 12.2 65.9 115.0 Lane Group LOS C C C B E B Approach Delay 28.5 16.2 37.4 Approach LOS C 8 Intersection Delay 21.5 Intersection LOS C n,........i„a. eMennnR o•m nnn Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HGS +• ^ version o.c i -- - - -- - file:HCADocuments and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k241 AMP 4/24/2008 Page 69 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD @ 3rd STREET NW Page 70 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Golden Gate Blvd @ 3rd St nal st aly RLP /Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 42312008 nal sis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection NW Jurisdiction Collier Coun nal sis Year 2014 Background �o'ect Descri tion F0801.31 -10 - Estates Shopping Center Istrict Street: 3rd Street NW /SW ast/West Street: Golden Gate Boulevard Stud Period hrs : 0.25 tersection Orientation: East -West ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Eastbound westbound a'or Street 3 4 5 6 ovement L T R L T R 439 10 5 0.95 1372 0.95 5 0.95 olume veh/h) 10 eak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 iourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 462 10 5 1444 5 reh /h 2 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- Raised curb i edian Type 0 tT Channelized 0 1 2 1 .anes 1 2 T 1 R L T R ;onfguration L 0 1 stream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound 11 12 Jovement 7 8 9 10 L T R L T R ✓olume veh /h 'eak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 30 0.95 0.95 0.95 32 0.95 -iourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 31 0 0 33 'veh /h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 0 0 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 1 Lanes 0 0 1 0 R Go uration R a Queue Len th, and Level of Service Southbound roach Eastbound Westbound Northbound vement r 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 e Configuration L L R R 33 v (veh /h) 10 5 31 369 C (m) (veh /h) 463 1086 777 1 v/c 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.09 95% queue length 0.07 0.01 0.13 0.29 Control Delay (s /veh) 12.9 8.3 9.9 15.7 LOS B A A C pproach Delay (s /veh) -- — 9.9 15.7 pproach LOS -- -- A C Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 4/24!2008 9:01 AM file: //C: \Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1F5.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 71 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c Two -Way Stop Control TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst RLP Agency/Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description F0801.,31 -10 -Estates Shopping Center Su EastlWest Street: Golden Gate Boulevard Intersection Orientation: East -West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 1 4 L T L Volume veh/h) 20 490 C (m) (veh /h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.05 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 21 515 0.01 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- LOS Median Type A RT Channelized -- -- Approach LOS Lanes 1 2 Configuration L T Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume veh /h Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration Golden Gate Blvd @ 3rd St NW Jurisdiction Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration L L v (veh /h) 21 5 C (m) (veh /h) 446 1038 /c 0.05 0.00 95% queue length 0.15 0.01 Control Delay (s /veh) 13.5 8.5 LOS B A Approach Delay (s /veh) -- -- Approach LOS I — 1 — Page 1 of 1 Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @ 3rd St NW Jurisdiction Collier Count Analysis Year 2014 Buildout rth /South Street: 3rd idy Period (hrs): 0.25 3 4 R L 10 5 0.95 0.95 10 5 -- 2 Raised curb 0 1 1 R L 9 10 R L 30 0.95 0.95 31 0 2 0 file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1F8.tmp 10.1 B 5 6 T _ R 1407 10 0.95 0.95 1481 10 0 2 1 T R 0 uthbound 11 12 T R 37 0.95 0.95 0 38 0 2 0 N 0 0 0 1 R Southbound 10 11 12 R 38 359 0.11 0.35 16.2 C 16.2 C Generated: 4/24/2008 9:01 AM 4/24/2008 Page 72 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c Two -Way Stop Control General Information TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Snformation ns ortation Consultants icti Date Performed 4ia5iZ00.8 nalvsis Year Analysis Time Period IPM Peak Ht project Description F0801.31 -10 - Estates ast/West Street: Golden Gate Boulevard ntersection Orientation: East -West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Ana — _. .. Movement 1 2 Channelized L T Volume veh /h 21 1257 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 22 1323 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 2 Northbc Tian Type 0 0 Channelized 0 1 R ies 1 2 ifiguration L T stream Signal Westbound Northbound 0 for Street 4 7 $ Northbc vement 7 8 L T lume veh /h ak -Hour Factor PHF 0.95 0.9! urly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 :h/h) 95% queue length 0.11 0.09 rcent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 �rcent Grade ( %) LOS B 0 Bred Approach pproach Delay (s /veh) -- N Storage 0 South Street: 3 Period (hrs): 0. 3 4 R L 26 15 1,95 0.95 27 15 -- 2 Raised curb 0 1 1 R L g 10 R L 19 0.95 0.95 20 0 2 0 ,T Channelized 0 0 anes 0 0 1 R ;onfi uration )ela Queue Length, and Level of Service , kpproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Aovement 1 4 7 $ 9 -ane Configuration � � R 20 r (veh /h) 22 15 7, (m) ( veh /h) 600 506 v/c 0.04 0:03 0 0.0 5 . 95% queue length 0.11 0.09 0.16 Control Delay (s /veh) 11.2 12.3 14.4 LOS B 8 B pproach Delay (s /veh) -- – 14.4 B pproach LOS – -" Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +rM Version 5.21 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1FB.tmp Page 1 of t EldenG e Blvd @ 3 rd St nty 14 Background 5 n T R 1089 10 0.95 0.95 1146 10 0 2 1 T R 0 uthbound 11 12 — T R 17 0,95 0.95 0 17 0 2 0 N 0 0 0 1 R Southbound 10 11 12 R 17 463 0.04 0.11 13.1 B 13.1 B Generated: 4/24/2008 9:02 AM 4/24/2008 Page 73 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c Two -Way Stop Control TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst RLP Agency/Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Page 1 of 1 Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @ 3rd St NW Jurisdiction Collier Count Analysis Year 2014 Buildout Adjustments Major Street Project Description F0801.31 -10 - Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict East/West Street: Golden Gate Boulevard North /South Street: 3rd Street NW /SW Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 51 1432 26 15 1287 20 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 53 1507 27 15 1354 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 2 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 19 42 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 0 20 0 0 44 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 0 0 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach Al N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 Configuration R R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R R (veh /h) 53 15 20 44 C (m) (vehlh) 495 430 352 1 395 v/c 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.11 95% queue length 0.36 0,11 0.18 0.37 Control Delay (s /veh) 13.1 13.7 15.8 15.3 LOS B B C C Approach Delay (s /veh) — — 15.8 15.3 Approach LOS -- — C C /111 file:HC: \Documents and Settings\rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1FE.tmp Generated: 4/24/2008 9:02 AM 4/24/2008 Page 74 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD @ SITE ACCESS Page 75 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc /-111 A Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP Agency or Co. TR Transportation Consultant Date Performed 412312008 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @ Site Access Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Buildout Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 2 1 1 1 Lane Group L T T R L R Volume (vph) 35 485 1397 52 30 25 % Heavy Vehicles 0 2 2 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 15 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 8.0 IY= G= 72.0 G= G= I G= 20.0 G= G= G= 1Y= Y= 6.5 7 Y= Y= Y= 6.5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 37 511 1471 34 32 11 Lane Group Capacity P42 2557 2128 969 301 269 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.20 0.69 0.04 10.11 10.04 Green Ratio 0.73 0.72 0.60 0.60 10.17 10.17 Uniform Delay d1 10.7 5.5 1 16.4 19.8 1 142.4 142.0 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 11.0 5.5 17.4 9.8 42.6 42.0 Lane Group LOS B A B A D D Approach Delay 5.9 17.2 42.4 Approach LOS A B D Intersection Delay 14.8 Intersection LOS B copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 412412008 9:03 AM fileWCADocuments and Settings\rlp\Local Settings \Temp \s2k252.trnp 4/24/2008 Page 76 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c Short Report General Inform Analyst Agency or Co. Date Performed Time Period RLP TR Transportation Consultant 4/23/2008 PM Peak Hour SHORT REPORT Site Information Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analvsis Year Golden Gate Blvd @ Site Access All other areas Collier County 2014 Buildout rage i or t Volume and Timing Input EB LT TH RT 1 2 WB LT TH RT 2 1 NB LT TH I RT SB LT TH RT 1 1 Number of Lanes L T T R L R Lane Group 115 1336 1184 145 203 138 Volume (vph) 0 2 2 0 0 0 % Heavy Vehicles 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF A A A A A A Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green Arrival Type 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 Unit Extension Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume Lane Width Parking /Grade /Parking Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour Minimum Pedestrian Time 0 12.0 N 0 0 12.0 0 0 3.2 N 0 N 0 12.0 0 0 3.2 20 12.0 N 0 0 12.0 N 0 0 0 3.2 15 12.0 N 0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm G= 8.0 G= 72.0 Timing Y= 6.5 iY= 7 Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 03 04 SB Onl G= JG= G= 20.0 1 Y= Y= I Y= 6.5 06 07 08 G= G= G= IY= Y= IY= Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB W 3 NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 121 1406 1246 132 214 129 Lane Group Capacity 304 2557 2128 989 301 269 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.55 0.59 0.14 0.71 0.48 Green Ratio 0.73 0.72 10.60 0.60 0.17 0.17 Uniform Delay di 9.2 7.7 14.8 10.5 47.3 45.3 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.15 0.18 0.11 0.27 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 PF Factor 0.9 1.000 0.3 1.000 0.4 11.000 0.1 1.000 7.6 1.000 1.3 1.000 Control Delay Lane Group LOS Approach Delay 10.1 B 8.0 A 15.2 B 10.5 B 54.9 D 46.6 D 8.2 14.8 51.8 Approach LOS Intersection Delay _ A 15.6 B Intersection LOS D B _ _ �HAnnnO 0 A And Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +Tm Version 5.21 file:HCADocuments and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k263.tmp Page 77 of 99 4/24/2008 EXHIBIT V.E.1c GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD @ 1st STREET NW Page 78 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c Two -Way Stop Control Yage 1 of t copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1E9.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 79 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Golden Gate Blvd @ 1st St nal st RLP Intersection NW R enc /Co. TR Transportation Consultants urisdiction Collier Count Date Performed 412312008 nal sis Year 2014 Back round [Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour Proiect Description F0801.31 -10 - Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict North /South Street: 1st Street NW/SW EasUWest Street: Golden Gate Boulevard Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Intersection Orientation: East -West Vehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Eastbound Westbound Ma'or Street 3 4 5 6 Movement 1 2 T R L T R olume veh /h L 5 459 0.95 5 5 0.95 0.95 1367 0.95 5 0.95 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 483 5 5 1438 5 veh /h 2 -- Raised curb 2 — Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 RT Channelized Lanes T R L T R Configuration L 0 Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound 11 12 Movement 7 8 9 10 T R L T R L Volume (veh /h Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 21 0.95 0.95 0.95 15 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 P2 0 0 15 veh /h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 0 0 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 0 RT Channelized 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Lanes R Configuration R Dela , Queue Length, and Level of Service Southbound Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11. 12 Movement R Lane Configuration L L R 15 /h) 5 5 22 v(veh 466 1071 759 C (m) (veh /h) 0.01 0.00 0.03 . 0 0.0 4 Vic 95% queue length 0.03 0.01 0.09 0.13 Control Delay (s /veh) 12.8 8.4 9.9 15.1 LOS B A A C -- -- 9.9 15.1 Approach Delay (s /veh) A C Approach LOS — — n•renna ann eni copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1E9.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 79 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c Two -Way Stop Control n General Information TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Page 1 of 1 Analyst RLP I Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @ 1st St NW Agency/Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Jurisdiction Collier Count Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour Analysis Year 2014 Buildout IStudy Period hrs : Page 80 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc Project Description F0801.31 -10 - Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict East/West Street: Golden Gate Boulevard North /South Street: 1st Street NW /SW Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 21 489 5 5 1424 20 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 22 514 5 5 1498 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — -- 2 — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 21 25 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 0 22 0 0 26 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 0 0 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 Configuration R R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement. 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R R v(veh /h) 22 5 22 26 C (m) (veh /h) 435 1043 742 1 354 v/c 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.07 95% queue length 0.16 0.01 0.09 0.24 Control Delay (s /veh) 13.7 8.5 10.0 16.0 LOS B A A C Approach Delay (s /veh) -- -- 10.0 16.0 Approach LOS -- -- A C Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved file:HC: \Documents and Settings\rlp \Local HCS +TM Version 5.21 Settings \Temp \u2k1EC.tmp Generated: 4/24/2008 9:00 AM 4/24/2008 Page 80 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc Page I of 1 T.. ,,. CI �.,., C +.,,, rnnfi•nt Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved rn.oT f1leWCADocuments and Settings\rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1EF.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 81 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c Two -Way Stop Control TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information .rage i of t Analyst IRLP Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @ 1st St NW Agency/Co. ITR Trans ortation Consultants Jurisdiction Collier County Date Performed 4/23/2008 Analysis Year 2014 euildout Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour 5 6 Project Description F0801.31 -10 -Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict East/West Street: Golden Gate Boulevard North /South Street: 1st Street NW /SW Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 75 1444 20 5 1252 74 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 78 1520 21 5 1317 77 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 1 2 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h ) 15 77 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 0 15 0 0 81 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 0 0 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 Configuration R R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R R v(veh /h) 78 5 15 81 C (m) (veh /h) 487 427 349 407 v/c 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.20 95% queue length 0.57 0.04 0.13 0.73 Control Delay (s /veh) 13.8 13.5 15.8 16.0 LOS B B C C Approach Delay (s /veh) -- — 15.8 16.0 pproach LOS — -- C C file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1F2.tmp Generated: 4/24/2008 9:01 AM 4/24/2008 Page 82 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD @ WILSON BOULEVARD Page 83 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP Transportation Agency or Co. Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Time Period AM Peak Hour Golden Gate Blvd @ Wilson Intersection Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Background Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lane Group L T R L T R LTR LT R Volume (vph) 174 . 301 5 5 864 51 20 5 5 1 31 10 493 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 Pretimed /Actuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 75 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 1 1 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only EW Perm 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 8.0 IY= 1Y= G= 24.0 G= 42.0 G= 1 IY= G= 26.0 G= G= I G= I 6 0 Y= 7 Y= 7 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 C cle Len th C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 183 317 0 5 909 48 31 44 440 Lane Group Capacity 662 1951 871 483 1241 554 325 319 937 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.73 0.09 0.10 0.14 0.47 Green Ratio 0.73 0.55 0.55 0.42 0.35 0.35 0.22 0.22 0.59 Uniform Delay d1 9.9 13.3 12.1 20.5 34.1 26.1 37.6 38.0 13.9 Delay Factor k 0.11 11.000 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.29 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 10.1 13.4 12.1 20.5 36.4 26.2 37.7 38.1 14.2 Lane Group LOS B B B C D C D D B Approach Delay 12.2 35.8 37.7 16.4 Approach LOS B D D B Intersection Delay 25.1 Intersection LOS C Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +Tr" Version 5.21 Generated: 4/24/2008 9:04 AM file:HC:\Documents and Settings\rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k27A.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 84 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c Short Report Page 1 of 1 Volume and imin In ut and LOS Determination WB EB TH 2 SHORT REPORT LT 1 WB TH 2 General Information LT 0 Site Information RT LT 0 0 SB TH 1 RT 1 56 554 LT Golden Gate Blvd @ Wilson 1 Analyst RLP Intersection Blvd T Agency or Co. T R Transportation Consultants Co ns nsulta t Area Type All other areas LT Date Performed 412312008 Jurisdiction Analysis Year Collier County 2014 Buildouf 10 Time Period AM Peak Hour 1 32 Volume and imin In ut and LOS Determination WB EB TH 2 RT 1 LT 1 WB TH 2 RT 1 LT 0 NB TH 1 RT LT 0 0 SB TH 1 RT 1 56 554 LT Number of Lanes 1 L T R L T R LTR 0.17 LT R Lane Group 0.10 321 10 5 904 58 32 9 5 41 15 513 Volume (vph) 179 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 % Heavy Vehicles 2 34.7 0.32 3.0 1.000 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF 0.95 A 2.0 A 2.0 A 2.0 A 2.0 A 2.0 A 2.0 A A 2.0 A A A 2.0 A 2.0 Pretimed /Actuated (PIA) Startup Lost Time 2.0 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 B 2.0 3 2.0 3 Extension of Effective Green Arrival Type 3.0 0 12.0 3.0 0 12.0 3.0 5 12.0 3.0 0 12.0 3.0 0 12.0 3.0 5 12.0 0 3.0 0 12.0 0 0 3.0 0 12.0 3.0 75 12.0 Unit Extension Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume Lane Width N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Grade /Parking Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only EW Perm 04 NS Perm 06 07 G _ 08 G= 8.0 G= 24.0 G= 42.0 G= 26.0 G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 7 Y= =7= Y = Y= Y= C cle Len th C = 120.0 Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Lane Group Capacit , Control Delay, EB and LOS Determination WB NB SB 188 649 338 1951 5 871 5 476 952 1241 56 554 48 310 59 311 461 937 Adjusted Flow Rate Lane Group Capacity v/c Ratio 0.29 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.77 0.10 0.15 0.19 0.49 0.73 0.55 0.55 0.42 0.35 0.35 0.22 0.22 0.59 Green Ratio Uniform Delay di 10.7 0.11 0.2 1.000 13.4 0.11 0.0 1.000 12.2 0.11 0.0 1.000 20.5 0.11 0.0 1.000 34.7 0.32 3.0 1.000 26.3 0.11 0.1 1.000 38.1 0.11 0.2 11.000 38.4 0.. 0.3 1.000 14.1 0.11 0.4 1.000 Delay Factor k Incremental Delay d2 PF Factor Control Delay 11.0 113.5 1 12.2 20.5 37.6 26.4 38.3 38.7 14.5 B B B C D C D D B La ne Group LOS 12.6 B 36.9 D 38.3 D 17.3 B Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Delay 26.0 Intersection LOS copyright ®2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k28B.tmp C Generated: 4124/2008 9:04 AM 4/24/2008 Page 85 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c /0-11 Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP Agency or Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Golden Gate Blvd @ Wilson Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Background Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lane Group L T R L T R LTR LT R Volume (vph) 197 1038 21 10 781 56 10 5 5 54 10 321 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 70 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasinq Excl. Left I EB OnIv I EW Perm 1 04 NS Perm 06 07 1 08 Timing G= 5.0 IY= G= 25.0 G= 45.0 G= G= 25.0 G= G= 1Y= G= 1Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= 7 1Y= JY= 7 Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 207 1093 17 11 822 54 21 68 264 Lane Group Capacity 682 2069 923 257 1330 594 328 289 897 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.53 0.02 10.04 0.62 0.09 0.06 0.24 0.29 Green Ratio 0.73 0.58 0.58 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.21 0.21 10.57 Uniform Delay d1 8.3 15.1 10.5 20.5 30.5 124.3 138.1 39.5 13.5 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.20 10.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 8.5 15.3 10.5 20.6 31.4 24.3 38.2 40.0 113.7 Lane Group LOS A B B C C C D D B Approach Delay 14.2 30.8 38.2 19.1 Approach LOS B C D B Intersection Delay 20.8 Intersection LOS C Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 4/24/2008 9:04 AM 11� file:/ /CADocuments and Settings \rlp\Local Settings \Temp \s2k29C.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 86 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc Short Report SHORT REPORT General Information Analyst RLP Agency TR Transportation or Co. g Consultants Date Performed 4/23/2008 Time Period PM Peak Hour " "` .......... Intersection Golden Gate lvd @ Wilson Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Buildout Volume and Timing Input EB LT TH RT 1 2 1 1 N- G= 25.0 Y= 7 WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 07 G= Y= r = 19n n Number of Lanes L T R L T R LTR LT R Lane Group 237 1160 62 10 901 90 49 17 5 99 25 381 Volume (vph) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 % Heavy Vehicles 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF A A A A A A A A A A A A Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Startup Lost Time 2.0 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 Extension of Effective Green Arrival Type 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 -Unit Extension 0 12.0 0 12.0 5 12.0 0 12.0 0 12.0 5 0 12.0 0 0 D 12.0 0 12.0 70 12.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume Width Lane N 0 0 0 3 2 N 0 N 0 0 0 3.2 N N 0 0 N N 0 3.2 0 0 3.2 N 0 Parking /Grade /Parking Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour Minimum Pedestrian Time Timing Excl. Left EB Onl G= 25.0 Y= 0 EW Perm G= 45.0 Y= 7 04 G= Y= 1 N- G= 25.0 Y= 7 06 G= Y= 1 e-fK 07 G= Y= r = 19n n 08 G= Y= G= 5.0 Y= 6 Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 - - - -- Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB Adjusted Flow Rate 249 1221 60 11 948 89 75 2069 923 235 1330 594 222 Lane Group Capacity. 641 327 282 897 0.46 0.36 0.21 0.57 0.39 0.59 0.07 0.05 0.71 0.15 1.000 v/c Ratio Green Ratio 0.73 0.58 0.58 0.42 0.38 0.38 Uniform Delay d1 11.1 15.9 10.8 20.5 32.0 24.8 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.1 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 11.5 16.3 10.9 20.6 33.8 25.0 Lane Group LOS B B B C C C Approach Delay 15.3 32.9 Approach LOS B C Intersection Delay 22.9 Intersection LOS Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 fileWCADocuments and Settings\rlp\Local Settings \Temp \s2k2AD.tmp 0.21 40.5 0.11 0.9 1.000 41.4 D 41.4 D SB 130 327 282 897 0.46 0.36 0.21 0.57 41.6 14.2 0.11 0.11 1.2 0.3 1.000 1.000 42.8 14.5 D B 22.5 C C Generated: 4/24/2008 9:04 AM 4/24/2008 Page 87 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c n WILSON BOULEVARD @ SITE ACCESS Page 88 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c 1'wo -Way Stop Control TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst RLP Agency/Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 ,Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Wilson Blvd Site Access Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Buildout 3ro'ect Description F0801.31 -10 - Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict East/West Street: Site Access North /South Street: Wilson Boulevard ntersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 lehicle Volumes and Adjustments Vla'or Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Jolume veh/h) 11 235 554 11 ?eak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 247 0 0 583 11 ;veh /h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- _ 0 _ Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L T T R U pstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 1 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h) 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 0 15 0 0 0 veh /h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L I R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (veh /h) 11 15 15 C (m) (vehlh) 992 329 516 v/c 0.01 0.05 0.03 95% queue length 0.03 0.14 0.09 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.7 16'5 12.2 LOS A C 8 14.3 pproach Delay (s /veh) -- -- B pproach LOS — -- Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +rM Version 5.21 Generated: 4124/2D08 9:05 AM file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rlp\Local Settings \Temp \u2k2F5.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 89 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc Two -Way Stop Control TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information rage i of 1 Analyst IRLP Intersection Wilson Blvd@ Site Access Agency/Co. ITR Transportation Consultants Jurisdiction Collier Count Date Performed 1412312008 Analysis Year 2014 Buildout Analysis Time Period JPM Peak Hour 0.25 Project Description F0801.31 -10.- Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict East/West Street: Site Access North /South Street: Wilson Boulevard Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h ) 46 298 445 43 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 48 313 0 0 468 45 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 Configuration L T T R Ll stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 71 60 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 74 0 63 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R (veh /h) 48 74 63 C (m) (veh /h) 1063 307 599 V/c 0.05 0.24 0.11 95% queue length 0.14 0.92 0.35 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.5 20.4 11.7 LOS A C B Approach Delay (s /veh) -- — 16.4 Approach LOS -- -- C Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 file://C:\Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \u2k2F8.tmp Generated: 4124/2008 9:05 AM 4/24/2008 Page 90 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c WILSON BOULEVARD @ IMMOKALEE ROAD Page 91 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP TR Transportation Agency or Co. Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Time Period AM Peak Hour Immokalee Rd @ Wilson Intersection Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Background Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 3 1 2 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane Group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume (vph) 10 302 18 245 1456 17 47 5 193 39 11 75 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 35 0 0 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade %Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left WB Onl Thru & RT 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 7.0 IY= G= 37.0 G= 38.0 G= G= 18.0 G= G= G= 6 Y= 0 Y= 7 Y= Y= 7 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 11 316 14 258 1533 13 54 166 41 86 Lane Group Capacity 103 1607 501 1432 3171 989 191 989 202 243 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.20 0.03 0.18 0.48 0.01 0.28 0.17 10.20 0.35 Green Ratio 0.06 0.32 0.32 0.42 0.63 10.63 10.15 0.63 0.15 0.15 Uniform Delay d1 53.5 29.9 28.3 22.1 12.1 8.5 45.3 9.4 44.7 45.8 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1. 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.9 PF Factor 1.000 1.1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 54.0 30.0 28.3 22.1 12.2 8.5 46.1 9.5 45.2 46.7 Lane Group LOS D C C C B A D A D D Approach Delay 30.7 13.6 18.5 46.2 Approach LOS C B B D Intersection Delay 18.0 Intersection LOS B Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +rM Version 5.21 Generated: 4/24/2008 9:04 AM /0-\ fileWCADocuments and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k2BE.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 92 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.lc Short Report rage ioi> SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP Agency or Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Time Period AM Peak Hour I Intersection Immokalee Rd @ Wilson Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Buildout Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 3 1 2 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane Group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume (vph) 10 302 24 251 1456 17 50 5 196 39 11 75 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 35 0 0 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 1 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 3.2 Phasinq Excl. Left WB Onl Thru & RT 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 7.0 1 IY= G= 37.0 G= 38.0 G= G= 18.0 1Y= G= G= G= 6 IY= 0 Y= 7 IY= 7 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 11 318 20 264 1533 13 58 169 41 86 Lane Group Capacity 103 1607 501 1432 3171 989 191 989 201 243 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.20 0.04 0.18 0.48 0.01 0.30 0.17 0.20 0.35 Green Ratio 0.06 0.32 0.32 0.42 0.63 0.63 0.15 0.63 0.15 0.15 Uniform Delay d1 53.5 29.9 28.4 22.1 12.1 8.5 45.4 9.4 44.7 145.8 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 10.. 1 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.5 0.9 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000-11.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 54.0 30.0 28.4 22.HB 2.2 8.5 46.3 9.5 45.2 46.7 Lane Group LOS D C C C A D A D D Approach Delay 30.6 13.6 18.9 46.2 Approach LOS C B B D Intersection Delay 18.1 Intersection LOS B Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +' M Version 5.21 ueneratea: uz4izvuo v.uo nrvi file: //C: \Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k2CF.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 93 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1 c Short Report rage t ui 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP TR Transportation Agency or Co. Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection lmmokalee Rd @ Wilson Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Background Volume and Timing Input Eg WB NB SS LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 3 1 2 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane Group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume (vph) 59 1033 78 287 710 29 40 18 369 23 15 23 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 10 0 0 5 0 0 50 0 0 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3. 1 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left WB Only Thru & RT 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 9.0 G= 24.0 G= 48.0 G= IY= G= 19.0 G= G= 1Y= G= 1Y= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= 7 1Y= 7 Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 62 1087 72 302 747 25 61 336 24 35 Lane Group Capacity 133 2030 633 1117 3044 950 228 857 212 271 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.54 0.11 10.27 0.25 10.03 0.27 0.39 0.11 0.13 Green Ratio 0.08 10.40 0.40 10.32 0.60 10.60 0.16 0.54 0.16 0.16 Uniform Delay d1 53.2 27.5 22.6 30.0 11.3 9.8 144.4 16.0 43.3 43.4 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 10.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 2.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 55.8 127.8 22.7 30.1 111.3 19.8 45.0 16.3 43.5 43.6 Lane Group LOS E C C C B A D B D D Approach Delay 28.9 16.6 20.7 43.6 Approach LOS C 8 C D Intersection Delay 23.2 Intersection LOS C Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 4/24/2008 9:05 AM /1-N file:HC:\Documents and Settings \rlp \Local Settings \Temp \s2k2E0.tmp 4/24/2008 Page 94 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c Short Report vage 1 01 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLP Agency or Co. TR Transportation Consultants Date Performed 412312008 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection lmmokalee Rd @ Wilson Blvd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Year 2014 Buildout Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 3 1 2 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane Group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume (vph) 59 1033 94 303 710 29 59 18 388 23 15 23 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 10 0 0 5 0 0 50 0 0 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 1 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left WB Only Thru & RT 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing IY= G= 9.0 1Y= G= 24.0 G= 48.0 G= G= 19.0 G= G= 1Y= G= iy= 6 0 Y= 7 Y= JY= 7 Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 C cle Len th C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 82 1087 88 319 747 25 81 356 24 1 35 Lane Group Capacity 133 2030 633 1117 3044 950 222 857 208 271 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.54 0.14 0.29 0.25 0.03 0.36 0.42 0.12 0.13 Green Ratio 0.08 0.40 0.40 0.32 10.60 0.60 0.16 0.54 0.16 0.16 Uniform Delay d1 53.2 27.5 22.9 30.1 11.3 9.8 45.1 116.3 43.3 43.4 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 10.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 2.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 55.8 27.8 23.0 30.3 11.3 9.8 46.1 16.6 43.5 43.6 Lane Group LOS E C C C B A D B D D Approach Delay 28.8 16.8 22.1 43.6 Approach LOS C B C D Intersection Delay 23.4 Intersection LOS C Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +' M Version 5.21 Genereieu. vicV cwa a.V M iilel /CADocuments and Settings\rlp \Local Settings\Temp\s2k2F I Amp 4/24/2008 Page 95 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c COLLIER COUNTY 2030 FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Page 96 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1 c 2030 Long Range Transpc tation Plan pO ror< Figure 12 -5 2030 Constrained Financially Feasible Plan Volume -to- Capacity Ratio 2030 LRTP Minor Update 12-14 Adopted June 8, 2007 Page 97 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1 c TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS Page 98 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 7" EDITION Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Shopping Center Ln (T) = 0.60 Ln (X) + 2.29 Ln (T) = 0.66 Ln (X) + 3.40 -, Ttal (LUC 820) (61 % In/39% Out ) 48% In /52% Out Ln (T) = 0.65 Ln (X) + 5.83 T = Trim. X = i .nnmZ of Q,,,,a, -A f o* .,F t-T 11,504 (225,000 s . ft.) TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 8th EDITION Land Use Weekda AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Shopping Center Ln (T) = 0.59 Ln (X) + 2.32 Ln (T) = 0.67 Ln (X) + 3.37 -, Ttal (LUC 820) (61 % In/39 %Out (49% In/51 % Out ) Ln (T) = 0.65 Ln (X) + 5.83 537 1,095 11,504 (225,000 s . ft.) Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Trin f_'nnn.•o�:�.,, u..�,.a .._ nth r,,�.�.___ Land TJse A•M Peak;Hour; . M Peak Hour Daily 12 In. Out; -, Ttal 11-11 Qut Total Shopping Center 152 97 249 537 1,095 11,504 (225,000 s . ft.) 155 100 255 513 1,070 11,504 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Trin R., A oth Tom. Land User A.M Peak Hour .; P M �'.eak Hour Daily ., {2 way) In „ ,: , Out`. Total , „ ,In „ ,Out. Total , Shopping Center (225,000 s . ft.) 152 97 249 537 1,095 11,504 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Chan a in Tri Generation from 7t" Edition to 8th Edition of ITE Lurid U; f Peak Hour P.M Peuk Hour Daily In, Out '_ Total )n; Out Total ;f2 waY)' Shopping Center -3 _3 -6 +24 +25 0 (225,000 sa. ft.) Shaded Box indicates peak direction utilized for LOS calculations Page 99 of 99 EXHIBIT V.E.1c ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT V.E.2 PUBLIC FACILITIES MAP GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.E.2 PUBLIC FACILITIES LOCATION MAP ■ smmS "t PAMM F FIRE STATM NS E EERODCY MEWAL STATZINS • SFERFPS STAT1343 AND SI■STATMOMS o LINtAIMS A EKISTLr Q NMWM WATER RETENTM SIRMIAMS t WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS o WATER TREATMENT PLANTS SMJRM 2MG A= LEE CO. COLLIER CO. BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND VOLUNTEER FIRE OEPARTNEM F -- NAPLES - IMMOKALEE RD. (C.R.846) z D m m O m m v EEMS NEgC 10 BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND REGIONAL rP.A�RwK CORKSCREW T GG EETATES ELEMENTARY TEMP AND NIDDLE SUBSI ITKMi E ■ PALMETTO RmGE l +t HIGH SCHOOL ORANGE TREE_ OIL WELL ROAD (C.R. 858) NAPLES IMMOKALEE RD C.R. 846 RANDALL BOULEVARD ■ . F FRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DMTRICT LMNtEL ctlFcom OAK EEL XW SCHIM oAxrjxg kamu cm d ci 0 z to O NCRW c: Q m Q /ANDERBILT BEAC v GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD MAX CYPRESS NASSE ELEM. F °ASE EMS LID0.0ItY NE= T1 PINE RIDGE RD SUBJECT PROPERTY m 40.6± ACRES NDK* O o J 0� a " SCALE m 0 iMII 2MII a m G m 0 m TA O C m m D 0 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT V.E.3 PUBLIC FACILITY PROVIDERS GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.E.3 PUBLIC FACILITIES Service Providers SERVICE PROVIDER Schools The District School Board of Collier County Fire Protection Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District Police Protection Collier County Sheriff Emergency Medical Services Collier County Emergency Medical Services The proposed amendment is not expected to have a significant impact to the above service providers. Impacts are mitigated for schools, fire and emergency medical services through the payment of impact fees at the time of development. Public Schools: As currently designated on the Future Land Use Map, the subject property would allow 17 single- family dwelling units. Using the Collier County Public School Facilities Element Data and Analysis Report, the following number of students could be expected if the site remains as single - family residential development: Elementary School: 0.16 students /unit x 17 units = 2.72 students Middle School: 0.10 students /unit x 17 units = 1.70 students High School: 0.12 students /unit x 17 units = 2.04 students Total: 0.38 students /unit x 17 units = 6.46 students If the subdistrict is approved the number of students in the School District coming from this site will decrease. No students are generated by commercial development. Fire Service: The subject property is located within the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District, which is an independent district. The County does not include a Level of Service n Standard for this district in the AUIR. May 2009 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBITS V.F.1 V.F.2 ZONING AND WELLFIELD MAPS GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 -w .1. c� 1: ~ .y.0 eZ ;` 1t e? at San -r a. •Y 3 w N ^� a I I I I i W I I I I 1, 17D M1J V'r yT W u: F- U1 J IJ I l I i $ MO %, G{[OH - ,•«..-- •+,.-- r. - ---- NDICATES SPE_IAL TEJEAT?AEI%t OVERLAY �M I1111HD 1 AtlF91/ NDICA.TES 0,10 ZCfF BOUICARY LINE M Ir.Yt � Ptl. //. �Ib tiM Pl. PL z =11 an i11i31 wi ii r °il01 I} an m CIPMIY MJI 1Psm 4 PW 6 w 010. 1.". .• l ._,. KRW D M MD —q II Kftl.. Yv CIW,.4 Y Oa -1• Cl MT CIX.Ir b' MC-, rOCPiC JI.r V 7COA F CI,� Ar c +n /xJl d Jrm ate. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT ® SUBJECT SITE EXHIBIT V.F.1 FLOOD ZONE NORTH i I IJ191 T5 11 J 14 JLOOO ",WE RATE YAP WORN4101t FLOOD TONE. AU—L-M AS 20MJ ON NAP, CO -LIER COJIJIY. FLORIDA C(WUU41TY 7E \TLCPMEHT CIYISICN TY$ 4O5 R/IC ^_7: SIM' J & 4 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.F.2 WELLFIELD LOCATION MAP COLLIER COUNTY WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS, PROPOSED WELLFIELDS AND ASRs PROPOSED NORTHEAST REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT PHASE to WELLFIELD AREA CARICA ROAD AREAS OF INTEREST ASR CR 846 �r N Of G. BLVD U PINF COLLIER CITY OF NAPLES COASTAL RIDGE WELLFIELD O L m D! SCALE 0 5MI. AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 Ord. No. 2003 -44 AMENDED - JANUARY 25, 2007 Ord. No. 2007 -18 AMENDED - DECEMBER 4, 2007 Ord No. 2007 -82 IN OPERATION FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY GOLDEN ` GATE WATER TREATMENT \ PLANT WELLFlELD rn U SOUTH HAWTHORN WELLFIELD EXTENSION (UNDER CONSTRUCTION, FALL 08 COMPLETION) * GS MANATEE R� ROAD ASR CR 846 ORANGETREE WELLFIELD CR 858 EI J m N w O Q C9 D! w N AVE MARIA WELLFIELD CITY OF NAPLES EAST GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD 1 75 PREPARED BY. GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION SOURCE: COWER COUNTY POLLUTION CONTROL AND PREVENTION DEPT. DATE 12/2007 FILE WFPZRI2- 2007 -I.DWG IMMOKALEE WELLFIELD m N EVERGLADES CITY WELLFIELD rn U SUBJECT PROPERTY ®RELIABILITY WELLS US 4J (BRACKISH OR FRESH WATER) WELLFIELD AREA �C ASR = AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY PREPARED BY. GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION SOURCE: COWER COUNTY POLLUTION CONTROL AND PREVENTION DEPT. DATE 12/2007 FILE WFPZRI2- 2007 -I.DWG IMMOKALEE WELLFIELD m N ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT GA PROOF OF OWNERSHIP GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 This Instrument Prepared By: WILLIAM SCHWEIKHARDT Attorney at Law The Schweikhardt Law Firm, P.A. 900 Sixth Avenue South, Suite 203 Naples, FL 34102 Parcel Identifintion Number. 31119840001 and 3 7 1 1 99 80003 Grantees Tax Identification Number. 3717806 0R: 3912 PG: 2758 HCORDED in 01iICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER CONIT, FL 10/17/2005 at 08 :0M DWIGHT E. BROCK, CHR1 COKS 2500000,00 RIC Us 18.50 DOC-.70 17500,00 Retn: 000DLETTE COLIII1lR ET AL 4001 TAHAKI TR K 1300 RMLES IL 34103 "C'M SPACE RESERVED FOR RECORDERS USE SPECIAL WARRANTY REED THIS SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED made the /Q day of October, A.D., 2005, by WILLIAM SCH WEIKHARDT, Individually and as Trustee, whose post office address is: 900 Sixth Avenue South, Suite 203, Naples, FL 34 102, hereinafter called the "Grantor", to KENNETH R. JOHNSON, as Trustee of the 850.018 Land Trust dated October 4, 2005, with full power and authority to protect, conserve, sell, lease, encumber, or otherwise manage and dispose of the real estate describ d of it, whose post office address is: Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., 4001 Tamiam�l�I tb� 1h3 _q3, hereinafter called the "Grantee ": (Wheteyer, uud intro a+e to Ir, aeta' ar d' c lnj Q. dt the Pud" to thh wlet.,, V and Kitt; (ejt[ nptezwulw ■nd attla,u ar{td(uiiwl{ e+d the, O+ccccar�ad •sbgnt ormwrwo u.t WITNESSETH: That t e Gant nd ' eons id ation o the um of 510.00, and other valuable considerations, receipt whereof i he ge a rga s, sells, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the G nt , a ift c a I u 0, It r C unry, Florida, viz All of Tracts 14 a O G STNo. 11, according to the plat there orded to Plat Book 4, ges 03 04, of the Public Records of Colli ry, Florida. ^Q SUBJECT TO restrt d casements com r{� a subdivision, and ad valorem taxes for the y fi C�� Grantor warrants that the subject is not his homestead, nor adjacent thereto, and that he resides at 468 Devils Lane, Naples, Florida. TOGETHER, with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. AND the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the Grantor has good tight and lawful authority to sell and convey said land, and hereby warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims ofaii persons claiming by, through or under tht. said Grantor. C3oodlette, Coleman & Johttaon, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail, N. Suite 300 Naples, PL 24103 t�R �j�r tit Y Special Warranty Deed Page 1 of 2 Schweikhardt, Trustee to Johnson, Trustee Tracts 143 and 144, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. I I Lot iD — A and B CP- 2008 -1 Page 1 of 29 EXHIBIT GA * ** OR: 3912 PG: 2759 *t* written. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: 7 t 4TN 1 �(- a60A bi &3; LLIAM SCHW£IKHA T, ndividu y and as Trustee 2 V 11 ct rdt STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT J by WILLIAM SCHWEIKHARDT, individeil�4fore me this �J day of October, 2005, r� rus fpersonaily known tame, and did not take an oath. N\ 0 o u : (seal) iss on xpires: H ti �c�� 'skr„ noonrsa� a R metros f ioti,ember i 1, 2005 Special Warranty Deed Page 2 of 2 Schweikhardt, Trustee to Johnson, Trustee Tracts 143 and 144, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. I I CP- 2008 -1 Page 2 of 29 EXHIBIT GA 3810306 OR; 4007 PG: 1531 RBCORDID In 011ICIAL RECORDS of COLLIgR COOAiI, 11, 031t9f2006 at 03:29PK OUGHT d. BROC1, Cull COBS 1064000,00 He 181 18,50 Prepared by and return t4: DOC -,10 1120.00 Ran: GOODLITTd COMM IT AL David E. Leigh, P.A. 4001 litKIl�KI TR 9 6300 5150 Tatniami Trail Nortb Suite 50I KI;PLBS FL 34103 Naples, FL 34103 239- 435 -9303 File Number: 06-008 Parcel Identification No. 37119800009 } [Space Above This Line For Recording D;ml Warranty Deed (STATMOtt 8 89.42, F.S.) This Indenture made this 29th day of ae 006 between C. Gregory Rubin and Shari Ragan �tu�j a, irteEly knoven had R3 an, husband and wife, whose post office address is i T D - 1st Street NW, Nap1eyFm634 10 to � 0 Kenneth R. Johnson, as Trustee of ai`Trust 850.033 under ust A ree t dated December 1, 2005, whose post office address is 4001 Tamiamf Trail d1h, Suite 300, Naples, RI, .103 Fl grantee', who shall have the power and authority, to protect, conserve. convey, se encumber, and other se t e and dispose of the real property described herein. Witnesseth that said grantor, for and in onside do Pth Tom{ } N01100 DOLLARS (SI0.00) and other good and valuable considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, and sold to the said grantee, and grantee's heirs and assigns forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Collier County, Florida, to -wit: The South 180 feet of Tract No. I42, Golden Gate Estates Unit No. II, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 103 -104 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. and said grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and Aill defend the same against lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. 1 ' "Grantor" and "Grantee" arc used ror singular at plural, as context requires. i% Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tasniami. Trail, N. Stole 300 �. Naples, FL 34103 8s its Lot ID — C Doublenmee CP- 2008 -1 Page 3 of 29 EXHIBIT GA **1 OR: 4007 PG: 1532 *9t In Witness Whereof, grantor has hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, se ed and delivered in our presence: THLEEN R SING C. Gregory Rub' NN MARIE $ Ragan Rubin, formerly known as Shari Ragan J �E, �Q� State of Florida County of Collier ` The foregoing ins=ncnt was acknowledged be o of March, 2006 by C. Gregory Rubin and Shari Ragan Rubin, fomerly known as Shari Ragan, who have produce 1f'arran0l Deed (Ratutory Form) • Page 2 THLEEN R SINGER DoubleTtmcm CP- 2008 -1 Page 4 of 29 EXHIBIT GA 3748701 OR: 3946 PG 0201 . RICORDID in OFFICIAL RICOIDS Of COLLIER COUTT, FL 12112(2005 it 02:02Fii.DYIGHT 1, BROCT, CLIR1 Cogs 460000.00 RH FBI 18.50 DOC -.70 3210.00 Reta: GOODLM COLIM9 It AL 4001 lAXIAII tR R 1300 RIMS FL 34103 WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, is made on this 11! day ofDecember, 2005 between gSVALDO RIVERO and EDY P. MONTERO, husband and wife (the "Grantors "), and KENNETH R JOHNSON, as Trustee of Land Trust 850.024 under trust a n1e datedDeoember 1, 2005, with full power and authority either to protect, conserve t orts , �r to encumber, or otherwise to manage and dispose of the real properly des � ere�lt' in (t e ' " , whose post office address is 400.1 Ee Tamiami Trail North, Suite 30,Q, . es, FL 34103. Grantors, in col good and valuable co sufficiency of which is and Grantee's heirs, suc and being in Collier Cc The West 150 fed according to the p 104, ofthe'Public )OLLARS (S 10.00) and other by Grantee, the receipt and I and sold to the said Grantee ;ribedproperty, situated, lying to wit: 110, 'e otes Unit No. 11 , -as-t Book 4, Pages 103 - Florida. Collier County Tax Folio Number. 37117160000 SUBJECT TO: real estate taxes for the year 2005 and subsequent years; zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; restrictions, reservations and easements of record common to the subdivision;, provided,. however, that no one of them shall prevent use of the property for residential purposes. And said Grantors do hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. S:%Brandy Closings Rivero st KRl Trustee Warranty Deed B5o•o2M (Page 1 0(2) Lot ID — E This Instsvrnent Prepared By Linda C. Brinkman, Esq. Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, PA.. 4001 Tarniami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Fl. 34103 CP- 2008 -1 Page 5 of 29 EXHIBIT GA FA—M-116 OR; 3946 PG; 0202 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Grantors have duly executed and delivered this instrument on the day and year first above written. Signed, Sealed and delivered in the Presence of. (as to both) MY-W-_M Print C' STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COI,LTEj THE FOREGO December, 2005, by O known to me or who SAB -ndy Closings Rivero st KRI Trustee Warranty Deed awl. `,,sue LONWT R CMY. P � 11� ENT was ac . wIL ~ efore me on this day of ,RO and ED P. RO, who �_} are personally their drive '.ste e as identification. 71 .i Notary biic Print Name. State of Florida at Large My Commission Expires: (Page 2 of 2) (Notary Seal) Ewnyx us CWE Rr r AIY COItMISStDN t OD tS8416 s, EMSES: Februq 15,2CO? morn BMW thm flucivt KM q T Ma6 CP- 2008 -1 Page 6 of 29 EXHIBIT GA i Return to: This Instrument Prepared by Susan D. Evans, Esq 1404 Goodicite Road North Naples, FL 34102 Property Appraisers Parcel Identification (Folio) Numixr(s): 37117040007 Grantees) s.S ti(s): 3793126 0R: 3990 PG: 0289 "CORDID in OFFICIAL RICORDS of COLLIER CODK'fI, FL 03/01/2006 at 08:40AM UIGR'f E. 82OCI, CLERK COAS 750000.80 RIC III 18.5D IKDILDG 1.00 Rata: OOC -.70 5250100 GOODLI"I COLIM If Al 4001 fAKIMI fR A 1300 RMIS FL 34103 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR PROCESSING DATA (K _ SPACE ABOVE THIS L1NE FOR RECORDING DATA Rtercva used herein the terms `Grantor" and "Grantee shall include singular and plural, heirs, legal rcpr=ntatives, and azsigns of individuals, and the cuccessom and assigns of corporations, wherever the context so admits or requires. WARRANTY DEED THIS INDENTURE, made this � i. �'� 6 1~eb�uarg0 between MIGUEL HERNANDEZ and AMELIA HERNANDEZ alkif LIA BARBERI . B ILIA BARBERIS, GRANTOR, and NTH R. JOHNS , rTISt of land trust 0.01 under trust agreement dated December 1, 2005, with full ow r aifd a a ' eit a to prof st, onserve and to sell or to lease, or to encumber, or otherwise o d, k e 1 herein described as provided in Florida Statute 689.071, ho St d I. en - ate Blvd., Naples; FL 34120, GRANTEE. . WITNESSETH, that the said TOR, for and in I fthe sum of --- TfiN - -- Dollars and other good and valuable co` tion to them in han the said GRANTEE, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledge , ted, bar a' l� sold to the said GRANTEE, and GRANTEE'S heirs and assigns fore r,�t o embed land situate, and being in the County of Collier, State of Florida, to wit; ' The East 150 feet of Tract 109, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT NO. 11, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4, Pages 103 and 104, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Subject to: restrictions, easements common to the subdivision; taxes for the current year and subsequent years; applicable zoning laws, building codes and other use restrictions imposed by govemmental authorities; and outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record. And the said GRANTOR does hereby fully warrant the. title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said GRANTOR has hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami T, mj, N. Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Lot ID — F VARMo -03 CP- 2008 -1 Page 7 of 29 EXHIBIT GA **9 OR: 3990 FG; 0290 * ** Signed sled and delivered in the presence of fitness Signature Miguel Hernandez Printed Name Witness Si tore _kf.y 66 Printed Name ' - fitness Signature Panted Name s Witness 'gna e PdrW Nam STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER Em a/k/a Amelia Barberis The foregoing instr=ent was acknowledged before me thisc9 MIGUEL HERNANDEZ and AMELIA HERNANDEZ who ar a ay 1 f Fe vin o' 00 , h have produced as identification. CP- 2008 -1 Page 8 of 29 EXHIBIT GA . Si$Q D. Ea IdQ'— P sz`iIT1 . G=Mi1d0a 4 D .V�• -� -./ N o= EXP� aa. 23. 2= 0 tary Public -State of Flan a anoa«t nun "'••••,�„ Print Name: ulaadc ad4 E= s c MY commission expires: CP- 2008 -1 Page 8 of 29 EXHIBIT GA WARRANTY DEED THIS INDENTURE is made this 28 day of February, 2006, between Shame Robertson, alsc known as Shane G. Robertson and Shane Gene Robertson, and Robin Robertson, also known as Robin E. Robertson, Robin Edgar Robinson, and Robin L. Robertson, formerly known as Robin Edgar Husband and Wife, hereinafter called the Grantor, and Kenneth R. Johnson, as Trustee of Land Trust 850.027 under Trust Agreement dated December 1, 2005, with Trull power and authority to either to protect, conserve and to sell, or to lease, or to encumber, or otherwise to manags and dispose of the real property described herein or any part thereof, whose Post office address is Suite 300, 4001 Tamiami [Federal Identi- fication No, _"�'TI11U81`I j , hereinafter called the Grantee. 3793105 OR; 3950 PG; 0208 HCORDID in 0111CILL "CORDS of COLL111 CODiiII, IL 03(01(2006 at 08:14195 DUG" I. 6ROCI, CLI11 cats 600000,00 RIC III II.50 11MMIG 4.00 DOC -.10 4200.00 Ietn: CNDLiffl CaLI1Ltt IT 9 4001 fAl AXI iR 11300 WIIS IL 34103 RESERVED FOn USE SY CLERK Trail North, Naples, rL 34103 WITNESSETH: �ti�� Gu,J. , THE GRANTOR, for atn—eb atio the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valua.b e co i a ns pis to the Grantor by the Grantee, receipt of whit i e , des hereby sell and convey unto th i n e 9 y grant, bargain, situated in Collier Cou o 1 g described real estate, i t • The East 75 feet o r, a West 180 t act 109, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT NO. i1, rding to Pla er a recorded in Plat Book 4, Pages 103 and 104 0 �. Public Records DCM611i,er County, Florida. .The Property Appraiser's r� `y described real estate is 37 (cation Number for the above THE GRANTOR hereby covenants with the Grantee that said real estate is free of all encumbrances, that lawful seisin of and good right to convey said real estate are vested in the Grantor, and that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever, except with respect to (a) ad valorem and non ad valorem real property taxes for 2006 and subsequent years; (b) zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; (c) outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any; and (d) restrictions, reservations, and easements common to the subdivision, provided, however, that none of the foregoing shall prevent the use of the herein described real estate for residential purposes. AFTER RECORDING, PLEASE RETURN THIS INSTRUMENT TO: Kenneth Johns6n; Esq. Goodlette. C016rrtart & Johnson, PA Suite 300 4001 Tamlami Trail North Naples, FL 34103 5s,9. $5ca.1 "I PAGE I OF 2 PAGES Lot ID - G CP- 2.008 -1 Page 9 of 29 EXHIBIT GA IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has executed this instrument on this 28 day of Februa.rY, 2006. Signed, sealed and delivered in the Presence of: SIGN: �• -4 i PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE NAME OF FIRST WITNESS ABOVE SIGN: I STATE OF E'LOR1IaA ' n COUNTY OF COLLIER �rr1 * ** OR; 3990 PG; 0209 *" RESERVED FOR USE By CL"K Shane (SEAL) son 171 Golden Gate 8oulavard West NaPles, PL 34120 �bct,i �L Robin Robertson — (SEAL} �Goldsn Gate Boulevard West CAO A.V PL 34120 ` mil. THE FOREGOING INSTRUM �� - 1 ebruarY, 2006, by Shave Robertson an "xYedged before -me this 28 d being Personally known to me or tl3on Robin Robertson, Rusband Wife, of identification. having Produced a current driver's license, as .�`��,.,� BRNtDYA.RA5C1il� (NOTARY S IdYCOl9SS14Hi00158376 tMNM Fab q 16, 2007 '�o•nds s�xat�us�rxdrys.�v� My commission expires: SIGN: NOT PUBLIC PLE0.5E PAINT OR TYPE NAME OF NOTARY PUBLIC ABONE THIS INSTRUMENT WAS PREpARED BY: Richard M. Jones, Esq, Richard M. Jones, P.A. 163 Tenth Avenue South WITHOUT OPINION Naples, OF TITLfi '�fi6rctrtSTJhsniWO EXAMINATION PAGE 2 OF 2 PAGES CP- 2008 -1 Page 10 of 29 EXHIBIT GA 9 3817062 OR: 4014 PG: 2946 RICORDiD is 01FICIA1 RICORDS of COLLIER COOiiil, FL 0411012005 at 03 :22PK DVIGHI 8. 91OCI, CLiRr Cogs 580000,00 RIC Ftt 18,50 Rita: DOC -.le 4060.00 GOODLiTY1 COLiKH If AL 4001 TMIAKI 7R A 1300 RAPLIS IL 34103 WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, is made on this day of April, 2006 between AINSLEY B. CHRISTIE and ORDENE CHRISTIE, husband and wife (the "Grantors "), and KENNETH R JOHNSON, as Trustee of Land Trust 850.035 under trust agreement dated December 1, 2005, with full power and authori ty either to protect, conserve and to sell, or to lease, or to encumber, or otherwise to manage and dispose ofthe real property described herein (thattiZe,ase�ast office address is 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300. Nat)le,, FL 34103 , U Grantors, in considerate n o and valuable considerations t p sail which is hereby acknowledg , h s successors and assigns fore er, e County, Florida, to wit: r..,1 The West 10 (Tract 1.01, ( according tot thereof, as ri 103 -104, of the bpi, ecards of Collier County Tax Fo AND NO 00 TLLARS ($10.00) and othergood a d by ntir, the receipt and sufficiency of 44 ,c he id Grantee and Grantee's heirs, p , situ led, lying and being in Collier H oll�g.' G to es Unit No. 11, or ed -- - Book 4, at Pages ;oIlie ua .. Florida SUBJECT TO: real estate taxes for the year 2006 and subsequent years; zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by govemmental authority; restrictions, reservations and easements of record common to the subdivision; provided, however, that no one of them. shall prevent use of the property for residential purposes. And said Grantors do hereby ful lywarrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. Mrandy Closings. Christie st KRJ Trustee Warranty Deed $So•b3`5 (Page I of 2) Lot ID — H This Instrument Prepared By Linda C. Brinlanan, Fsq. Goodlctte, Coleman & Johnsen, P.A. 4()01 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 CP- 2008 -1 Page 11 of 29 EXHIBIT GA *t* OP; 4014 PG; 2947 * ** IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Grantors have duly executed and delivered this instrument on the day and year first above written. Signed, Sealed and delivered in the Presence of (as to both) Print Name: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER THE FOREGOING 2006, by AINSLEY B. GH personally known to me or i SASrandy Closings Christie s[ KR1 Trustee Warranty Deed 5 Ul me on this 14014 day ofApril, nd and wife,- i of , wbo 6z 3, are identification. Fr C' Notary Public Print Name; State of Florida at Large My Commission Expires: (Page 2 of 2) (Notary Seal) CDD341505 !A CP- 2008 -1 Page 12 of 29 EXHIBIT GA 3752019 OR; 3949 PG: 1405 RECORDED In OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUR7Y, PL I211612005 at 01:00 0VIGff E. BROCK, CLERK CONS 350600.00 RIC FEE 18,50 DOC -,TO 24170.00. Reta: GOULETTE COL1fM E7 ILL toot TkXI11lfI TR N 1300 NAPLES EL 34103 WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, is made on this 12thday of December, 2005 between MARIE ANNA FLICEK (the "Grantor "), and KENNETH R JOHNSON, as Trustee of Land. Trust 850.028 under trust agreement dated December 1, 2005, with full power and authority either to protect, conserve and to sell, or to lease, or to encumber, or ' e to manage and dispose of the real property described herein (the "Grantee "), whasc'"a��e'>dWre's 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103,, Grantor, in considera on of t N /10�OLLARS (S 10.00) and other 14 good and valuable considera)to o Sal d Gfan 'nhan ai D d b G tee, the receipt and sufficiency ofwhich is hereby acknowl dg '—; to a said Grantee and Grantee's heirs, successors and assign fo v r, 11 g pr pe . , situated, lying and being in Collier County, Florida, to t ttti'� The South 18b�'£ e of Tract 111, Gol td' ]�tites Unit No. 11, according to the lat reof, as recorded 1 ?Xiook 4, Pages 103- 104, of the Public -Colli t�`,ty lorida Ci. Collier County Tax Folio Num er: 7117280003 SUBJECT TO: real estate taxes for the year 2005 and subsequent years; zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; restrictions, reservations and easements of record common to the subdivision; provided, however, that no one of them shall prevent use of the property for residential purposes. Grantor warrants that the property described above is vacant land and not her homestead. Grantor's homestead address is: 312 Lincoln Avenue North, New Prague, MN 56071 -2153. And said Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. This Instrument Prepared By Lot 1D - I Linda C. Brinkman, Esq. SABrandy Closings Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson. P.A. Flia1 st KRI Trustee 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Warranty Deed Naples, FL 34103 lsc-- m (Page 1 0172) CP- 2008 -1 Page 13 of 29 EXHIBIT G.4 P * ** OR: 3949 FIG: 1406 M IN WITNESS WHEREOF,. the undersigned Grantor has duly executed and delivered this instrument on the day and year first above written. Signed, Sealed and delivered in the Presence of % nnr Name: Lisa Schneider MARIE ANNA FLICEK �i Print Name: nn' t� - chmi t STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF SCOTT THE FOREGOING December; 2005, by MART has produced her driver's Ii tcu1%=N i was a owl CA FLICEK, who } s u 'dentification. JIN mt, At-" �111I1� l ll rte'' Ii sASMndy Closings Flicck st KPJ Trustee Warranty Deed me on this L 2 th day of known to me or who Notary Public Print Name: Richard F. Wornson State ofI innesota at Large My Commission Expires: (Page 2 of 2) (Notary Seal) CP- 2008 -1 Page 14 of 29 EXHIBIT G.4 Thlt IJ(Kbtlinn Yrer=j lot alid QGVT ia: John Holloway, Esquire Garber, Hooley & Holloway, LLP 700 11th Street So., Suite 202 Naples, FL 34103 Pareel In Number. 37116720001 Warranty Deed * ** 3802478 OR; 3949 PG: 2240 UCVUh in OrtICIA1 RICOUS Of COLUTA COUAIT, IL 0311WOU at 01:21AK 0iI6KT I, 1R0Ct, CL1R1 CORs 110000.00 He fit 10.00 tetra: 0OC••10 3010,00 60000TII COLIKIU 11 Al (001 TUTAKI TR 1 1300 Ulm it 34113 This Indenture, Made this 15th day orMareh, 2006 A.o_ Between Michael J. Linssen, a single loan ttrthe ritailty oA Collier. State of Florida, grantor, and Kenneth R. Johnson, as Trustee of Land Trust 850.034 under Trust Agreement dated December 1, 2005, with full power and authority either to protect, conserve, and to sell or to tease or to encumber, or otherwise manage and dispose of the real property described herein. tvhtz a ttddrnss w 4001 Tarn iaini Tmi l North. Nap�l ,FIncid:t 3a 103 nl'thc Cmtnp• rat .State ntCtt1ttan. WitnMseth that the GRANTOR. (arand and other yc.bl anti valuable txwtidetatin tt gnontatt, harpincd :nod sold an the said G A situate. Ding uud heing In the Cuomty of 1 The South 180 feet £ according to the plat Public Records of Coll e This parcel is non- hoiaes and the grunur dies lien ty wily warrant the t1ij* to saiddA In Witness Whereof, the grantor has txrcuntn let his Signed, seated and delivered In our preseecr; K� urthecumof � �� $ i - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — DOLLAR.i, h aid by -PANT � tit Mcipl ufterctl is harchy adnawWpd, hu r`� t ecQss and �cctigns lintwer. the rnp0x9n9 de',Cdhed land. Priate 1(( %,(�!!3!�$ ,tsi$1►41(1�F�Z, Witness Pr tea 1�1 Witness 3110 P . Estates Unit No. 11, Book 4, page 103 -104, Q Ctxmc agalaat tawlid claims ar A pcmuns K•hnmsocircr, scat UK day and yxar (IM ahnvc wino. 6 (Stoo) Michael tT. Linssen PAI Athtrca* t[0 3rd St" Nath.tst. Napicc. FL 34110 STATE OF Florida COUNTY OF Collier rix trmputng ttuttvonetH xac acrnawlalged hektte nu oboe 15thdaynrNlarch, 2006 by Michael J. Linssen, a single man t/ tx is pcmmndlr tnto"n I(t me tit he has produced his Florida driver s s license as I&nti(anlon. JuttYttttBns Pr ed ` F,Fr�o�, aa'lSgtt /t16(9d�,p �i�i �:OFCOS,� N r3' -tic °� 6a96Mhy1tYStaolhreaiq Mycanin4oh)nExiitec: / ! r',00dtette, Colette, & JObmn, p d. 4001 Tamiami Trail, K. Suite 300 Neptes. VL 841x8 CP- 2008 -1 Page 15 of 29 Lot ID - J EXHIBIT GA fits 13, "e t v7-1ed 8y mtJ Rdur to: John Holloway, Esquire Garber, Hoolay & Holloway, LLp 700 11th Street So., suite 202 Naples, FL 34103 Parcel lr Numtur: 37116720001 Warranty Deed *tf 3802478 OR: 3999 PG; 2240 QCORDRO to OttICIAL "CORDS of COLLI %R COOOti, IL 07/16/1001 at Ol:I7Alf OYIGET 1, 'ROCK, CLIZI C015 4 0000.00 RIC tdi 10.00 rata: OOC-• t0 3080.00 COMM calillu 17 AL (441 TIVA" TR d I300 Mars IL 34103 This Indenture. blade this 15th day ofMarah, 2006 A.M. Between Michael J. Linssen, a single man nrthc Cnttnty nt Collier, State of Florida, grantor, and Kenneth R. Johnson, as Trustee of Land Trust 850.034 wader Trust Agreement dated December 1: 2005, with full power and authority either to protect, conserve, and to sell or to lease or to encumber, or otherwise manage and and of the real property described herein. whn.,e:hddm,w n: 4001 Tumiami Trail North, Napjo. pa/rry a 34103 nrtltc Cnunlynr .State npvffzSVA Witnesseth th;nthcORANTOR,formtt and other gotal and jatuabic utnsldcratlat -a cranial. turcttncd and snld to the said G .ilualc. lying mid hemg to the County of 1 The South 180 feet according to the plat Public Records of coil e This parcel is non -home Mid the gnunnr dna• Iicrubt. tidiy hvarmnt the title to antfl latt(1?ttld [n Witness MEMO, fire Otnntor has hercuntn set his'ha�nd. Mgned, sealed and delivered in our presence- Witness Pr ted' tt l tVi ness �L�{it4 • Lb At`S the sum eC .- C---------- - - - - -- DOUARS. th receipt trherenr is lleahy nticnnwledi;m. h:u and I g u foret-cr. the rantnting dacribctt Land. �, Estates Unit No. i;7Kt Hook 4, page 1.03 -104, ! tom "VaCrsame agunst Iawtitt Clalmi: nralf P,=ta V.humsoever. 1121 the dayand year nat uboyc 'n. f ia [scat) Michael S. Linssen P.tl. Addles: 110 3rd Stmet NfftliwrA. NOpics, t7 U11" STATE OF Florida MUNTY OP collier fir< riot fining mstrumcttt >4 acknowledged W(m me this 15thiq orMarch, 200 6 by zchael 7. Linssen, a Mingle man fir is per, onally ktN.u-t to nic ter he has ptcduced his Florida driver • g l iCe7lge ac id ntifcatibn. � .►111LYtLtotAS Pr tgd „� �a`oECttt2oo9 N rY P iic �Qt?}1tIStYtkharyYe AtyCtnrtmi>.sioal;sg'ue�. � / Caoodlette, Caleman & Johmm, p.A (001 Tamislt8 Treat, N. suite 30o Naples, FL 34103 CP- 2008 -1 Page 16 of 29 EXHIBIT GA 3764136 OR: 3962 pc; 2201 IICOIDID Its 011'ICIA1 HCORD9 of COLLIII COMM, 11 0110512006 at 62:30PK DUGHi 1. BIOCI, C1IIL COKE 415000.00 BIC 111 18.50 DOC -.10 3325.00 MO., GOODUM COLIM if A 4601 TMI>llti iI [ f300 1AILI5 1L 34103 WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, is made on this 9't' day of January, 2006 between SMUDER -FAUST REALTY, rNC., a Florida corporation (the "Grantor "), and KENNETH R. JOHNSON, as Trustee of Land Trust 850.026 under trust agreement dated December 1, 2005, with full power and authority either to protect, conserve and to sell, o.r to lease, or to encumber, or otherwise to manage and dispose of the real property described herein (the "Grantee "), whose of .e ira 400I Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103. .\ Grantor, in consideration a and valuable considerations to saicrG is hereby acknowledged, has ant, successors and assigns forever, he County, Florida, to wit: (. } The East 150 fee feet ofthe South 8 Estates Unit No. 'I. Book 4,. Pages I03 a Florida AND N0110b�)OU ARS (S10.00) and other good aid�yorpntee, t ere eipt and sufficiency of-which n �d tbq the sa'd rantee and Grantee's heirs, iiai��laE1�Yt;te lying and being in Dallier 1t38 e Ea 9AOfe f e West 180 ie North 207 fee _� B Golden Gate ing to the plat they tastlecorded in Plat 1, _ Publ' F c of Collier County Less and except the West 9.00 feet of the East 150 feet ofthe North 87 feet of the South 272 feet of Tract 108, Golden Gate Estates Unit No- t 1, according to the plat thereo& as recorded in Plat Book 4, Pages 103 and 104, of the Public Records of Collier County Florida Collier County Tax Folio Number 37116961006 SU$JECT TO: real estate taxes for the year 2006 and subsequent years; zoning, building code and other- use restrictions imposed by governmental authority-; restrictions, reservations and casements of record common to the subdivision; provided, however, that no one of them shall prevent use of the property for residential purposes. This instrument Prepared By Lot ID — K Lind: C. Brinkman, Esq. S_kBraridy Closings Goodleae. Coleman & lohraon. P.A. Smuder -Faust st KRI Trustee." ' 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Warranty Deed ; taplm FL 34103 (Page i o(Z) CP- 2008 -1 Page 17 of 29 EXHIBIT G.4 *"OR: 3962 PG: 2202 *** . And said Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Grantor has duly executed and delivered this instrument on the day and year first above written. Signed, Sealed and delivered in the Presence of: STATE OF FLORIDA �n COUNTY OF COLLIER T14E FOREGOING In1l, 2006, by Richard Faust, who license as identification, as President corporation. S.-'Brandy Closings Smudcr -Faust st KR! Trustee Warranty Deed SMUDER FAUST, REALTY, INC., a Florida Corporation By: Ric rd aust President U wasacknowI d a gap s q dayofJanuary, .ally known to me has produced his driver's AUST, REALTY INC., a Florida Notary Pu Sic Print Name; State of Florida at Large My Commission Expires: (Ngc 2 of 2) (Notary Seal) �� " UYOMMISSloNI6b158976 t`F &FLT sm�dd T EXPIRES: xt Im fes« �: CP- 2008 -1 Page 18 of 29 EXHIBIT GA THIS DOCUHE14T PREPARED WITHOUT EXAMINA7ION OR OPINION OF TITLE BY: RETURN T0: Stephen D. HCGann, Esquire Stephen 0. HCCinn, P.A. 2180 Imookalee Road Suite 306 Naples, Florida 34110 Folio Number - 37116960007 WARRANTY DEED 3794015 OR: 3996 PG: 3499 HCOIDiD It 011MIL "CORDS et COLU1I CODtti, IL 03101 /1006 It 11:471K DYIGBI t. 1W. CLt1I leis 100000.00 UC III 1130 tetra: DOC -.70 {400.00 Co0O11 II COUX11 IT 11 1001 TL(URI TI R 1310 HIM IL 11103 This Indenture, Made this j"F day of �c fj unr 2006, Between Michael Madsen and Kelly H. Madsen,' usband and Wife, hose post office address is 241 Golden Gate Blvd. West, Naples, Florida 34120, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor," and Kenneth R. Johnson, as Trustee of Land Trust 1350.032 under Trust Agreement dated December 1, 2005, conferring unto the Trustee hereinabove named, the power and authority either to protect, conserve and to sell and to convey, or to lease, or to encumber, or otherwise to manage and dispose of the real property described herein. Said Trustee is hereinafter referred to as "Grantee," The post office address for Grantee is 4001 Tame�ami rail North, Suite 300, Naples, Florida 34103. .F.R C'f1r. T H That the Granto o a d i c t n of the sum of - -- -- -TEN AND 00/100 (S10.OD - a o 14e good and valuable considerations t sai PE, ntor n hand ai y Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby ac dged, has r _ q ante ,. pined and sold to the said Grantee, and G's heirs and' i cS1s forever, the fallowing described land, situate,�l nq and be er County, Florida, to �f]f� �.� i The West 180 feet of TrarFj 8�- -tJirN GATE ESTATES; Unit No. 11, according to the plat thereof of record in Plat Hook 4, Page 103 -104, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, Together with the West 9.00 feet of the East 150 feet, of the North 67 feet of the South 272 feet. Less the East 9.00 feet of the West 180 feet of the South 87 feet of the North 207 feet of said Tract 108. SUBJECT to the following: (a) Taxes for the year 2006 and subsequent years;. (b) Zoning, building code and other restrictions imposed by governmental authority; (cl Outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any; and (d) Restrictions and easements common to the subdivision. And said Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. * "Grantor" and "Grantee" are used for singular or plural, as context requires. Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson. P.A 4001 Tamiami Trail. N. suite NO Napleti FL 34103 Lot ID — L 6V i�o -o3t CP- 2008 -1 Page 19 of 29 EXHIBIT GA OR: 3940 PG: 3500 In Witness Whereof, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: Michael Madsen Kelly H. Mad an STATE OF FWRIDA y couNTr of COLLIER t-• ltl� I HEREBY CERTIFY on this day Tefa e me, an officer duly qualified to take ackn - -wl erso :ally PPeared Michael Madsen and Kelly H. Madsen, to m k to e h per on's described in and who executed the foregoi g tDe dg�d before me that they executed a same. I Th y a e s 1 t me or have produced G- r'r" - e e, Ij ntification. . I t-Y WITNESS my han C� d official se i to � ounty and State last aforesaid this t' f ,c�/,r..t�Y� 2 ?lease Print flame (SEAL) My Commission Expires: Weed elf0 /!6 ti,.'J .- Stepftan D. McCann = CwwritVan I DD356669 Exptw Ottpbar18,2D08 o, ` war M.fseae< felJ�Llm! CP- 2008 -1 Page 20 of 29 EXHIBIT GA Prepared by and return to: Linda C. Brinkman,Esq. Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamlami Trail North Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 239435 -3535 File Number: 850.023 Will all No.: Parcel Identification No. 31116920005 COMGTM 3719723 OR; 3914 PG; 3601 RICOVID in OifICIAL WORDS of COLLAR COU911, IL 10/19/2005 at 09:37AK WaT I. 9IOCI, CLIRI RIC Its 18.50 DOC -. 70 . TO [etc: GOODLITTI COLIKU if Al 1001 MIA11 TR K 1300 XMIS TL 34103 Above This Line For Recording Warranty Deed. (STATUTORY FORM - SFCTION 669.02, F.S.) This Indenture made this je7 +41day of October, 2005 between Joseph D. Peterson and Mary Peterson, husband and wife whose post office address is 101 Willoughby Drive, Naples, FL 341I0 of the County of Collier, State of Florida; . grantor *, and Kenneth R. Johnson as Trustee or the 850,023 Land Trust dated October 4, 2005, with full power and authority either to protect, conserve and to sell,- ash er, or otherwise to manage and dispose of the real property described herein, whose post office,a ¢r`c�,s_ d0�; ii it North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103 of the County of Collier, State of Florida,grante ,-q f \ i Witnesseth that said grantor, for an in ' i erano of-thri t good and valuable considerations to s id g antor rn d by has granted, bargained, and sold to ,e s situate, lying and being in Collier Co uty rid wi : The East 150 feet of Trac n t recorded in Plat Book 4, Poi 3 -104, of the Public 1 of TENANY NO 1100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other 'grantee the eceipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, s% forever, the following described land, ►rding to the plat thereof, as County, Florida. and said grantor does hereby fully warrant the re t7,ptid y�„and W {d the same against lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. 1,�� C� "Grantor" and 'Grantee" arc used for singular or plural, as eonwct rcquirrs. In Witness Whereof, grantor has hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: (Seal) eph .Peterson (Seal) s Pie rs n Lot ID — M Raublerimao CP- 2008 -1 Page 21 of 29 EXHIBIT GA * ** 0R; 3914 PG; 3602 M State of Florida County of Collier jh The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this j % day of October, 2005 by Joseph D. Peterson and Mary Peterson, who U are personally known or [X) have produced a drivst'glicense as identification. [Notary Seal] .• ;tr SRAMDYAcW%XE Notary Public t MYCOMUISSIOIJ I DO IZ76 �,* a EXPIRES: febmary is, 2W7 Printed Name: �FDfri�' ameed nw Btw Witty sevim - My Commission Expires: TBIS CORRECTIVE WABBAN SHOWN IN 'THAT CERTAIN OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS Ivarrant}, Dced (Statruan, Foml - Pap 2 CP- 2008 -1 Page 22 of 29 THE HARE OF THE WITNESS ECORDS BOOK 3907 PAGE 2749 DoubteTimem EXHIBIT GA i t 3793121 OR: 3990 PG: 0267 RECOfiDID in 011MA1 RECORDS of COLLI11 C001", PL 03/0112001 at 08:18AX Way 1. Bloa, CLERr COas 150000.00 RIC M 11.50 Doc -.10 1150,00 lttt: GIMLIM COLIM IT ILL tool SAK(IAK(I tR 11300 XAPLIE EL 34103 . WAIrRANTY DEED a-h THIS DEED, is made on this day of February, 2006 between HERBFRT J. BUCK (the "Grantor "), and KENNETH R. JOHNSON, as Trustee of Land Trust 850.025 under trust agreement dated December 1, 2005, with full power and authorityeither to protect, conserve and to sell, or to lease, or to encumber, or otherwise to manage and di s . se of the real property described herein (the "Grantee "), whose post office address ' Wa mh L North, Suite 300, Naples, FL.34103. Grantor, in consideration•bt um of TEN AND and valuable considerations to did C ntBri and paid by is hereby acknowledged, h to , ain an ' ss successors and assigns fore r, t ( s County, Florida, to wit: The East 7! Estates Unit Book 4, Pal Florida. Collier County Tax according to the 104, of the Pub! /dfi OLLARS (S 10.00) and other good , cc, e receipt and sufficiency ofwhich to th e skid Grantee and Grantee's heirs, )ct, si ated, lying and being in Collier W Q, Golden Gate recorded in Plat Collier County, SUBMCT TO. real estate taxes for the year 2006 and subsequent years; zoning,. building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; restrictions, reservations and easements of record common to the subdivision; provided, however, that no one of them shall prevent use of the property for residential purposes. Grantor warrants that the above described property is vacant land and not his homestead. Grantor's homestead address is 5405 Jaeger Road, Naples, FL 34 L09. And said Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. S:Mrandy Casings Buck st KAJ Trustee WwTanty Deed g5c�•nL� Lot ID — N (Page 1 of Z) This instrument Prepared By Linda C Brinkman, Esq. Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A_ 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 3oo Naples, FL 34103 i CP- 2008 -1 Page 23 of 29 EXHIBIT G.4 * ** OR: 3990 PG: 0268 M IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Grantor has duly executed and delivered this instrument on the day and year first above written. Signed, Sealed and delivered in the Presence of, % irmcL �I W n s • Wan CP- 2008 -1 JER co STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER THE FOREGOING R a ow d ed 1 e re me on this d f February, 2006, by HERBE'J. B CK, w o 's on own to me or who has produced his driver's license q� tiftcation.' �C -) � v L *Tu C , SABrandy Closings Buck st KRJ Trustee Warranty Deed Notary Publics Print Name: V State of Florida at. Large My Commission Expires: (Notary Seal) 6 RAM Y.t r • MY GoAlt{fS510M F DAISM EXPIRES: February 16,200'. POW rtwfludyeettoyt�,y;e (Page 2 of 2) I Page 24 of 29 EXHIBIT G.4 Rett: 4101163 OR: 4307 PG: 1221 GOODLEi4E COLEMAN IT AL RECORDED in the OFFICIAL. RECORDs of COLLIER COUM, FL COBS 455000.00 40.41 TANIANI iR 11300 12/03/2007 at 08:07AX DNIGNT E, IROCK, CLERK REC 111 18.50 NAPLES FL 34103 DOC -.70 3185.00 WARRANTY DEED 7-- < THIS WARRANTY DEED, is made, executed and delivered on this J day of November, 2007 between SAINT LOUIS GEDEUS AND CHRISTINE GEDEUS,husband and wife (the "Grantors "), and KENNETH 1L JOHNSON, AS TRUSTEE UNDER LAND TRUST 850.038, with full power and authority to protect, conserve and to sell, lease, encumber or otherwise to manage and dispose of the real property hereinafter described, whose post office address is: c/o Goodlette Coleman & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103, (the "Grantee "). WITNESSETH: that Grantors, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN AND 00 /100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable considerations to Grantors in hand paid by Grantee, the receipt and sufficiency wher s 1 e cknowledged, have granted, bargained and sold to said Grantee and Grantee's igns forever, the following described property, situate, lying and bein ' ounty of Co of Florida, to wit: THE WEST 10 F OF C O D G TE ESTATES, UNIT No. 1, c r ' g o th a rec rded in Plat Book 4, at P 03 1 4 f e P li s of Collier County, Fl Pr Property ID 7116880006 / SUBJECT TO: r?. - At 7 and subsequent years; zoning, buildin ' co restrictions imposed by governmental authority; outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any; and restrictions and easements common to the subdivision, provided however that no one of them shall prevent use of the property as a single family residence. AND Grantors hereby covenant with the Grantee that Grantors are lawfully seized of said Property in fee simple; that Grantors have good right and lawful authority to sell and convey this Property, and that Grantors hereby fully warrant the title to the Property and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. C:1KRADEEDs GEDEUS To KRI, AS TRUSTEE 90 3" Street NW, Naples, FL Warranty Deed (Page I of 2) CP- 2098 -1— - - Page 25 of 29 EXHIBIT GA * ** OR; 4307 PG; 1222 * ** IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantors have hereunto set their hands and seals on the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed, and delivered in the esence as to both: Print Name: GRANTORS: SAINT LOUIS GEDEUS Print Name: �j } �1/ t� CHRISTINE GEDEUS STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER THE FOREGOING] November, 2007 by SAINT I are is .personally known to identification. NOTARY PUBLIC -STATE OF FLORIDA C to mission # DD467739 Expires: OCT. 14, 2009 Bonded7tuu Atiandc Bonding CO- Inc C:1KRJ\DEEDS GEDEUS To KRJ, As TRUSTEE 90 3' Street NW, Naples, FL Warranty Deed qproduc e r rive driver's license as N tary Public State of Florida at large Print Name. ?rY1 • `.� My Commission Expires: ttk . `- v l (Page 2 of 2) (Notary Seal) CP- 2008 -1 Page 26 of 29 EXHIBIT GA Retn: 3828408 OR: 4026 PG: 1313 Pic FEE l8.5o GOODLETTE COLEKAN IT AL RECORDED in the OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL DOC -.10 .10 4001 TAKIAKI TR 1 1300 04/21/2006 at 03:24PK DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK NAPLES FL 34103 Note to Tax C011ectOr: The transaction evidenced by this Instrument Is exempt from Florida Documentary Stamp Tax in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 12B4.013(32xd) being a transfer from one trustee to a successor trustee without change In beneficial ownership. DEED TO SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE THIS DEED is made on this -LK-rtday of April, 2006, between BRETT RUBINSON. AS TRUSTEE OF THE GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD WEST TRUST, with full power and authority either to protect, conserve and to sell, or to lease or to encumber, or otherwise to manage and dispose of the real property described herein, pursuant to Florida Statute 689.071 (hereinafter called the "Grantor "), and KENNETH IL JOHNSON, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD WEST TRUST, with full power and- authorit either to protect, conserve and to sell, or to lease or to encumber, or otherwise pqajq � " f the real property described herein, pursuant to Florida Statute 689.071 F called a "), whose post office address is: c/o GOODLETTE, COLEMAN & Jqr 14, P.A, 4001 Tami North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103. / --� The Grantor, in cons: other good and valuable con: sufficiency of which is heret and Grantee's heirs, successo and being in Collier County, a DOLLARS ($10.00) and s t sado d 101100 dby the Grantee, the receipt and iavl ' ell,is 0,0 ted ne. d sold to the said Grantee assigns forever, the lowing d ed property, situated, lying to wit: �� a The East 180 feet 110, Golden Gat<,9,St�{es, Unit No., 11, according to the map o�alt 0 td�t istat Book 4, at Pages 103 and 104, of the rublic t o_ ounty, Florida.(becng the same property conveyed to grantor by Deed to Successor Trustee dated October 14, 1005 and recorded October 19, 2005 in Official Records Book 3914, at Page 3577, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida). The subject property is unimproved and vacant land and not the homestead of Grantor who resides outside the State of Florida. Collier County Tax Folio No: 37117120008 SUBJECT TO: real estate taxes for the year 2006 and subsequent years; zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental C:\BAR"Crown Rubinson Deed to Successor Trustee 649 m'.010 (Page 1 of 2) This Instrument Prepared By: Linda C. Brinkman, Esq. Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 CP- 2008 -1 Page 27 of 29 EXHIBIT G.4 * ** OR; 4026 PG; 1314 * ** authority; outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any; and restrictions and easements common to the subdivision. And said Grantor does hereby specially warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims and demands of all persons claiming by, through or under Grantor, but against none other. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Grantor has duly executed and delivered this instrument on the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Lm� Print Ndele: J 111,G 0 COMMONWEALTH OF COUNTY OF 14,hfES THE FOREGOING INSTII Twas 2006, by BRETT RUBINSON, ❑ who ' p on license as identification, AS TRUSTEE 0 behalf BRETT RUBINSON, AS TRUSTEE OF THE bL�I;N GATE BOULEVARD WEST TRUST ore me on this,411ayofApril, e or ❑who produced his driver's BOULEVARD WEST TRUST and on its Not Public Print ame: 9LU177Effj —,4R1- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania My Commission Expires: (Notary Seal) C:\BA R %Crown Rubinson Decd to Successor Trustee _ (Page 2 of 2) NobUS" JanetC. Bkimeottt8l, Notary Public I* It 1Wp., cheswco ft IM1� ittion E�i+as Feb.23� X06 Mwnbw ftftOwmip 4sswation of Notaries CP- 2008 -1 Page 28 of 29 EXHIBIT G.4 This Document Prepared by Michael A. Durant CONROY, CONROY 6 DURANT, P.A. 2210 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Suite 1201 Naples, Florida 34109 * ** 4306492 OR: 4461 PG: 0447 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, PL 06/11/2009 at 10:06AN DWIGHT B. BROCI, CLBRI CONS 240000.00 RBC FBI 10.00 Doc -.70 1680.00 Retn: GOODLITTB COLENAN IT AL 4000 TANIANI TRL N #300 NAPLES PL 34103 Parcel ID Number: 37117200009 Warranty Deed This Indenture, Made this 10th day of June 2009 A.D.. Between Kevin P. Broader, a single man W* the County of Collier , State of Florida , grantor, and Kenneth R. Johnson, as Trustee of Land Trust 850.045 whose address is: 4001 Tamiami Trail, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103 of the County of Collier , State of Florida , grantee. Witnesseth that the GRANTOR_ for and inconsideration of the sum of ------ ----------- - - - - -- -TEN DOLLARS ($10) ------- --- ---- --- - ----- DOLLARS. and other good and valuable consideration to GRANTOR in hand paid by GRAN-FEE. the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged. has granted. bargained and sold to the said GRANTEE and GRANTEE'S heirs, successors and assigns forever, the following described land. situate. lying and tieing in the Count; of Collier State of Florida to wit: The South 75 feet of the North 150 feet of Tract 111, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 11, accord' g —,--t plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4, pages 103 and 4�,� I' cords of Collier County, ,,,- Florida . Subject to real properA zoning, building code`a governmental authority; record, if any; restri the subdivision. _ Together with all belonging or in a Ad—vaiorem taxes f•pr ',the year of closing; O'tht � imposed by c 1 ;4nd!, mineral interest of fo, rle��eF` ,L!n�j alnd' easements common to ts, hereditaaiQnts , appurtenances thereto pertaining.�� and the grantor does hereby lull% warrant the title to said land. and will defend the same against lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. In Witness Whereof, the grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above written sealed and deliver d in our presence: (Seal) riot ci Name: 7�� Kevin P. Broader witness/ P.O. Address: 131 1st Street NW, Naples, FL 34120 Printed Name : ✓oa X 1 t DE e L. T Witness STATE OF Florida COUNTY OF Collier c�� 1 ✓ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of � , 2009 by Kevin P. Broader, a single man he a personalh known to me or he has produced his Florida driver ` S 1 . /ceense as identification. e j n JACat1HME L ANDREWS WY COAMSSIONIDD 610BZd nted e: %/'.,:�.� /•�. -1 4; EXPIRES: December 22, 2012 tart' l i c A 11 Thu No6ay Pubic UMenaM My Commission Fxpires: CP- 2008- $R0ADISR— J0RNS0M Page 29 of 29 EXHIBIT G.4 I —, G d M Q Di,pl,, Svvrm>. Im . 200'1 (903) 70-5555 Form FI.wD -1 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD EXHIBIT G.5 LETTERS OF AUTHORIZATION GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -1 RECEIVE AUG 0-8 e^ LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION Q, 2009 $As"aes,iPr -A. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I hereby authorize 0 Grady Minor & Associates P.A. and Coleman Yovanovich, & Koester, P.A. (Name of Agent – typed or printed) to serve as my Agent in a st to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property id nt' Ied in the ppli Signed: vZ Date: I �d �� (Name of Owner(s of Record) Printed Name: Kenneth R. ohnson as Trustee I hereby certify that I have the authority to mal* a foregoing plic ion and that the application is true, correct, and complete to the best of my kno ledge. r l �^ �W rS► Kenneth R. I as Trustee STATE OF Florida COUNTY OF Collier Sworn to subscribed before me this day of 2009 By //� (Notary Public) MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: O1O lQ M CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: who is personally known to me, who has produced as identification and did take an OathEEO . OIL —� did not take an Oathk DD757874 Ob• 2009 000t Assoc. Co' NOTICE – BE AWARE THAT: Florida Statute Section 837.06 -False Official Statements Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of $500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day jail term. CP 2008 -1 1 08/2009 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT CP-2008-1 REVISED EXHIBIT IV -B AND ADDITIONAL DATA AND ANALYSIS BCC Transmittal Hearing January 19, 2010 GradyMinor Civil Engineers e Land Surveyors • Planners i Landscape Architects Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Collier County Comprehensive Planning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl 34104 Re: CP- 2008 -1, Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Revised Exhibit IV.B and Additional Data and Analysis Information Dear Ms. Mosca: Thank you for making time to meet with us to discuss the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment pertaining to the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict. As discussed, we are providing with this correspondence some additional information, which responds to comments made by staff and Collier County Planning Commission members at the October 19, 2009 public hearing. Some members of the Planning Commission and a few members of the public questioned whether a commercial project of the scale proposed in this amendment was appropriate at this location. The project location is appropriate because it is centrally located in North Golden Gate Estates, and located at the intersection of two of the primary roadways serving the Golden Gate Estates resident population. In addition to the extensive population currently residing and projected to reside in the primary trade area of the project, your Transportation staff has confirmed that Golden Gate Boulevard is a commuter corridor which provides for a high volume of through traffic and potential high capture rate for the commercial center. In fact, Transportation staff applied a 35% pass by capture rate instead of the typical 25% pass by capture rate. The public also directly benefits from the project by receiving needed right -of -way for improvements to the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard at no cost to Collier County. A centrally located grocery- anchored shopping center will have a positive impact on the transportation network internal to and external to Golden Gate Estates by reducing vehicle miles traveled for Estates residents. Residents east of Wilson Boulevard will no longer be required to travel an additional six miles each way to get to a grocery anchored shopping center. The reduced vehicle miles traveled also equates to reduced green house gas emissions as mandated by Florida law. Based on methodologies provided by staff, we have calculated the estimated reduction in vehicle miles traveled and reduction in green house gas emissions resulting from the project. A report outlining the effects on vehicle miles traveled and green house gas emissions prepared by Keystone Development Advisors is attached to this correspondence. 1. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239 - 947 -1144 • Fx: 239 - 947 -0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 • LB 0005151 • LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com Ms. Michele Mosca i RE: CP- 2008 -1, Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Revised Exhibit IV.B and Additional Data and Analysis Information August 25, 2009 1 November 24, 2009 Page 2 of 3 With regard to the scale of commercial development proposed on the 41 +/- acre site, the amount of commercial square footage has been reduced from 225,000 to 210,000 square feet of commercial space, which is approximately one -half the intensity of a typical urban area shopping center. Further, the conceptual plan submitted with the comprehensive plan amendment has been refined to depict larger buffers, additional green space and reconfigured preservation areas, which further demonstrates that the proposed commercial area is an appropriate scale and compatible with the surrounding area. The text of the proposed amendment has been modified to reflect the decrease in commercial square footage, as well as the increase in buffers and building setbacks. We are committed to developing a grocery- anchored shopping center for the community. A successful center must have an appropriate size and combination of uses to insure economic viability. The commercial demand figures for the primary trade area indicate demand for a commercial shopping area in this location, and staff acknowledges that there are no sufficiently sized parcels within the primary trade area to permit development of a grocery- anchored shopping center. The small acreage parcels currently located within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and designated as Neighborhood Centers are not capable of supporting a true neighborhood or community sized commercial center. The original staff findings as outlined in the Collier County East of CR 951 Services and Infrastructure Horizon Study Preliminary Report, conclude that the existing neighborhood center concept cannot satisfy the long- term demand for commercial services in Golden Gate Estates and that larger sites over 40 acres in size will be needed. In addition to the supportive commercial demand and supply analysis, we have analyzed other economic impacts associated with the proposed shopping center. Fishkind and Associates has reviewed the direct and indirect economic benefits of the proposed project and have prepared a report outlining the employee earnings and job creation associated with construction and operation for the proposed 210,000 square foot commercial project. This analysis is attached for your review. The applicant has also demonstrated that in addition to the population and demographic data which supports development of a commercial shopping center, the residents of the community have participated in several outreach efforts and have indicated their support for a grocery- anchored shopping center at this location. A mail survey conducted by the applicant demonstrates an overwhelming level of support for the project. Further, nearly 2,000 letters of support have been provided from the community for the project. We are confident that the original and supplemental information provided as supportive information for this comprehensive plan amendment demonstrates: 1. There are no other commercial sites available in Golden Gate Estates large enough to support a grocery- anchored center, 2 Cover Letter Revised and Additional Info (2).doc RCGWA Ms. Michele Mosca RE: CP- 2008 -1, Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Revised Exhibit IV.B and Additional Data and Analysis Information August 25, 2009 November 24, 2009 Page 3 of 3 2. There is significant resident support in the primary trade area for this type of commercial project, 3. There are significant short -term and long -term economic benefits resulting from this project, 4. There are significant public benefits resulting from the project which include donated land for right -of -way, a reduction in green house gas emissions, and a significant reduction in vehicle miles traveled for area residents. Please contact Richard D. Yovanovich at 435 -3535 or me if you have any questions. Sincerely, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP 2 Cover Letter Revised and Additional Info (2).doc RCGMPA Exhibit IV.B Proposed Growth Management Plan Text a. Estates — Commercial District (VIII)1) Residential Estates Subdistrict — Single- family residential development may be allowed within the Estates — Commercial District at a maximum density of one unit per 21/4 gross acres unless the lot is considered a legal non - conforming lot of record. 2) Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict — Recognizing the need to provide for centrally located basic goods and services within a portion Northern Golden Gate Estates, the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict has been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. The Subdistrict is located at the NW corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard westward to 3rd Street NW and extending northward to include the southern 180 feet of Tracts 142 and 106 of Unit 11 and the southern 255 feet of Tract 111 of Unit 11 of Golden Gate Estates, totaling approximately 41 acres. The Estates Shoppina Center Subdistrict is intended to provide convenient shopping, personal services and employment for the central areas of Northern Golden Gate Estates. Commercial development in this Subdistrict will reduce driving distances for many residents, assist in minimizing the road network required, and reduce traffic impacts in this area of Collier County. All development in this Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and limitations: a. Allowable Uses shall be limited to the following: Amusement and recreation GroUDs 7911 — Dance studios. schools and halls, excludin discotheques 7991 — Physical fitness facilities 7993 — Coin - operated amusement devises 7999 — Amusement and recreation services, not elsewhere classified, including only day camps, gymnastics instruction, iudo /karate instruction, sportinq goods rental and yoga instruction (excludes NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges, Waterslides, etc.) 2. Apparel and accessory stores (no adult oriented sales) Groups 5611 — Men's and boys' clothing and accessory stores 5621 — Women's clothing stores Exhibit IV B - Amended Language 122309.doc Page 1 of 11 Exhibit IV.B 5632 — Women's accessory and specialty stores 5641 — Children's and infants' wear stores 5651 — Family clothing stores 5661 — Shoe stores 5699 — Miscellaneous apparel and accessory stores 3. Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations Groups 5531 — Auto and home supply stores 5541 — Gasoline service stations, without repair Automotive repair. services and oarkinq (no outdoor repair /service. All repairs /services to be performed by authorized automotive technician.) Groups 7514 — Passenger car rental 7534 — Tire retreading and repair shops, including only tire re air 7539 — Automotive Repair Shops, Not Elsewhere Classified, including only minor service, lubricating and diagnostic service 7542 — Carwashes, as an accessory to convenience stores only 5. Building materials, hardware, garden supply, and mobile home dealers Groups 5231 — Paint, glass, and wallpaper stores 5251 — Hardware stores 5261 — Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores Business services Groups 7334 — Photocopvina and duplicating services 7335 — Commercial photography 7336 — Commercial art and graphic design 7338 — Secretarial and court reporting services 7342 — Disinfecting and pest control services 7352 — Medical equipment rental and leasing 7359 — Equipment rental and leasing, not elsewhere classified 7371 — Computer programming services 7372 — Prepackaged software 7373 — Computer integrated systems design 7374 — Computer processing and data preparation and processing services 7375 — Information retrieval services 7376 — Computer facilities management services 7379 — Computer related services, not elsewhere classified 7382 — Security systems services 7383 — News syndicates 7384 — Photofinishing laboratories Exhibit IV B - Amended Language 122309.doc Page 2 of 11 Exhibit IV.B 7389 — Business services, not elsewhere classified A001%, 7. Child day care services (Group 8351) 8. Communications Groups 4812 — Radiotelephone communications 4841 — Cable and other pay television services 9. Construction special trade contractors (office use only, no on -site equipment storage) Groups 1711 — Plumbing, heating and air - conditioning 1721 — Painting and paper hanging industry 1731 — Electrical work industry 1741 — Masonry, stone setting, and other stone work 1742 — Plastering, drywall, acoustical, and insulation work 1743 — Terrazzo, tile, marble, and mosaic work industry 1751 — Carpentry work 1752 — Floor laving and other floor work, not elsewhere classified industry 1761 — Roofing, siding, and sheet metal work industry 1771 — Concrete work industry 1781 — Water well drilling industry 1791 — Structural steel erection 1793 — Glass and glazing work 1794 — Excavation work 1795 — Wrecking and demolition work 1796 — Installation or erection of building equipment, not elsewhere 1799 — Special trade contractors, not elsewhere classified 10. Depository institutions Groups 6021 — National commercial banks 6022 — State commercial banks 6029 — Commercial banks, not elsewhere classified 6035 — Savings institutions, federally chartered 6036 — Savings Institutions, not federally chartered 6061 — Credit unions, federally chartered 6062 — Credit unions, not federally chartered 6091 — Non - deposit trust facilities 6099 — Functions related to depository banking, not elsewhere classified 11. Eating and drinking places (Group 5812, including only liquor service accessory to the restaurant use, no outdoor amplified music or televisions) Exhibit IV B - Amended Language 122309.doc Page 3 of 11 Exhibit IV.B n 12. Engineering, accounting, research management and related services Groups 8711 — Engineering services 8712 —Architectural services 8713 — Surveying services 8721 —Accounting, auditing and bookkeeping services 8741 — Management services 8742 — Management consulting services 8743 — Public relations services 8748— Business consulting services, not elsewhere classified 13. Executive, legislative, and general government, except finance Groups 9111 — Executive offices 9121 — Legislative bodies 9131 — Executive and legislative offices combined 9199 — General government, not elsewhere classified 14. Food stores Groups 5411 — Grocery stores (minimum 27,000 square feet) 5421 — Meat and fish (seafood) markets including freezer Provisioners 5431 — Fruit and vegetable markets 5441 — Candy, nut, and confectionery stores 5451 — Dairy products stores 5461 — Retail bakeries 5499 — Miscellaneous food stores including convenience stores with fuel pumps and carwash 15. General merchandise stores Groups 5311 — Department stores 5331 — Variety stores 5399 — Miscellaneous general merchandise stores 16. Home furniture, furnishings and equipment stores Groups 5712 — Furniture stores 5713 — Floor covering stores 5714 — Drapery, curtain and upholstery stores 5719 — Miscellaneous home furnishings stores 5722 — Household appliance stores 5731 — Radio, television, and consumer electronics stores 5734 — Computer and computer software stores 5735 — Record and prerecorded tape stores (no adult oriented sales) 5736 — Musical instrument stores Exhibit IV B - Amended Language 122309.doc Page 4 of 11 Exhibit IV.B 17. Insurance carriers Groups 6311 — Life insurance 6321 — Accident and health insurance 6324 — Hospital and medical service plans 6331 — Fire marine, and casualty insurance 6351 — Surety insurance 6361 — Title insurance 6371 — Pension, health and welfare funds 6399 — Insurance carriers, not elsewhere classified 6411 — Insurance agents 18. Justice, public order and safety Groups 9221 — Police protection 9222 — Legal counsel and prosecution 9229 — Public order and safety, not elsewhere classified 19. Meetinq and banquet rooms 20. Miscellaneous retail (no adult oriented sales) Groups 5912 — Drug stores and proprietary stores 5921 — Liquor stores (accessory to grocery or pharmacy only) 5932 — Used merchandise stores 5941 — Sporting goods stores and bicycle shops 5942 — Book stores 5943 — Stationery stores 5944 — Jewelry stores, including repair 5945 — Hobby, toy, and game shops 5946 — Camera and photographic supply stores 5947 — Gift novelty, and souvenir shops 5948 — Luggage and leather goods stores 5949 — Sewing needlework and piece goods stores 5992 — Florists 5993 — Tobacco stores and stands 5994 — News dealers and newsstands 5995 — Optical goods stores 5999— Miscellaneous retail stores, not elsewhere classified (excluding gravestone tombstones, auction rooms monuments swimming pools, and sales barns) 21. Non - depository credit institutions Groups 6111 — Federal and federally- sponsored credit agencies 6141 — Personal credit institutions Exhibit IV B - Amended Language 122309.doc Page 5 of 11 Exhibit IV.B 6153 — Short-term business credit institutions, except agricultural 6159 — Miscellaneous business credit institutions 6162 — Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents 6163 — Loan brokers 22. Offices and clinics of dentist (Group 8021) 23. Personal services Groups 7212 - _Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners 7221 — Photographic studios, portrait 7231 — Beauty shops 7241 — Barber shops 7251 — Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors 7291 — Tax return preparation services 7299 — Miscellaneous personal services, not elsewhere classified, excludinq massaqe parlors. Turkish baths and escort services 24. Public finance, taxation, and monetary policy (Group 9311) 25. Real Estate Groups 6512 — Operators of nonresidential buildings 6513 — Operators of apartment buildings 6514 — Operators of dwellings other than apartment buildings 6515 — Operators of residential mobile home sites 6517 — Lessors of railroad property 6519 — Lessors of real property, not elsewhere classified 6531 — Real estate agents and managers 6541 — Title abstract offices 6552— Land subdividers and developers. except cemeteries 26. Schools and educational services, not elsewhere classified (Group 8299) 27. Security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges, and services Groups 6211 — Security brokers, dealers, and flotation companies 6221 — Commodity contracts brokers and dealers 6231 — Security and commodity exchanges 6282 — Investment advice 6289 — Services allied with the exchange of securities or commodities, not elsewhere classified Exhibit IV B - Amended Language 122309.doc Page 6 of 11 Exhibit IV.B 28. Social services /101�1 Groups 8322 — Individual and family social services (adult day care centers only) 8351 — Child day care services 29. Travel agencies (Group 4724) 30. Veterinary services for animal specialties (Group 0742) 31. Video tape rental (Group 7841, excluding adult oriented sales and rentals 32. United states postal service (Group 4311, excluding major distribution centers 33.Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ( "BZA') by the process outlined in the LDC. b. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: a. Utility buildings b. Essential service facilities C. Gazebos statuary and other architectural features c. The following uses shall be prohibited: 1. Amusement and recreation services not elsewhere classified (Group 7999 NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges, Waterslides, etc.) 2. Air and water resource and solid waste management (Group 9511) 3. Business Services Groups 7313 — Radio television, and publishers' advertising representatives 7331 — Direct mail advertising services 4. Correctional Institutions (Group 9223) 5. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) (Group 5813) Exhibit IV B - Amended Language 122309.doc Page 7 of 11 Exhibit IV.B n 6. Educational services Groups 8211 — Elementary and secondary schools 8221 — Colleges, universities and professional schools 8222 — Junior colleges and technical institutes 8231 — Libraries 7. Health services Groups 8062 — General medical and surgical hospitals 8063 — Psychiatric hospitals 8069 — Specialty hospitals except psychiatric 8. Miscellaneous Retail _Groups 5921 — Liquor stores 5961 — Catalog and mail -order houses 5962 — Automatic merchandising machine operators 9. Personal services _Groups 7211 — Power Laundries family and commercial 7261 — Funeral service and crematories 10. Social services Groups 8322 — Individual and family social services excluding adult day care centers 8361— Residential care including soup kitchens and homeless shelters d. Development intensity shall be limited to 210,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. e. One grocery use will be a minimum of 27,000 square feet With the exception of one grocery use, no individual user may exceed 30,000 square feet of building area. f. Development within this Subdistrict shall be phased and the following commitments related to area roadway improvements shall be completed within the specified timeframes: 1. Right -of -Way for Golden Gate Boulevard Expansion and Right- of -Wav for the Wilson Boulevard Expansion will be donated to the County at no cost within 120 days of a written request from the County. 2. The applicant will pay its fair share for the intersection improvements at Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard within 90 days of County request for reimbursement. Exhibit IV B - Amended Language 122309.doc Page 8 of 11 Exhibit IV.B 3 Until the intersection improvements at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard are complete the County shall not issue a Certificate(s) of Occupancy (CO) for more than 100,000 square feet of development. The applicant must obtain a C.O. for a grocery store as part of this 100,000 square feet and the grocery store must be the first C.O. obtained. q Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the rezone ordinance must contain development standards to ensure that all commercial land uses will be compatible with neighboring residential uses. A conceptual plan which identifies the location of the permitted development area and required preserve area for this subdistrict is attached. The preserve area depicted on the conceptual plan shall satisfy all comprehensive plan requirements for retained native vegetation including but not limited to the requirements of Policy 6.1.1 of the CCME. A more detailed development plan must be developed and utilized for the required PUD rezoning. h Development standards including permitted uses and setbacks for principal buildings shall be established at the time of PUD rezoning. Any future PUD rezone shall include at a minimum: (1) Landscape buffers adjacent to external rights -of -way shall be: • 1St /3rd Streets- Minimum 30' wide enhanced buffer • Wilson Boulevard- Minimum 25' wide enhanced buffer • Golden Gate Boulevard- Minimum 50' wide enhanced buffer (2) Except for the utility building no commercial building may be constructed within 125 feet of the northern property boundary and within 300' of the 3rd Street NW boundary of this subdistrict. (3) Any portion of the Project directly abutting residential property (property zoned E- Estates and without an approved conditional use) shall provide, at a minimum a seventy -five (75) feet wide buffer, except the westernmost 330' of Tract 106 which shall provide a minimum 20' wide buffer in which no parking uses are permitted. Twenty -five (25) feet of the width of the buffer along the developed area shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of fifty (50) feet of the buffer width shall consist of retained or re- planted native vegetation and must be consistent with subsection 3.05.07.H of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) The native vegetation retention area may consist of a perimeter berm and be used for water management detention. Any newly constructed berm shall be revegetated to meet subsection 3.05.07.H of the LDC (native vegetation replanting requirements). Additionally. in Exhibit IV B - Amended Language 122309.doc Page 9 of 11 Exhibit IV.B 1—N order to be considered for approval use of the native vegetation retention area for water management purposes shall meet the following criteria: (4) There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained. The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro- period unless it is proven that such would have no adverse Impact to the existing vegetation (5) If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management District, the protect shall provide a letter or official document from the District Indicating that the native vegetation within the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water management requirements. If the District cannot or will not supply such a letter, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for water management. (6) If the proiect is reviewed by Collier County the County engineer shall Provide evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to facilitate the necessary storage of water in the water management area a. Estates - Mixed Use District n (VI)2- Neighborhood Center Subdistrict - Recognizing the need to provide basic goods, services and amenities to Estates residents, Neighborhood Centers have been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. The Neighborhood Center designation does not guarantee that commercial zoning will be granted. The designation only provides the opportunity to request commercial zoning. (VI) a) The Collier County Land Development Code shall be amended to provide rural design criteria to regulate all new commercial development within Neighborhood Centers. (III)(V)(VI) b) Locations Neighborhood Centers are located along major roadways and are distributed within Golden Gate Estates according to commercial demand estimates, (See Map 9). The centers are designed to concentrate all new commercial zoning, and conditional uses, as allowed in the Estates Zoning District, in locations where traffic impacts can be readily accommodated and to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial and conditional use development. Four Neighborhood Centers are established as follows: Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center. This center consists of all -fetes three quadrants at the intersection of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards (See Map 10). The NE and SE quadrants of the Center consist of Tract 1 and 2, Unit 14, Tract 17, Unit 13 and the western half of Tract 18, Unit 13 Golden Gate Estates. The NE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is approximately 8.45 acres. The parcels within the NE quadrant shall be interconnected and Exhibit IV B - Amended Language 122309.doc Page 10 of 11 Exhibit IV.B share access to Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard to minimize connections to these two major roadways. The SE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is 7.15 acres, allows 5.00 acres of commercial development, and allocates 2.15 acres to project buffering and right -of -way for Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. T-he nA A R_StS 9f T— _L A A A I! of Golden Gate Gstaf� The SW quadrant of the Center is approximately 4.86 acres in size and consists of Tract 125, Unit 12 of Golden Gate Estates. Also revise as follows: TABLE OF CONTENTS, LIST OF MAPS [Page 1 ] Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict • add name of this inset map in FLUE where maps are listed. Policy 1.1.2: [Page 5] The ESTATES Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: 1. ESTATES — MIXED USE DISTRICT a. Residential Estates Subdistrict b. Neighborhood Center Subdistirct C. Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict d. Conditional Uses Subdistrict 2. ESTATES — COMMERCIAL DISTRICT a Estates Shoppinq Center Subdistrict • add the new Subdistrict in FLUE policy 1.1.2.2 that lists all Designations /Districts / Subdistricts. n Exhibit IV B - Amended Language 122309.doc Page 11 of 11 Exhibit IV.B � { \\ \` ^\ §» V.� ¥ � } ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - DiaLammUk Use Plan LAKE DEVELOPMENT AREA Access points shown are mne2aThe location and number o access points ~ ^ ^ to the project will be established at the time of PUD appr pa! Ex WELL \ � Greenhouse Gas Reduction Analysis Collier County GMPA 2008 -1 For Proposed 41 -acre Commercial Project NW corner Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Collier County, Florida c/o Rich Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Northern Trust Bank Building 4001 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 November 2009 Client File No: 2009 -11 -3 Keystone Development Advisors, LLC A LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTING COMPANY 12355 COLLIER BOULEVARD, SUITE B NAPLES, FLORIDA 34116 TELEPHONE: (239) 263 -1100 FACSIMILE (239) 236 -1103 '�` dave @keystonellc.net - www.keystonellc.net 10r_ INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to analyze and calculate the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and Vehicle Mile Travel (VMT) reduction for the proposed 2008 -1 GMP Amendment. The proposed amendment consists of a 210,000 sf shopping center located at the intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard with a grocery anchor within Golden Gate Estates, Naples, Florida. METHODOLOGY Our analysis began by reviewing the Collier Interactive Growth Model (CGIM) population projections for years 2010 through build -out. We then identified the homes located east of the project by Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) and those homes west of the proposed project by TAZ within the market area. The proposed project was identified as a destination alternative to existing shopping centers. The closest Neighborhood or Community shopping center alternative is 6 miles from the proposed center. Therefore every home located east of the proposed project would save 6 miles, one -way, or 12 miles roundtrip, for every trip not made to the existing shopping alternatives. Homes west of Wilson Boulevard have varying trip lengths to existing alternative centers depending upon their location. There are 6 TAZ's within the proposed project's market area. The centroid of each TAZ was located relative to the market area boundary which is 2 miles east of Collier Boulevard. The market area boundary is the approximate midpoint between the 1011-, existing shopping centers and the proposed center. The reduction in VMT for homes west of Wilson Boulevard is found by multiplying the distance from each TAZ centroid to the market boundary by the number of homes in the subject TAZ. After calculating the reduction in VMT, a subsequent calculation is provided identifying the gallons of fuel saved. The quantity of fuel gallons saved is used in two additional calculations; one for reduction in carbon dioxide and a second for saved fuel costs by consumers in Golden Gate Estates. VMT REDUCTION CALCULATION The proposed project was identified as a destination alternative to existing grocery anchored shopping centers on Collier Boulevard. The closest Neighborhood or Community shopping center alternative is 6 miles from the proposed shopping center located at the intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. Therefore every home located east of the proposed project will save 6 miles, one -way, for every trip not made to the existing shopping center alternatives on Collier Boulevard. According to the CGIM there are 3,217 homes within the market area east of Wilson Boulevard in 2010. In addition there are 2,177 homes west of Wilson Boulevard in 2010 for a total of 5,394 homes within the subject's market area. Based on the 12 mile roundtrip saved for every trip not made to the alternative centers for homes east of Wilson (and within the market area), to the proposed grocery anchored center, there will be a reduction in VMT of 36,972 miles. Said another way, assuming 100% of the homes described above make one roundtrip to the proposed center 38,604 miles will never be driven based on the number of 2010 households. For households west of Wilson, Table 1 shows the miles saved when consumers choose the proposed center over the existing alternatives. The miles shown are based on the difference between distances from the TAZ centroid to proposed center versus the existing centers: Tahle 1 TAZ ID# Miles Reduced (calculated from TAZ centroid ) Round Trip Distance Saved/Reduced 215 5.5 miles 11 miles 216 4 miles 8 miles 218.1 3.688 miles 7.376 miles 238.1 3.688 miles 7.376 miles 236 5.375 miles 10.75 miles Based on the specific number of homes in each TAZ and the round trip miles saved for every trip the households west of Wilson and within the market area make a dedicated trip to the proposed grocery anchored center there will be a reduction in VMT of 12,944 miles. Said another way, assuming 100% of the homes in TAZ 215, 216, 218.1, 238.1 and 236 make one roundtrip to the proposed center 12,944 miles will never be driven. The total reduction in VMT for each dedicated trip to the proposed center within the market area boundary is 51,549 miles. The next logical question is: how many trips are made to the grocery store by the typical household per week? According to the Food Marketing Institute the average number of trips to the grocery store per week is 2.0 per consumer. For the purposes of this report a conservative interpretation of the stated metric will be a consumer is a household regardless of the number of consumers live in each household (1 household = 1 consumer). We are also neglecting any other trips generated by the center for needs other than groceries (i.e. dining, coffee, postal services, personal service, etc). Not all trips to the grocery store are unique or dedicated. There is the trip home from work where one stops and picks up a few necessary items. There are also specific trips or dedicated trips to the store by the household shopper where home is the origin and final destination. The trip home from work is called a pass -by trip. Based on the location of the proposed center, the transportation corridor and the lack of alternative grocery stores in the immediate area 35% of the trips will be pass -by and 65% will be dedicated. The adjusted weekly reduction in VMT due to shopping is therefore: 51,549 miles /trip x 2.0 trips / weekx 65% dedicated trip rate= 67,013 miles /week saved. The proposed center is expected to generate 303 new jobs in Golden Gate Estates according to a study by Fishkind and Associates. The location and distribution of each new employee is assumed to have the same distribution as the households. The average roundtrip savings per employee is calculated to be 9.56 miles. The adjusted weekly reduction in VMT due to employment is therefore: 303 employees x 9.56 miles /trip x 5 trips /week = 11,945 miles /week saved. The annual reduction in VMT based on the number of household in 2010 is 4,105,824 miles if the proposed GMPA is approved and built. GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION The fleet fuel efficiency rate provided by Collier County Transportation Planning is 20.8 miles per gallon. Based on the reduction in VMT the volume of fuel conserved is 197,395 gallons in 2010. Collier County Transportation Planning also provided the rate of 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide produced per gallon of fuel burned. Based on the rate of carbon dioxide produced per gallon burned, 1,934 tons of GHG would be reduced if the GMP amendment was approved. It is important to note the amount of carbon dioxide produced will increase every year until build -out of Golden Gate Estates. At build -out a reduction of 4,161 tons of GHG per year will be eliminated. The chart below shows the reduction in carbon dioxide in 5 year increments through build -out. FUEL SAVINGS The average price of gasoline today is $2.71. The annual savings by consumers, assuming the GMP amendment is approved will be $2.71 x 197,395 gallons in 2010 = $534,942. Assuming the price of fuel never increases, the annual savings at build -out by consumers if this GMP amendment is approved will be $1,150,731. The chart below shows the reduction in consumer spending on fuel in 5 year increments through build -out. CONCLUSIONS The calculated annual reduction in Vehicle Mile Travel (VMT) for the proposed 2008 -1 GMP Amendment is 4,105,824 in 2010 and 8,832,117 by build -out. The calculated annual reduction in Greenhouse Gases is 1,934 tons in 2010 and 4,161 tons by build -out. The calculated annual savings to consumers due to reduced fuel consumption is $534,942 in 2010 and $1,150,731by build -out (in 2010 dollars and assuming the cost of fuel does not increase over time). L a doll L a Table of Contents 1.0 Economic Impact Analysis Overview ............................................... ............................... 3 2.0 Economic Impact Methodology 3 3.0 Construction Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 4.0 Operating Impacts ........................................................................... ............................... 6 5.0 Summary of Economic Impacts ....................................................... ............................... 7 Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 2 Commercial Needs Analysis 1.0 Economic Impact Analysis Overview Fishkind & Associates, Inc. conducted an analysis to determine the economic impacts of the construction and operations of the Golden Gate Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict located in Collier County. This study relies on data gathered from the following sources: Client Provided Project Data Consultant Estimated Construction Cost Data Regional Input- Output Modeling System (RIMS II) 2.0 Economic Impact Methodology A systematic analysis of state and local level economic impacts is essential for effective planning in the public- and private- sectors. In the 1970's the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) developed a method known as RIMS (Regional Input- Output Modeling System), which measures these economic impacts. The RIMS method utilizes 1 -0 (Input- Output) tables, the distribution of the inputs purchased and the outputs sold, to analyze these economic effects. In the 1980's BEA �-� completed an expanded update of RIMS which is now known as RIMS II (Regional Input- Output Modeling System). The regional multipliers presently found in a third edition of the BEA handbook reflect the most recent input - output data available. The Consultant uses RIMS 11 for this analysis. If the Project is approved and implemented, it will generate economic output from two separate sources: 1) Construction of the Project; and 2) The on -going operation of the Project (Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank) Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 3 Commercial Needs Analysis These two sources of economic output have unique RIMS II multipliers which assist in calculating the total direct and indirect economic impacts of the project. The table below shows the two categories of economic output as well as the multipliers associated with each category for Collier County. Tnhlc 1 RIMS II M iltinliPr-q Activity Type Final- demand multiplier Direct -effect multiplier Output (dollars) Column A Earnings (dollars) Column B Employment (jobs) Column C Earnings (dollars) Column D Employment (jobs) Column E Construction 2.0456 0.7044 21.5918 1.8371 1.9434 Retail 1.8689 1 0.6171 1 24.5830 1 1.7193 1.5220 Office 2.1526 1 0.8055 1 21.7569 1 1.7847 1 2.1797 source: Kravis n kKegionai input- uuiput ivioueung oybLum) The economic impacts identified here take the form of: • Output - value -added dollars and wage earnings spent and re -spent in the analysis area as a result of the project; • Earnings - wage earnings in the analysis area generated by employment associated directly and indirectly with the project; and • Employment - jobs created directly and indirectly in the analysis area as a result of the project. For both the construction and operational periods of the Project, there are direct and indirect economic impacts created. Direct economic benefits are the result of people purchasing goods or services from a business. For example, people shopping at the center create a direct impact on the economy. Indirect economic benefits are created by a `ripple effect' through the economy. For example, as more people shop at the center the center must purchase more from wholesalers who in turn hire additional salespeople, clerical workers, etc. These employees in turn purchase additional goods and services in the local community, thus further indirectly impacting the economy. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 4 Commercial Needs Analysis 3.0 Construction Impacts The economic impacts of construction take place during the construction period only. These impacts will cease after the construction term. Based on the volume of construction, the time frame of construction, and generally accepted guidelines for number of construction employees required per commercial square foot, the Consultant estimated the number of construction workers that will be required assuming the project is completed in the time frame of 1 year. The table below shows the number of units /square feet for each facet of construction as well as the annual number of employees for the year. Table 2. Construction Emplovment Generated by the Proiect Source: Fishkind and Associates, Inc. Utilizing the multipliers found in the Table 1, the Consultant was able to determine the economic output that will be generated by the construction of the Project. According to the methodology r outlined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the construction employees will be directly responsible for $14.9 - million in economic output. The formula for determining this output is listed below: Econ. Output = (# of Emp. / (Emp. Final, Column C / Emp. Direct, Column E)) * 1,000,000 The direct economic impacts of each phase of construction (described above) combined with the indirect economic impacts which ripple throughout the County are significant. The total economic output was calculated using the RIMS II multiplier system and includes the output, earnings, and employment associated with the construction of the Project. Table 3 below summarizes the results of the economic output analysis for the construction phase. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 5 Commercial Needs Analysis Construction Employment Units Year 1 Avg Ann. Retail (sqft) 195,000 154 154 Office (sqft) 15,000 12 12 Total 1 210,000 1 165 165 Source: Fishkind and Associates, Inc. Utilizing the multipliers found in the Table 1, the Consultant was able to determine the economic output that will be generated by the construction of the Project. According to the methodology r outlined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the construction employees will be directly responsible for $14.9 - million in economic output. The formula for determining this output is listed below: Econ. Output = (# of Emp. / (Emp. Final, Column C / Emp. Direct, Column E)) * 1,000,000 The direct economic impacts of each phase of construction (described above) combined with the indirect economic impacts which ripple throughout the County are significant. The total economic output was calculated using the RIMS II multiplier system and includes the output, earnings, and employment associated with the construction of the Project. Table 3 below summarizes the results of the economic output analysis for the construction phase. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 5 Commercial Needs Analysis r -ki„ 2 r1ii+nir4 fnr r:nnctriirtinn Activity Type Direct Impacts Direct and Indirect Impacts # of Emp. Retail Employment Output Output Earnings Employment 350 (jobs) (dollars) (dollars) (dollars) (jobs) Construction 165 $14,883,281 1 $30,445,240 $10,483,783 321 Source: rlsnKlno ano HssoaaieS, inc. anU M11VIO krXCyiUUai ii 1PUL- ULFUL IVI-1- 11 Y 4.0 Operating Impacts The Client plans to construct retail and office commercial uses. At build out, the Project will have generated 303 onsite employees. This is shown in Table 4 below. -r L,1 A i1 --f;m1 Gw, „1^ximnnf [ZQnpratprf by the Proiect Land Use Sgft Sgft/Employee # of Emp. Retail 195,000 750 260 Office 15,000 350 43 Total 210,000 n/a 303 aource. riSimmu a Y155U1.1alc0 Utilizing the multipliers found in Table 1, the Consultant was able to determine the annual economic output that is directly generated by the operation of the Project. According to the methodology outlined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the permanent employees generated by the Project will be directly responsible for $20.4 - million annually in economic output. The formula for determining this output is listed below: Econ. Output = (# of Emp. / (Emp. Final, Column C / Emp. Direct, Column E)) * 1,000,000 The direct economic impacts of the Project at build out (described above) combined with the indirect economic impacts which ripple throughout the County are significant. The total economic output was calculated using the RIMS II multiplier system and includes the output, earnings, and employment generated by the completed Project. Table 5 shows the results of the economic output analysis for the ongoing operations of the Project. C ;- rir i+v%i 4 fnr r)nnrnfinnC Activity Type . M~.vDirect Impacts Direct and Indirect Impacts Employment (jobs) Output (dollars) Output (dollars) Earnings (dollars) Employment (jobs) Retail 260 $16,097,303 $30,084,250 $9,933,646 396 Office 43 14 293,613 $9,242,432 $3,458,505 93 489 Total 303 $20,390,916 $39,326,682 $13,392,151 Jource: risnKMU anu H55UUld=C , iiw. 01 l nviv —I— Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 6 Commercial Needs Analysis 5.0 Summary of Economic Impacts The proposed Golden Gate Shopping Center Subdistrict is directly responsible for a level of economic output, earnings, and employees as well as indirectly responsible for additional output, earnings, and employees which has a ripple effect throughout the rest of the County. The total direct economic impact from the project is estimated at $14.9 - million annually during the construction period and $20.4 - million annually during the operating period. This figure is a function of the 165 construction employees and 303 permanent retail /office employees. It should be noted again, that the impacts of the construction will terminate upon project buildout. Therefore, the on -going direct economic impact will be $20.4 - million. In addition to the direct impacts, the project has an indirect ripple effect on the entire Collier County economy. In total the project will be directly and indirectly responsible for generating $30.5- million in economic output throughout the County during the construction period. Also during this period, it will create $10.5- million in earnings and be responsible for 321 employees throughout the County. Allowing for the temporary nature of the construction impacts, the on -going total economic output will be $39.3 - million, the on -going earnings will be $13.4 - million, and 303 permanent new jobs will be created, along with 186 additional jobs supported indirectly. Table 6 summarizes the total economic impact of the construction and operation of the project. Table 6. Summary of Project Economic Impacts Activity Type Direct Impacts Direct and Indirect Impacts Employment (jobs) Output (dollars) Output (dollars) Earnings (dollars) Employment (jobs) Construction iMpacts Construction 165 $14,883,281 $30,445,240 $10,483,783 321 Activity Type Direct Impacts Direct and Indirect Impacts Employment (jobs) Output (dollars) Output (dollars) Earnings (dollars) Employment Qobs) Permanent Impacts Retail 260 $16,097,303 $30,084,250 $9,933,646 396 Office 43 $4.293.613 $9.242,432 $3,458,505 93 Total 303 $20,390,916 $39,326,682—T $13,392,151 489 Source: Fishkind and Associates, Inc. and RIMS (Regional Input- Output Modeling System) Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 7 Commercial Needs Analysis ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT CP- 2008 -1 COMMUNITY SUPPORT PACKET BCC Transmittal Hearing January 19, 2010 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNITY SUPPORT PACKET ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD and WILSON BOULEVARD APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN PREPARED BY: COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH AND KOESTER, P.A. 4001 Tamaimi Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, Florida 34103 239.435.3535 239.435.1218 fax and Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134 239.947.1144 239.947.0375 fax GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED APRIL 2008 AMENDED APRIL 2009 AMENDED AUGUST 2009 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 2009 CP- 2008 -I Page 1 of 47 Estates Shopping Center Public Outreach The Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Comprehensive Plan amendment proposes to amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to permit a grocery store anchored shopping center to be developed on a 41 acre site near the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. The Subdistrict will permit a maximum of 225,000 square feet of commercial space, including a required full - service grocery store component and other uses commonly found in neighborhood and community commercial centers such as banks, restaurants and personal services. The grocery store will be a minimum of 27,000 square feet and be the first use to receive a certificate of occupancy. The site is central to the northern Golden Gate Estates area residential population, and is located near one of the most established intersections within Golden Gate Estates. This central location makes the site ideally situated to provide convenient shopping and service opportunities currently unavailable in this area of Golden Gate Estates. In addition, the proposed development intensity is approximately 5,500 square feet per acre which is less than the intensity of approximately 6,000 square feet per acre utilized by staff in its analysis for the current estates neighborhood centers and estates vacant designated commercial land. The property owner has worked hard to enlist the input of area residents in determining support for a shopping center and what uses are needed to serve the residents of the area. An extensive public outreach effort has occurred over the past two years in which the n application has been pending Board of County Commissioner review. The outreach effort has included mail surveys, extensive public meetings and focus group efforts. A summary of the community outreach effort is described below: • Focus Group Input ( November 2007) The Developer invited a number of area residents to participate in a focus group to share ideas on what types of uses would be well received in a shopping center at this location. The participants identified several land uses that were needed in their community such as grocery store, sit -down restaurant, hair salon, bank, etc. • Informal Meeting with Nearby Property Owners (January 15, 2008) • Golden Gate Estates Civic Association Meeting (January 16, 2008) • County NIM Meeting (February 19, 2008) At the February 19, 2008 NIM it was clear that there was a tremendous amount of misinformation pertaining to the project. In addition, at that NIM, the nearby residents requested that there be more details presented as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process. The Petitioner voluntarily withdrew Page 2 of 47 from the 2007 amendment cycle and resubmitted its petition as part of the 2008 amendment cycle. After the petition was resubmitted to the County as part of the 2008 cycle, the Petitioner then continued to present the petition and solicit information through public outreach. Results of the Fathom analysis and a more detailed comprehensive plan petition which included a conceptual master plan was presented to the public in many public information meetings. The process is outlined below. As a result of the out reach, the petition has become more detailed than is typically found in a comprehensive plan amendment. • Fathom Study Interviews (February 2 -5 and February 28/29,2008) 1.5 hour long interviews with project neighbors and area property owners to determine how a center should function and feel. • Mail Survey (March 4, 2008) A survey was prepared and mailed to more than 5,500 property owner is our defined market area, with a response rate of approximately 30 %. An independent accounting firm tabulated the results, in which 83% of the respondents indicated that they supported a community sized shopping center at this location. Respondents also indicated their preference for prospective tenants to include major grocer, post office, family restaurant, drug store, hardware store, and bank. • Immediate neighbors meeting (November 5, 2008) • General area meeting (November 13, 2008) • General area meeting in Spanish (November 20, 2008) • Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association meeting (January 21, 2009) • Collier County Fair, Community Outreach Booth (February 5-15,2009) • Homeowners Organization of Golden Gate Estates (February 25, 2009) • Collier Citizens News pa er independent poll (March 6, 2009) February 2"d thru March 6t , 2009, Yes or no For a 40 acre 225,000 sq. ft. shopping center at the NW corner of Wilson and Golden Gate Blvd. 2.365 total vote YES 65% NO 34% • County NIM (September 14, 2009) Page 3 of 47 • Meetings with representative of the First and Third group both prior to and after the September 14, 2009 NIM. Community Support The property owner has also solicited support for the proposed Estates Shopping Center comprehensive plan amendment by mailing to each property owner within our identified market trade area a letter requesting support for the project. To date, 1,838 letters supporting the shopping center have been returned to us from this initial mailing. Additional letters were signed and received at various community events such as the Collier County Fair. In total, 1,947 letters of support have been received. We have enclosed a representative sample letter, a CD which includes a copy of each returned letter of support, a spreadsheet identifying the name and address of each supporting letter, and a map identifying the location of each of the letters. Staff has indicated that the proposed plan amendment represents a departure from the resident's established vision for Golden Gate Estates, and that the vision can only be established through public input and a coordinated effort to insure that commercial centers are appropriately located. With over a dozen community meetings in which resident input has been provided, the Estates Shopping Center has established an unprecedented level of community input for a n privately initiated growth management plan amendment. In both mail and newspaper surveys of area residents, there is overwhelming support for a grocery store anchored shopping center at this central location within Golden Gate Estates. Staff has also noted that there are no other community commercial centers within Golden Gate Estates. Based on the community input there is clearly a demand for the proposed amendment, and the County through use of the Collier Interactive Growth Model has determined that there is no supply of this type of commercial within Golden Gate Estates. The Estates shopping center as proposed is a "community" sized center. The first certificate of occupancy will be for a grocery store that is at least 27,000 square feet in size. The comprehensive plan amendment proposes the uses requested by the Golden Gate Estates residents. In addition, the Petitioner has included a conceptual master plan that assures compatibility with surrounding neighbors and compatibility with the Golden Gate Estates community. Finally, the Petitioner is in the process of preparing a petition for PUD zoning on the property that will be processed concurrently with the comprehensive plan amendment. The proposed PUD further assures that the project is compatible with the immediate neighbors and the Golden Gate Estates community. Page 4 of 47 PACKET 1 RESIDENT NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP PHONE # 1 Adam and Amy Reynolds 1301st Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393527570 2 Robert and Bianca Long 1601st Street NW Naples FL 34120 2397841873 3 Leslie Perez 171 1st Street NW Naples FL 34120 2395959610 4 Scott Meadows 181 1st Street NW Naples FL 34120 2392180329 5 Vicente Camacho 2201st Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393532548 6 Sharon Waterson 221 1st Street NW Naples FL 34120 2392730601 7 Betty Smoot 2301st Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393530037 8 JoAnne Baker 3401st Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393548096 9 Joseph Figga 4101st Street NW Naples FL 34120 2394557910 10 Francisco Valerno 4301st Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393317176 11 Rachel McCrary 841 1st Street NW Naples FL 34120 2394552877 12 Juan Sanchez 91 3rd Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393482454 13 Luis and Maria Rivas 160 3rd Street NW Naples FL 34120 14 James and Amy Piechocki 170 3rd Street NW Naples FL 34120 15 Ken Langford 230 3rd Street NW Naples FL 34120 2394554673 16 Pat Barth 420 3rd Street NW Naples FL 34120 2394553305 17 Mario and Lillian Lozano 490 3rd Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393483340 18 Joseph Short 660 3rd Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393537515 19 Vilma Garcia 661 3rd Street NW Naples FL 34120 2396926266 20 Ruth Schmit 120 Golden Gate Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 2392611369 21 Michael Malay 130 Golden Gate Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 22 Sandy Steinheiser 130 Golden Gate Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 23 Estella Medina 140 Golden Gate Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 2392807409 24 Gerald Swales 321 Golden Gate Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 25 Scott Falcone 331 Golden Gate Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 26 Jose and Geraldine Conde 371 Golden Gate Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 27 Guillermo Pena 411 Golden Gate Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 28 Guillermo Pena 391 Golden Gate Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 29 Carleton Tapley 444 Golden Gate Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 2394555620 30 AJ Arguello 450 Golden Gate Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 2396926706 31 Almermora Toro 470 Golden Gate Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 2392003736 32 Carlos Martinez 771 Golden Gate Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 2393542797 33 Joy Anderson 91 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2394040364 34 T. Robert Lopez 121 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2392538460 35 Barbara Rowan 1101st Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394046654 36 Yolanda Mayo 121 1st Street SW Naples FL 34117 2396920561 37 Becky Alzamora 131 1st Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393535970 38 Aurelio Pelier 141 1st Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393528204 39 Travis Morgan 170 1st Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394551065 40 Peter Hablutzel 241 1st Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394551382 41 Magaly Santana 275 1st Street SW Naples FL 34117 2398252308 42 Lisa Malone 325 1st Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394552616 43 Kenneth Oppie 375 1st Street SW Naples FL 34117 44 Richard Berman 541 1st Street SW Naples FL 34117 2396828393 45 Seafood Christian 570 1st Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394658770 Page 5 of 47 PACKET 1 46 Berne Alexis 581 1st Street SW Naples FL 34117 47 Mary Ann Cook 611 1st Street SW Naples FL 34117 48 M. Anderson 7301st Street SW Naples FL 34117 49 Lawrence Rioux 760 1st Street SW Naples FL 34117 50 James D'Agata, Jr. 771 1st Street SW Naples FL 34117 51 John Trapani 831 1st Street SW Naples FL 34117 52 Juvencio Nicolas 104 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 53 Syda Delgado 210 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 54 Yusimi Valencia 220 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 55 R. Campins 240 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 56 Kathleen Miller 260 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 57 Junette Accime 340 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 58 Nancy Pullen 381 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 59 Grady Harrison 441 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 60 Aida Sola 490 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 61 Michael Stallsworth 470 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 62 Tammy Gainey 510 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 63 Judith Montgomery 570 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 64 Patrice Dalton 621 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 65 Vicki Grieser 621 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 66 Sherman Breefore 621 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 67 Martha Balliache 690 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 68 Carol Scott 760 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 69 Mildred Sullivan 780 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 70 Ron Maglothin 791 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 71 Meliza Terrero 840 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 72 Natalie Risden 841 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 73 Manuel Terrero 840 3rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 74 James Ashness 170 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 75 Leslie Pelaez 171 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 76 John Greaves, Jr. 190 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 77 Valentin Ayala, Jr. 321 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 78 Marina Guzman 360 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 79 Pauline Figga, Sr. 411 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 80 Luisa Tamayo 460 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 81 Dany Thuman 470 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 82 Domenick D'Alterio 500 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 83 Audrey Thomas 560 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 84 Jeanne Ann Murray 671 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 85 Maria Gonzalez 710 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 86 Kenneth O'Neil 875 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 87 Deborah Bator 991 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 88 Jose and Isabel Perez 110 Wilson Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 89 Bernice Rowley 186 Wilson Blvd. 5 Naples FL 34117 90 Warnell Ogden 271 Wilson Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 91 Taril Bruce Sims 360 Wilson Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2393532106 2393543019 2395303294 2393538553 2394049054 4403760035 2394624417 2393538374 2393528989 2396016460 2394552695 2398600117 9546056309 2396591672 2393538254 2393520465 2394556900 2393521091 2394556900 2394555946 2395959610 2393528771 2393530743 2393493449 2394557910 2393524432 2396929162 2394556006 2398257488 2393314569 2394385835 2397759702 2393488589 2393487087 Page 6 of 47 PACKET 1 92 Bruce Sims 380 Wilson Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 93 Evelyn Burrell 430 Wilson Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 94 Robert Meneley 440 Wilson Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 95 Henry and Denise Fernandez 521 Wilson Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 96 Dan and Julie Zalimer 581 Wilson Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 97 James and Jamie Baker 810 Wilson Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 98 Maria Slenkai 835 Wilson Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 99 John Donovan 840 Wilson Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2393487087 2394306085 2393047520 2396929904 2392533586 2392533586 Page 7 of 47 PACKET 2 RESIDENT NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP PHONE # 1 Jesus Sanchez 160 5th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2392534406 2 Charles Goodacre 1915th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393530886 3 Rosalinda Blankenship 210 5th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394556940 4 Cayman Warrington 230 5th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394657214 5 Sam Ripoli 340 5th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2392902353 6 Jon Anglin 390 5th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394553391 7 Louise Smith 425 5th Street SW Naples FL 34117 8 Angela Henderson 440 5th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393318415 9 Matthew Collier 460 5th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394655064 10 Teresa Hammons 490 5th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394553370 11 Ibrahim Imbrahim 510 5th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393524427 12 Yolanda Santana 5615th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393537011 13 Christina Lozano 6115th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394652147 14 Jay Bonard 675 5th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393542136 15 Shane Tilley 720 5th Street SW Naples FL 34117 16 W. Fred Rump 730 5th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2397757838 17 Alice Roth 740 5th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393983944 18 Maco Touchet 790 5th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394553584 19 Dagmar Regel 810 5th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394552598 20 Diana and Jeff Jones 216 5th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2394340091 21 Julie Roy 2415th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2396013174 22 Linda Nolan 2815th Street NW Naples FL 34120 23 Lee Land 4115th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2394552408 24 Monica Prieto 520 5th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2392628234 25 Rick Compton 525 5th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393520981 26 Carl Schumann 540 5th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393525276 27 Jacob Fischer 595 5th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2394556656 28 Thomas Adams 6115th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393541588 29 Raudel Hernandez 680 5th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393482836 30 Fred and Monica Rump 730 5th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2397757838 31 Vivian Randall 7415th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2392061972 32 Luis Espino 7615th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2395952368 33 Stephen Harrison 880 5th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2398215180 34 Magaly Saggio 1117th Street NW Naples FL 34120 35 Kris Richard 130 7th Street NW Naples FL 34120 36 Frank Gonzalez 1617th Street NW Naples FL 34120 37 Randall Mohr 2617th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2394386778 38 Kelly Smith 2917th Street NW Naples FL 34120 39 Valerie Hayri 4317th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393520868 40 Debra Manefield 460 7th Street NW Naples FL 34120 41 Leslie Figuekoa 560 7th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393524393 42 Denise Brimmee 5617th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393543224 43 Norma Martin 7117th Street NW Naples FL 34120 7867152464 44 Paul and Deborah Rompot 7617th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2397747050 45 Sandra Murray 8117th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393045420 46 Sandi Chernoff 840 7th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393483171 Page 8 of 47 lel�, PACKET 2 47 Joy Woods 1017th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393525257 48 Lomry Moore 120 7th Street SW Naples FL 34117 49 Laura Goodknight 1617th Street SW Naples FL 34117 50 Barbara Hernandez 2117th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393527631 51 Mark and Sarah Poteet 2417th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393521836 52 Liliana Garcia 270 7th Street SW Naples FL 34117 53 Monica Padilla 280 7th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394552815 54 David Clarkson 260 7th Street SW Naples FL 34117 55 Rick Mercer 385 7th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393532905 56 Roberto Perez 4217th Street SW Naples FL 34117 57 Dave Schaner 470 7th Street SW Naples FL 34117 58 Maria Gonzalez 538 7th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2396017290 59 Norberto DeArmos 540 7th Street SW Naples FL 34117 60 Jon Fiori 610 7th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394629268 61 Evidio Gueuara 6217th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394552950 62 Brian Stafford 6717th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393483700 63 Cherylann Amodeo 230 7th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2392729714 64 James Warner 740 7th Street SW Naples FL 34117 65 Cheryl VonGeldo 760 7th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393535713 66 K Duggan 770 7th Street SW Naples FL 34117 67 Brian Coleman 7317th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2392131246 68 Janine Dettbarn 7217th Street SW Naples FL 34117 69 Craig Mason 7817th Street SW Naples FL 34117 70 Dave Alexander 120 9th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393534955 71 Randy Riordin 160 9th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2398601077 72 David and Janice Harper 170 9th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394655200 73 Joanne Keys 2219th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2392728353 74 Guelys Hernandez 260 9th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393526725 75 Sandra Wirt 280 9th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2397847308 76 Shyrie Ferminen 320 9th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393482752 77 Michael Reynolds 460 9th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2398253448 78 Jayne Erickson 495 9th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393520391 79 Patricia Utsher 499 9th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2397757079 80 Mike and Lonna Santiago 6219th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2395957620 81 Charles Holliday 680 9th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394175150 82 Kathy Bartalin 7119th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393521830 83 Richard and Julie Hamilton 7719th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394553950 84 Louis LaFemina, Jr. 340 9th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2393981017 85 Ashley Reites 3719th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2395953432 86 Curtis Boyatt 145 9th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2394650262 87 Michael and Jane Rice 162 9th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393525332 88 Alberto Fajardo 1719th Street NW Naples FL 34120 89 Mark and Elizabeth Poole 240 9th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393045200 90 Robert Windusch 340 9th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393537821 91 Michelle Nash 3619th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2394557052 92 Mark and Conny Kennedy 440 9th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2392489471 93 R. Miller 490 9th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393532835 Page 9 of 47 PACKET 2 94 Kevin Smitz 510 9th Street NW Naples FL 34120 95 Cindy Titus 5919th Street NW Naples FL 34120 96 Tammy Canealosa 610 9th Street NW Naples FL 34120 97 Elizabeth Mulco 7119th Street NW Naples FL 34120 98 Lora Skinner 765 9th Street NW Naples FL 34120 99 David and Patricia Deberaidis, Sr. 11011th Street SW Naples FL 34117 100 Bridget Doria 23011th Street SW Naples FL 34117 101 Jack Piper 23511th Street SW Naples FL 34117 102 Janis and Larry Tolley 33011th Street SW Naples FL 34117 103 Diego Palacio 35111th Street SW Naples FL 34117 104 Juan Suariez 34111th Street SW Naples FL 34117 105 Brian and Virginia Caron 355 11th Street SW Naples FL 34117 106 Jason Gzay 411 11th Street SW Naples FL 34117 107 Dania Sosa 43011th Street SW Naples FL 34117 108 Joseph Steves 54111th Street SW Naples FL 34117 109 Helene Heaton 56011th Street SW Naples FL 34117 110 Charles Yates 561 11th Street SW Naples FL 34117 111 Frank Pardze 62011th Street SW Naples FL 34117 112 Geoffrey Yergey 66011th Street SW Naples FL 34117 113 Synra Gutienez 621 11th Street SW Naples FL 34117 114 Linda Puchhas 66111th Street SW Naples FL 34117 115 James Clifford 73011th Street SW Naples FL 34117 116 Jorge Quinones 78011th Street SW Naples FL 34117 117 Jeff and Linda Zokan 781 11th Street SW Naples FL 34117 118 Lugo Gomez 137011th Street SW Naples FL 34117 119 Mary Terrell 123011th Street SW Naples FL 34117 120 Kenyon Egbert 1131 11th Street SW Naples FL 34117 121 Esmeralda Alvarado 139111th Street SW Naples FL 34117 122 Merritt Reed 10111th Street NW Naples FL 34120 123 Robert and Marjorie Erickson 181 11th Street NW Naples FL 34120 124 David and Susan Martinsen 35011th Street NW Naples FL 34120 125 Joe Cordera 37511th Street NW Naples FL 34120 126 Ernesto and Megan Rubin 79111th Street NW Naples FL 34120 127 Richard and Stacee Burton 68511th Street NW Naples FL 34120 Total Sheets 1- 2 226 2393534498 2394553592 2392899416 2392487839 9088132838 2394554002 2398254010 2394555953 2394553982 2393536424 2393483267 2394551719 2397758931 2397935135 2392986483 2394558362 2393481027 2393531220 2393527906 2392983186 2394559181 2393539201 2397747101 2393700078 2392539234 2394559869 2393482697 2393489713 2398252202 Page 10 of 47 PACKET 3 RESIDENT NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP PHONE # 1 Kim Deberardis 130 2nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393520582 2 Richard and Patricia Becker 521 2nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393536472 3 Juan and Daria Rodriguez 810 2nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 4 James Ito 715 2nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393521293 5 Luis and Celida Trujillo 770 2nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393536580 6 Alex Vienna 2670 2nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 2397772585 7 Michael and Deborah Heisey 140 2nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394342986 8 Robert Siwals 170 2nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393530899 9 Juan Gonzalez 191 2nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 2392537211 10 Carlos Santiago 440 2nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 2397775656 11 Iraida Castano 461 2nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393257189 12 Luis and Yania Sanchez 481 2nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393522700 13 Joseph and France Amell, Jr. 631 2nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393045485 14 Kenneth Parker 810 2nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 2395959600 15 Thomas and Roxana Walsh 820 2nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393540159 16 Mike Longo 840 2nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394554686 17 Jesse Olsovsky 2431 2nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 18 Todd and Lori Lainhart 2531 2nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394559144 19 Maria Rakes 2820 2nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 20 Janet MacLaverty 210 4th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393489551 21 Kristina Gentile 4914th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2392936163 22 Bobby and Leigh Jones 510 4th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393536882 23 Leonardo Pace 5814th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393529654 24 Jack Craft, III 680 4th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394385056 25 John Venuto 6914th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2392983136 26 Jack Craft, Jr. 700 4th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394553327 27 Clare Lewis 7414th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393537298 28 Timothy and Deborah Reynolds 780 4th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394558797 29 Chris and Leticia Trejo 810 4th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2399190861 30 Eddie Frost 28214th Street NE Naples FL 34120 31 Rodrigo Morales 1414th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2392489527 32 Charles and Edith Phillips 160 4th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393529325 33 Donna Eiswerth 310 4th Street SE Naples FL 34117 34 Mary Shipman 3304th Street SE Naples FL 34117 35 Gina Dake 3314th Street SE Naples FL 34117 36 Michael Castro 390 4th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394553793 37 Mary Johnson 410 4th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394552045 38 Herbert and Joy Wright 490 4th Street SE Naples FL 34117 39 Juan Medina 620 4th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2395713506 40 Luis and Ivette Monroig 6214th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393537437 41 Miguel Garcia 8414th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2397750211 42 Georgette Butcher 1116th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2397779994 43 Patricia Harbester 190 6th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393041438 44 Rick Ingle 2316th Street NE Naples FL 34120 45 Jon Stephens 260 6th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393539399 46 Oscar Williams, Jr. 340 6th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393529848 47 Daniel Matton 390 6th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393525507 48 Edward Frick 410 6th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393480388 Page 11 of 47 PACKET 3 49 David and Courtnay Newransky 5316th Street NE Naples FL 34120 50 Norbert Ward 590 6th Street NE Naples FL 34120 51 Efrain and Pallas Diaz 5916th Street NE Naples FL 34120 52 Kenneth and Kelly Geiger, Jr. 640 6th Street NE Naples FL 34120 53 Alexander and Jenny Zorilla 6616th Street NE Naples FL 34120 54 George Hurst 7316th Street NE Naples FL 34120 55 William Mejia 6816th Street NE Naples FL 34120 56 Soyla Rausch 730 6th Street NE Naples FL 34120 57 Brianne Hibbans 7916th Street NE Naples FL 34120 58 Patrick and Cindy Murray 870 6th Street NE Naples FL 34120 59 Josefina and Sidronio Lopez 110 6th Street SE Naples FL 34117 60 Maria Zavala 110 6th Street SE Naples FL 34117 61 Paul Schoeninger 131 6th Street SE Naples FL 34117 62 Cynthia Crouse 171 6th Street SE Naples FL 34117 63 Manuel Rodriguez 240 6th Street SE Naples FL 34117 64 Salusyiano Rives 310 6th Street SE Naples FL 34117 65 Trina Cooper 341 6th Street SE Naples FL 34117 66 Tim Lynch 3416th Street SE Naples FL 34117 67 Stacy May 410 6th Street SE Naples FL 34117 68 Roberto and Trinidad Santana 440 6th Street SE Naples FL 34117 69 Otto and Wilma Lchachmer 470 6th Street SE Naples FL 34117 70 Kenneth and Debra Sarrio 660 6th Street SE Naples FL 34117 71 Marc and Rachel Shea 6616th Street SE Naples FL 34117 72 Alfredo Villagomez 7116th Street SE Naples FL 34117 73 Luis Artenga 775 6th Street SE Naples FL 34117 74 Thomas Roe 130 8th Street SE Naples FL 34117 75 Edmund Chandler 1818th Street SE Naples FL 34117 76 Robert Hubing 220 8th Street SE Naples FL 34117 77 Mary Verro 240 8th Street SE Naples FL 34117 78 Vincent Barbera 2418th Street SE Naples FL 34117 79 Alexandra Perez 260 8th Street SE Naples FL 34117 80 Jose Perez 280 8th Street SE Naples FL 34117 81 Denise Belyea 430 8th Street SE Naples FL 34117 82 Fred and Tina Ottman 4918th Street SE Naples FL 34117 83 Maxine Bailey 520 8th Street SE Naples FL 34117 84 Diana Ortiz 5618th Street SE Naples FL 34117 85 Liz Lister 610 8th Street SE Naples FL 34117 86 Robert Van Hullo 6118th Street SE Naples FL 34117 87 Michael Fraire 730 8th Street SE Naples FL 34117 88 Damir Akhoundon 755 8th Street SE Naples FL 34117 89 Gary Guerrero, Sr. 775 8th Street SE Naples FL 34117 90 Anne - Lieee Heinichen 755 8th Street SE Naples FL 34117 91 William Gurley 810 8th Street SE Naples FL 34117 92 Mark and Debbie Van Prooyen 8218th Street SE Naples FL 34117 93 Parambil Mathew 830 8th Street SE Naples FL 34117 94 Willy Metayer 8318th Street SE Naples FL 34117 95 Amy Pile 8418th Street SE Naples FL 34117 96 Clara Chavarro 910 8th Street SE Naples FL 34117 97 Jamie Caldwell 16218th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2396928601 2392625878 2393539271 2393042316 2395374584 2396815046 2393538242 2394035490 2397742545 2392346890 2394558254 2393524131 2393487835 2393537575 2393528424 2393540863 2393045488 2393534795 2393527781 2393537247 2398252836 2392890958 5134600807 2392539711 2394550296 2396011971 2393533306 9545934963 2393318450 2393481222 2394554622 2393044422 2393981248 2394559316 3053946166 2393487726 2393529951 2394558127 2398215218 2394557588 3053957719 2394043760 Page 12 of 47 nag AO-11 eo--- PACKET 3 98 Juan Navarro 102 8th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393040201 99 Paula Gustavo 104 8th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393532021 100 Virginia Ruiz 130 8th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393533271 101 Beatriz and Renier Rodriguez 1418th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393482486 102 Arbedio Rives 2318th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2396925910 103 Debra Berry 490 8th Street NE Naples FL 34120 104 David and Theresa Thompson 540 8th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393314795 105 Timothy Willis 4818th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393530222 106 Gardine and Susan Betts 770 8th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2395951004 107 Kathy Johnson 780 8th Street NE Naples FL 34120 108 Jacob and Katie Flicker 8318th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394552356 109 Peter and Mildred Williams 840 8th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393042817 110 Belkis Casas 1840 8th Street NE Naples FL 34120 111 Richard Eckstein 25418th Street NE Naples FL 34120 23292494475 112 Maria Cox 23718th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393488978 113 Michelle Bigelow 4860 8th Street NE Naples FL 34120 114 William Sherwood 109 10th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394552296 115 Timothy Stern 130 10th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394042749 116 Diovanys Hernandez 171 10th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2392898296 117 Eugen Naum 190 10th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393535662 118 Raymond Conrad 221 10th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393522833 119 Carl and Karen Shepard 290 10th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393531396 120 Ellen Mendo 341 10th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393526324 121 Jennifer Hubbell 381 10th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393314705 122 Melanie Bocock 420 10th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394552500 123 Jenna Large and Sean Sims 560 10th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393530644 124 Dennis and Nancy Large 560 10th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393530644 125 Jesse Smith 630 10th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394556779 126 Stefan Mende 640 10th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394042268 127 Carlos and Lenia Sardinas 810 10th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393535849 128 Nesther Valiente 811 10th Street NE Naples FL 34120 129 Orlando Rodriguez 840 10th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2392893881 130 Mark Thieme 18010th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393528788 131 Kara Souza 210 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393482626 132 Kenneth Owens, Jr. 221 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393489442 133 Jack and Barbara Hogue 23010th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394553760 134 Jeffrey and Joanne Snyder 310 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2399611189 135 Parker Fausnight 311 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2396437302 136 Joanne Tirnk 311 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393986380 137 Elizabeth Bellaris 340 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393529001 138 Kirk and Laura Fernald 461 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393535134 139 Coretchen Moen 390 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2398618688 140 Galo and Jennifer Ordanez 391 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2392904791 141 Jamie luderman 542 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394557628 142 Florencio Andrade 550 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394382040 143 Hector and Maria Herrera 560 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393526301 144 Charles Montgomery 580 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393532105 145 Emily Longworth 711 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 146 Sadie Grace 711 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2397843020 Page 13 of 47 PACKET 3 147 Richard and Terri Dubrueler 811 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394557425 148 Josue and Sara Gonzalez 831 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393537614 149 Suzanne Bartolatto 911 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393480451 150 Timothy Hicts 107 12th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2392892029 151 Nancy Carter 13012th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393041619 152 Irvine Baez 129 12th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2397323036 153 Kevin Miller 18012th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2392001832 154 Donna Spohter 191 12th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2396010339 155 Vandee Boyatt 245 12th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393530177 156 William Lawrence 281 12th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393042711 157 Joel Barrio 36012th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394552959 158 Richard Graham 43012th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394044821 159 Diane Eager 441 12th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393049850 160 Thomas and Justina Allen 460 12th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393537276 161 Raul Menendez 52012th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393534779 162 Maryanis Sotolongo 53012th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393526254 163 Marie Crevecoear 570 12th Street NE Naples FL 34120 164 Hazel Durety 571 12th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394550826 165 David Bowman 590 12th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394307293 166 Ralph Anthony 661 12th Street NE Naples FL 34120 167 Charles and Victoria Cassin 731 12th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394552712 168 Gayle Aull 810 12th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393538772 169 Bryan Bo 811 12th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2398214085 170 Karen and Greg Martsolf 830 12th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393480703 171 Earl and Marcia Nass 126 12th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2395710943 172 Paul Murphy 160 12th Street SE Naples FL 34117 173 Todd Watkins 191 12th Street SE Naples FL 34117 174 Brian and Victoria Hughes 31012th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2392891047 175 Nayris De La Torres 311 12th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394380081 176 Janet Stocker 790 12th Street SE Naples FL 34117 177 Josh and Melanie Norris 79012th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393040620 178 Jose Valarez 829 12th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394510411 179 Rodger Tobey 13012th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393543399 180 Deborah Kennedy and Anna Kobus 281 12th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2392346595 181 Brian Hicks 56012th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2395952628 182 Frank Richard and Debra Good 571 12th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2396432218 183 William and Celine Emerson 761 12th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2392070724 184 Mario and Rene Fernandez 910 12th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2392898718 185 Michael and Tersa Dent 225 12th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394558276 186 Kevin Schoh 13014th Street SE Naples FL 34117 187 Bruno and Vereonika Bustamante 189 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2398776267 188 Scott Perez 811 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393531185 189 Victor Ira 581 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 190 Mario Zapata 48014th Street SE Naples FL 34117 3059783155 191 Ralph and Wilma Balzarano 781 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394551231 192 Elvin Cornit 86914th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393483558 193 Walter and Regina Ignell 235 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393538468 194 Rochelle Mathis 931 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 195 Benjamin and Cynthia Kurke 140 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393535905 Page 14 of 47 �1 /0—*'� PACKET 3 196 Douglas Jones 26014th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394347306 197 Juan Palacios 511 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2398777229 198 Tina Spergei and Lawrence Reich 690 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2398963858 199 Jeffrey Perkins 74014th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2398105562 200 George Williams 171 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393312995 201 Pedro and Mariam Padillo 780 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393487311 202 Philip and Mariamma Samuel 87014th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393312281 203 Paulette Jones 411 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394559962 204 Rusty Williams, Sr. 171 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 205 David Silm 111 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393483283 206 Todd Sanneiz 131 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 207 Patricia Verellen 181 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393529937 208 Jane Thompson 190 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394555115 209 Luis Medina 410 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2398251045 210 Russell Jarchon 561 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2396432149 211 Theresa Scheller 660 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2392481239 212 Tom Haskins 68014th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394037150 213 Mr. and Mrs. Padillo 78014th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393487311 214 Keith Walker 881 14th Street SE Naples FL 34117 5122154207 215 Juan Tryillo 270 14th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2396928355 216 Nancy Frye 361 14th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2397770015 217 Linda Dafcilo 34014th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2397745588 218 Joe and Gloria Guzman 281 14th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394551716 219 Zayli Perez 49014th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2392008224 220 Luisa and Rodolfo Ortiz 611 14th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393528714 221 Glenn Duryea 36014th Street NE Naples FL 34120 222 Ashley Stalling, III 540 14th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393529491 223 Richard Bowen 641 14th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394948240 224 Heather Knight 43014th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393533805 225 Anthony Forster 44414th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2392611776 226 Jorge Vazquez 621 14th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2392072047 227 Mark and Erica Fields 891 14th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393040464 228 Juan and Sandra Sanchez 91414th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393041575 229 Pedro Roa 110 14th Street NE Naples FL 34120 230 Gerald Batten 210 14th Street NE Naples FL 34120 231 Joe Guzman 281 14th Street NE Naples FL 34120 232 Reynolto Woodward 591 14th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2396879776 233 Renee Sosbe 79014th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393521122 234 Brenda Bayrd 38114th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2397938927 235 Robert Elliott 109 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393520620 236 Binsworth and Merle Robinson 11016th Street SE Naples FL 34117 237 Debra Van Gelder 190 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 238 Joseph and Roxanna Hicks 191 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393482157 239 David and Jerrie Whitford 241 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2398779347 240 Ariel and Gloria Reyes 321 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393538565 241 Renier Nuno 330 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2398604102 242 Michael Sooley 341 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393533397 243 Gary and Lawana Zielinski 381 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394557436 244 Onel Gort 421 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393540530 Page 15 of 47 PACKET 3 245 Leonela Morales 44016th Street SE Naples FL 34117 246 Anita Tuapola 48016th Street SE Naples FL 34117 247 Dillia Camacho 54016th Street SE Naples FL 34117 248 Victor Molina 57016th Street SE Naples FL 34117 249 Gabriel Noyole 580 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 250 Louis Tintodonalo 61016th Street SE Naples FL 34117 251 Lilla Chastain 620 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 252 Randy and Pamela Garrett 631 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 253 Rodney and Beverly Foytik 581 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 254 Nakia Thomas 630 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 255 Jean Augustin 630 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 256 Pam Jones 630 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 257 Ernesto Scerpella 640 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 258 Luis Castro 660 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 259 Deborah Gonez 661 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 260 Allan Griff 67016th Street SE Naples FL 34117 261 E.J. Borg 681 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 262 Joseph Ritondaro 741 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 263 Margaret Bush 721 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 264 Ragie Lamgur 780 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 265 Julina Dirudonne 78016th Street SE Naples FL 34117 266 Jhamson Lamgur 780 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 267 David Fracasso 781 16th Street SE Naples FL 34117 268 Ramiro Garcia 79016th Street SE Naples FL 34117 269 Patricia Mosher 83016th Street SE Naples FL 34117 270 Jorge and Mercedes Puente 93016th Street SE Naples FL 34117 271 Arlain and Yolanda Fuentes 87016th Street SE Naples FL 34117 272 Camilo Puente 94016th Street SE Naples FL 34117 273 Dale and Freda Williams 109 16th Street NE Naples FL 34120 274 Angelic Squirewell 109 16th Street NE Naples FL 34120 275 William Preston 11016th Street NE Naples FL 34120 276 Barry Smith 121 16th Street NE Naples FL 34120 277 A.J. Martin 14016th Street NE Naples FL 34120 278 John Kinder 181 16th Street NE Naples FL 34120 279 Freddy Mejia 21016th Street NE Naples FL 34120 280 Teresa Kidder 22616th Street NE Naples FL 34120 281 Mejia and Myriam Freddy 21016th Street NE Naples FL 34120 282 Mirlam Vaquez 261 16th Street NE Naples FL 34120 283 Jose and Elba Olivera 271 16th Street NE Naples FL 34120 284 H. and Margareta Machin 291 16th Street NE Naples FL 34120 285 Claudia Moreno 46016th Street NE Naples FL 34120 286 Thomas Tunney 611 16th Street NE Naples FL 34120 287 Marty and Theresa Moore 641 16th Street NE Naples FL 34120 288 Hilda and Nathanael Peguero 83016th Street NE Naples FL 34120 289 Noel Gonzalez 42016th Street NE Naples FL 34120 290 Robert Silva 521 16th Street NE Naples FL 34120 291 David Krawic 13118th Street SE Naples FL 34117 292 Donna Furlani 211 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 293 Kizzi Schank 271 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393040189 2393535968 2393531380 2393542473 2394557028 2393480495 2393526226 2393528999 2392000782 2392724158 2393041614 2393489484 2394388695 2393520248 2395377747 2394551693 2392346071 2392346021 2395378408 2398258087 2393539491 2393522109 2393537985 2394554379 2393529061 2396928790 2395379105 2393542092 2392983455 2393543333 2399945503 2393541922 2393539326 2393541922 2392434016 2395710668 2394554046 2395807271 2393481426 2393537538 2392007487 2393520599 2394171045 2393480376 2393534842 Page 16 of 47 PACKET 3 294 Colleen Laurich 235 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393542420 295 Philipp Sanford 29018th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393535690 296 benjamin Carosella 321 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393540950 297 Carlos and Dorothy Quiles 310 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394554423 298 Timothy Dzoba 331 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394551868 299 Vincent and Rosemarie King 360 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393525999 300 Russell and Michelle Ueeck 420 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393534308 301 Joseph and Lynn Delaney 460 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2396928874 302 Alejandro and Marceia Sandoval 410 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 303 Petra Gustkey 480 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 304 Barbara Cassin 470 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 305 Hilarry Mills 510 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2392893714 306 Daniel Michigan 520 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 307 James Riner, If 511 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2392890748 308 Jessica Riner 511 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393488845 309 Jennifer Lambert 53018th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393541226 310 George Aderson 561 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2395950695 311 Jeffrey and Lynda Rawlett 581 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393522002 312 Jacek and Agnieszka Tokarz 591 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2397753672 313 Bobbi Castrop 620 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 314 Christina Lopez 611 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393042221 315 Morgan Rogers 621 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2392535001 316 Wilmer Valladares 641 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393537638 317 Juan Valle 661 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393046073 318 Candace Zigler 789 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393480044 319 William McGreevy 83018th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394559819 320 Belinda Scott 811 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2399892728 321 Barbara Platt 880 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393521650 322 Russell Godette 881 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393526571 323 Carolyn Shepherd 921 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393521901 324 Joel Diaz 941 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393986740 325 Monila Rodriguez 941 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393986741 326 Carlo Geratossio 920 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2394554184 327 Eugene and Veronica Keene 85018th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2395714809 328 Anthony and Janet Snyder 811 18th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393520848 329 Nery Moise 71018th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393543514 330 James Eichelberger 540 18th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393524629 331 Donald Ward 171 18th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393545611 332 Henry and Maria Auila 221 18th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394550509 333 Lino Oropesa 371 18th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2392002621 334 Jeremy Bowles 421 18th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394550609 335 David Sheppard 591 18th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2392500282 336 Allen McCormick 111 18th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393483932 337 Larry Muirhead, II 791 18th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2398257115 338 Lina Oropesa 371 18th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2394550321 339 Guillermo Gomez 771 18th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393487857 340 William Watson 670 18th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2392931966 341 Juanita Morillo 491 18th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393044510 342 Judith Millroy 841 18th Street NE Naples FL 34120 2393525546 Page 17 of 47 PACKET 3 343 Sherri Chapman 434518th Street NE Naples FL 34120 344 Kathleen Martinson 14120th Street SE Naples FL 34117 345 Danielle Dwille 16120th Street SE Naples FL 34117 346 Judy Nelson 260 20th Street SE Naples FL 34117 347 James and Christine Schott 34120th Street SE Naples FL 34117 348 Marsla and Matthew O'Neill 391 20th Street SE Naples FL 34117 349 Darby McSorley 430 20th Street SE Naples FL 34117 350 James Camacho 430 20th Street SE Naples FL 34117 351 Jessica Camacho 430 20th Street SE Naples FL 34117 352 Richard Van Tol, Sr. 480 20th Street SE Naples FL 34117 353 Rodger and Diane Nelson 310 20th Street SE Naples FL 34117 354 Martha Soler 510 20th Street SE Naples FL 34117 355 Thad and Toni Rhodes 511 20th Street SE Naples FL 34117 356 Terri Harris and Michael Taivarski 540 20th Street SE Naples FL 34117 357 Ricardo Cabresa 570 20th Street SE Naples FL 34117 358 Elizabeth Carr 611 20th Street SE Naples FL 34117 359 Robin Barbera 63120th Street SE Naples FL 34117 360 Modesto Rodriguez 720 20th Street SE Naples FL 34117 361 Rafael and Sonia Perez 780 20th Street SE Naples FL 34117 362 Thomas and Diane Brooks 920 20th Street SE Naples FL 34117 363 Ronald Jogee 985 20th Street SE Naples FL 34117 364 Manuel Ynestroza 130 20th Street NE Naples FL 34120 365 Gostano Rodriguez 140 20th Street NE Naples FL 34120 366 Darelina Orestin 190 20th Street NE Naples FL 34120 367 Asovado Jiminez 410 20th Street NE Naples FL 34120 368 Donald Dussard 41120th Street NE Naples FL 34120 369 Giraldo and Rosa Hernandez 58120th Street NE Naples FL 34120 370 Edward and Robin Kelly 510 20th Street NE Naples FL 34120 371 Thomas Kanman 52120th Street NE Naples FL 34120 372 Jeradl Lashley 56120th Street NE Naples FL 34120 373 Gorki Hernandez 770 20th Street NE Naples FL 34120 374 Paul Burne 860 20th Street NE Naples FL 34120 375 Rick and Michele Henderson 875 20th Street NE Naples FL 34120 376 Bradley and Terri Moak 290 20th Street NE Naples FL 34120 377 Alexi Campos 530 20th Street NE Naples FL 34120 378 Robert and Maria Collins 170 22nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 379 Peter Amiclon 370 22nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 380 Olivia Verg 44122nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 381 David and Denise Fussel 64122nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 382 Brandon and Rebecca Atkinson 64122nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 383 Trudy Torgler 67122nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 384 Kevin and Dawn Reynolds 79122nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 385 Kimberly Bloomer 875 22nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 386 Clotilde Perez 34122nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 387 Saul and Sherry Llorca 43122nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 388 Lee Meyer 57122nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 389 Marian Davis 870 22nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 390 Raymond Johnson 881 22nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 391 An Trinh 1020 22nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393537097 2395376167 2394551312 2393523282 2394553190 2392725311 2393042373 2394703123 2397341078 2394553368 2393538677 2393535125 2394554185 2393481897 2393526180 2394552083 2393701559 2393526829 2393488795 2398608226 2393482419 2392009622 2393488679 2393527873 2397754284 2393489854 2392807219 2392983819 2394553505 2393529045 2393520507 2393489520 2393313436 2396490743 2393522044 2394555730 2393042346 2395377969 2393483755 3052155741 2394555271 2394558528 2393520497 2394555532 2393534871 Page 18 of 47 A401\ /I—,- PACKET 3 392 Paul Munro 51122nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393543230 393 T. P. Busbin 461 22nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393898890 394 Discount Beverage and Deli 46122nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 3055224355 395 Lawrence Elberson, Jr. 33122nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 4436761326 396 Thomas and Donna Bartoe 290 22nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 2393531484 397 Dennis Turner 170 22nd Street SE Naples FL 34117 398 Nod and Teresita Hernandez 461 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2393040249 399 Nolan Sanchez 661 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2393527313 400 Eva Baldaich 1210 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2392531495 401 Diana Baldrich 1210 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2393521497 402 Nelson Munoz 1441 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2392538162 403 Antonio Rodriguez 1461 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2393482483 404 Fred and Kim Manchso 1470 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 405 Robert Caskell 1490 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2396013996 406 Tavio and Zoraida Alfonso 1511 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2393548076 407 Jesse and Mary Ann Ybarra 1531 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2398509601 408 Maximilino Lopez 1561 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2393482953 409 Alga and Alberto Carrea 1871 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2393520543 410 Ingrid Sierra 2161 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2393041937 411 Olga Correa 1871 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2393415195 412 Danelis Hernandez 1731 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2395351322 413 Jean Stania 1761 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2393527837 414 Roberto Mendez 1840 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2394550371 415 Gerald Chiappetta, Jr. 1720 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2394302628 416 Dee Hernandez 1731 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2398778405 417 Jodi Crossman 1490 Golden Gate Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2393480346 Total Sheets 1- 3 643 Page 19 of 47 PACKET 4 RESIDENT NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP PHONE # 1 David Agoston 18010th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2 Richard Graham 23110th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2399617401 3 David Kirkhoff 53110th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 4 Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Oppie 83010th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393521099 5 Thomas and Rebecca Franks 76110th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393533532 6 Borham Ahmed 21110th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394559997 7 Tibor and Elizabeth Agoston 36010th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394558400 8 Mark and Theresa Trombley 69010th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2398211646 9 Tom and Rebecca Franks 76110th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393533532 10 Richard Coppola 261 10th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393480596 11 Silvio Pino 481 10th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2392890368 12 Jean Clinton and Jacqueline Marcelin 23110th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393535455 13 Gary Hauze 28010th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 14 Enrique Miranda 285 10th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393535495 15 Arturo Alvarez 10010th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393042913 16 Maria de jesus Alvarez 10010th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393042913 17 Robert Decamp 148510th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394558608 18 Colleen Curry 18010th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 19 Joso Luviano 131 10th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2392806119 20 Chris Howell 231 12th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 23994559182 21 Carla Werner 62012th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393521921 22 Chris Andreoulakis 1325 12th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 23 Nikolaos Andreoulakis 1320 12th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 24 Jo and Blaine Brisson 122112th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393527775 25 Daniel Pritchard 104012th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394554389 26 Cosme Perez 16012th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394557100 27 Erin and Jake Bronillard 14012th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393529323 28 Michael and Krista Lepanak 16012th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2396928450 29 Brian Holdeman 19012th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393541289 30 Timothy Schlief 26112th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393549968 31 Richard Tranchand 311 12th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 32 Tricia Sabando 341 12th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 33 Mitch and Monica Rossell 40012th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 34 Stanley and Rhonda Viva 40512th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394559878 35 Noreen Kuenster 415 12th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393542620 36 Jacquelyn Dzingleski 45512th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394556852 37 Nicole and Keith Reynolds 52012th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 38 Evelyn Stone 65512th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393524531 39 Madelin Carte 68012th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393522247 40 Florence Beasley 68512th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393489332 41 William and Felicitas Lecuyerjur 71012th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 42 Jack Craft, Jr. 74012th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394349448 43 Mark and Rebecka Drake 741 12th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2399632173 44 Rex O'Dell 19014th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393521930 45 Ellen Alyne 25014th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394557150 46 Joseph Decker 26014th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2392921482 47 Jayson and Amelia Horadam 56014th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393520207 48 Daniel Worsdale 64014th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393536490 49 Thomas Myers 66514th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394552028 50 Maria Davis 68114th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394550186 51 Donald Cook 78014th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393528194 52 William and Sandra Minder 76014th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2395308838 53 Daniel Tomici 121 14th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393483316 54 Rigberto and Marielys Arteaga 461 14th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393041457 55 Tim Speakman 531 14th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2395304227 56 Gary and Linda Stein 78114th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393539846 Page 20 of 47 1011�1 PACKET 4 57 Jorge Valle 121 14th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394554086 58 David and Stacy Kaminski 19014th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393489314 59 Mr. and Mrs. Ron Torge 23514th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394554628 60 Melbourne Barnett 24014th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 61 Melanie Handschman 142014th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 62 Michael Shields 16114th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394558536 63 Paul and Elaine Garcia 17016th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2395952432 64 Pedro Lopez 49016th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393537610 65 Islaty Fernandez 491 16th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2399637427 66 Michelle Mony Deoca 233016th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2392937672 67 Mike Davio 126016th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 68 Brandi Verder 1120 16th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394381377 69 Perfecto Reyes 3670 16th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 70 Elizabeth Duran 2431 16th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 71 Yonel Riveras 17016th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394044366 72 David Warren 70 Jung Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2398251340 73 Tamyra Murphy 90 Jung Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 2394045530 74 Ginny Brooks 1861 Jung Blvd. E Naples FL 34120 75 Paul and Tammy Mahoney 260 Jung Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 2393543002 76 Estela Merson 165 Jung Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 2398253231 77 Arturo Santos 465 Jung Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 2393542534 78 Richard Jean Baptiste 360 Jung Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 2394550979 79 Robert and Marta Massey 611 Jung Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 2393532763 80 William Apperson 540 Jung Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 2397326890 81 Hector Ortegon 630 Jung Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 2392534073 82 Heidi Wynn- Gafford 205 Jung Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 2393488591 83 Maria Velarde 530 Jung Blvd. W Naples FL 34120 2393317643 84 Casey and Monica Merriam 22018th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393041463 85 Boyd and Luz Underwood 18018th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2395954464 86 Justin Osnes 13018th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2392130321 87 Robert Warren 91 18th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393487242 88 Edwin Hulio, Jr. 23118th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393040447 89 Johnnie Moreno 32118th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393521039 90 Juan Mieto 311 18th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393314447 91 Frederick Schulz 431 18th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 92 Lynn and Sandra Keller 37118th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394351849 93 Mike Linssen 520 18th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 94 Ronald Moore 58518th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393533014 95 Patricia Schultheis 60118th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393318192 96 Scott and Bridget Black 66018th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393530063 97 Janet Duncan 161 18th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 98 Ruth Hobkirk 24118th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393534544 99 Cooridad Carieago 29118th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2396921169 100 Michelle Burgos 26118th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394300149 101 Naomi Stephens 360 18th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394553192 102 Maribel Ortiz 49118th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 103 Shawn and Stephanie Van Wie 109018th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393522445 104 Josie Rico 143118th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393543380 105 Jose Durse 1431 18th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393543380 106 Laura Duron 143118th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393543380 107 Debra Borzman 177018th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 108 Penny Raymond 120 20th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393983113 109 Rubin Aira 280 20th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393533630 110 Pete Rodriguez 160 20th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2397778415 111 Martha Velasco 240 20th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393480982 112 Richard and Carolyn Demko 26120th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393532103 113 Kieran Herrera 108120th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 Page 21 of 47 PACKET 4 114 Paula Bowins 108120th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 115 James Davenport 187120th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 116 Joseph Fiola 143120th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 117 Pam Roberts 172120th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 118 Barbara Suarez 204120th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 119 C.J. Lee 140 20th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2397777777 120 Christi Walsh 140 20th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2392007259 121 Eliseo Chao 18120th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393481111 122 Linda Tischler 220 20th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394554154 123 Robert and Natalie Epperson 260 20th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394552366 124 David and Theresa Watson 29120th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393318762 125 Dave Galbreath 320 20th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2392639227 126 Paul and Pat Steg 32120th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394556074 127 Eileen and Ralph Leonard 375 20th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2392131723 128 Robert Young 377 20th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393532070 129 Sandra Csonka 440 20th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2399631808 130 Michael Williams 510 20th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2395956246 131 Susan Gianferrara 540 20th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393483151 132 Craig Witkowski 71120th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2395657683 133 Miata Pantoja 780 20th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2392891479 134 Jerold Tischler 220 20th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394554154 135 Hayle Castillo 26120th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2392980815 136 Michelle Meyer 28120th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2398786606 137 Michael Camps 390 20th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394554608 138 Jon and Yvonne Wiltberger 440 20th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2399631808 139 John Swick 68120th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2392896905 140 Ben and Stella Gyimah 76120th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394496339 141 Richard Thackston 79120th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2398259452 142 Maria Rosado 243 22nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393533589 143 Gloria Perez 560 22nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394037742 144 Ray Ladorin 104122nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393488512 145 Jose Coutin 1160 22nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394559425 146 Danny Maesten 1190 22nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 9544477215 147 Doreen Christoffel 110 22nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2398778096 148 Andres Mederos 110 22nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394042929 149 Luz Mederos 110 22nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2392505794 150 Joan Mederos 110 22nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2392902376 151 Juan Ramirez 90 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2398258459 152 Eric Ramirez 90 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2392007083 153 Phillip Hartzell 110 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393530220 154 Sonia Callejas 130 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393531810 155 Jose Callejas 130 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393531810 156 Cara Talley 250 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 157 Elvia Ramirez 21122nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2396828348 158 Heather Taccone 23122nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393487752 159 Jacquelyn Barr 270 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2392638355 160 Isabel Gonzalez 270 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393040019 161 Sari McMahon 360 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393530110 162 Mike Randolph 370 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2398259519 163 Jason Aushan 580 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2392295009 164 Jessica Dupree 580 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 165 Carlos Gonzalez 62122nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2398600750 166 Amparo Gonzalez 63122nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394049297 167 Martin and Lynn Rhoades 730 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394552300 168 Tammy and Leonard Gelormine 770 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393534785 169 Bobbi Jo Forhay 780 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393522187 170 Harold Pease 790 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394553956 Page 22 of 47 1--*1 PACKET 4 171 Daniel and Estrella Alba 825 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 172 Aladino Vilela 840 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393543628 173 Gary Tyssen 860 22nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393531844 174 Lisa and Jerome John 88122nd Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393314852 175 Lance Nikis 110 24th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2397746284 176 Gary Stone 80 24th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393488678 177 Vicky Stone 110 24th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2396924995 178 Robert Creedon 240 24th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2392858714 179 Sheila Riggs 260 24th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 180 Ariel Gonzalez 270 24th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 181 John and Alicia Copeland 560 24th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394557479 182 Michael and Vickie Thomas 660 24th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2394037096 183 Frank Domino 740 24th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 184 Ed Marchere 870 24th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 185 Clarence Walkup 720 24th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 6164771181 186 Jennie Gasperson 90 24th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 187 Keith Thomas 131 24th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 188 Steven Tozier 19124th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2396829025 189 Paula Markham 220 24th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393534122 190 Elizabeth Mederos 130 24th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2395952075 191 Nathan Payment 220 24th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2398601609 192 Nikki Roddy 2040 24th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2395710076 193 Sarah Londell 2160 24th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393314566 194 Tyson Beebe 2040 24th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 195 Brian Jones 2160 24th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394651778 196 Zara Leyua 1041 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2393536731 197 Marcelo and Maricela Menejias 1460 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2393539572 198 J. Carlos Molano 1370 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2393313029 199 Gasbar Lopez 1461 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2394037416 200 Orlando deBien 1340 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2393542044 201 Omar Garciduenas 1170 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2392489693 202 Miguel Grana 1711 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2392540096 203 Cesar Alsina 2211 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2399473347 204 Orlando Cubas 1741 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 205 Ariel de Jesus 1861 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2396924874 206 Amaztazio Rodriguez 1971 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2394041473 207 Eric Rudd 2060 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2397776929 208 Auq Mederos 2160 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2393540864 209 Nelson Lopez 2191 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2394551289 210 Cesar Milla 2310 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 211 Santos Gonzalez 2330 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2393527431 212 James Brown 1841 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2392723650 213 David Baxley 1541 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 214 Kevin and Barbara Kuypers 3160 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2394552574 215 Charles and Diane Merkelom 4014 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2394550905 216 Sandy Kozlow 3575 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 217 James Fox 3011 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2393482118 218 Joyce Sanacora 2680 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2392480886 219 Wilkinson 4515 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2393482390 220 William Townsend 1271 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2393541987 221 Michael Sonney 2335 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2395717781 222 Iona and Santon Gonzalez 2330 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2393527431 223 Jason Hendry 2130 Wilson Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2394625592 Total Sheets 1- 4 866 Page 23 of 47 PACKET 5 RESIDENT NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP 1 Jessica Harmison 2470 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2 Maria Miguel 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 3 Danny Cox 2551 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 4 Thomas Wojiciechowski 2620 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 5 Nicolas DeAlana 2740 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 6 Maria Riveria 2821 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 7 Elmer Goyette, III 2831 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 8 Erica Spreth -Martuz 4175 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 9 Guy Spieth 4175 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 10 Robert Smarks 4121 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 11 James Showalter 4280 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 12 Jeffrey Ricigliano 4030 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 13 Meghan O'Sullivan and James Ahlbrandt 2840 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 14 Christopher and Heather Shields 4115 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 15 Michael and Therese Mentes 3980 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 16 Anita Ford 4875 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 17 Charlotte Copeland 4195 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 18 Edward and Edmee Equilir 4785 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 19 Robin and Randy Wright 4105 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 20 Laz Diaz 2510 2nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 21 Leone[ Limia 23114th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 22 Art Drange 25214th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 23 Enrique Irizarry 2320 4th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 24 Phillip and Marabeth DeVille 32414th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 25 Thomas Smith 24614th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 26 Julie Corona 27814th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 27 Denise Bond 25814th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 28 Adam and Angela Nadelman 2510 4th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 29 Glen Nichols 3310 4th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 30 Marie Witt 3223 4th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 31 Douglas Witt 3223 4th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 32 Harry Bond 26114th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 33 Kristina Thomas 2883 4th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 34 Donald and Hyecha Belcher 3540 4th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 35 Jean Lambotte 36114th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 36 Lennard and Maria Benoit 2660 4th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 37 Bryan Craft 4440 4th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 38 Chris Bowman 3730 4th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 39 Carlos and Alicia Falson 3620 4th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 40 Ricardo and Gladys Borges 29814th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 41 Kaye Shaw 3640 4th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 42 Ivette and Gilberto Sanchez 4095 4th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 43 Luis Gomez 23714th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 44 Jose Landin 4720 4th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 45 Joseph Vidal 4245 4th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 46 Gerard and Irmine Targete 37114th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 47 Rudy Bershadski 4040 4th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 PHONE # 2394498296 2392851545 2394550342 2394501116 2394551383 2396928034 2396928034 2394555997 2394556235 2393045917 2393538386 2394351504 2396929732 2393546753 2395720255 2394500273 2394557110 2393040485 2392723859 2394553221 2392894427 2393520782 2393483440 2393520739 2393520739 2395710909 2393522289 2393534370 2393532156 2393489579 2393528953 2393042449 2394556838 2394552507 2393485119 2393527592 8473097282 Page 24 of 47 n '11� PACKET 5 48 Georgia Campbell 28816th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394558161 49 Tracy Kahl 35316th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 50 Juan Gutierrez 36316th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393526815 51 Betty Jo Hobby Brown 2880 6th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394556153 52 David McNeely 3420 6th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394552098 53 Albert Hicks 4020 6th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393522135 54 Kelley Nadotti 3460 6th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393528032 55 Olga Casanova 42316th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393535257 56 John Tekdogan 4170 6th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393543660 57 Juan Dominquez 25816th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393049176 58 Luis Perez 2620 6th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393314906 59 Jose Portillo 28716th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 60 Jorge Garcia 4280 6th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2392002729 61 Edel Aguila 4325 6th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 3054013248 62 Margarita Segunas 2610 6th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 63 Aaron and Mandi Shuler 4420 6th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393526701 64 Dennis Moore 3820 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393488847 65 Nelson Costales 2366 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393489181 66 Margarita Markim 2670 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2399610031 67 Sherri Mill 3840 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2392346894 68 J. Drury 35218th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 69 Gilbert and Jacqueline Sanabria 2730 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393535283 70 Robert Castilla 2420 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 71 Curt Robidoux 2830 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2396012045 72 Solangel Gonzalez 2780 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 73 James Lockaby 4040 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 74 Richard Mewell 42418th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393529452 75 Raelene Newell 42418th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393529452 76 Robert Reeves 25818th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 77 Pierre Bonne -Anee 29118th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393537078 78 Jaclyn Ouellette 3420 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394380049 79 John Hart 3460 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394556132 80 Johnh Lowery 3760 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2392981373 81 Helder Oliveira 3780 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2392162106 82 Denise Porreca and Steven Nickel, Jr. 3560 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393989878 83 Maybelle McDonnough 2980 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394559421 84 James and Edwin Guerrera 25118th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394557835 85 Gregoria Fuentes 3720 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393522151 86 Carlos Rodriguez 4355 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393521597 87 Gloria Perdigon 29318th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393549863 88 Reinaldo Martinez 2440 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394553631 89 Maria Alvarez 25318th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394559421 90 Mayrene Gonzalez 2780 8th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 91 Gina Occhogrosso 2595 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34117 2397751303 92 Jerry Joseph 3031 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34117 2396924554 93 April Kain 2432 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34117 94 Austin and Velvet Emrick 2430 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34117 95 Daniel Ohleyer 3020 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 2395808710 Page 25 of 47 PACKET 5 96 Luigi Noesis 3011 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 97 Robert Noesi 3011 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 98 Petra Diaz 3011 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 99 Feliz Iglesias 3011 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 100 Xavier Rodrihuez 2911 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 101 Kenneth and Jeanette Mouton 2761 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 102 Jeff and Sherry Williams 2481 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 103 Gerald and Sheryl Gammell, Jr. 2580 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 104 Gustavo Medina 2811 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 105 Sharon Knim 3161 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 106 Lugo Trevilo, Jr. 3160 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 107 Kara Manning 3170 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 108 John and Eileen Palak 3241 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 109 Luis Veloisquez 3321 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 110 Raul Diaz 3421 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 111 Carmen Sardin 2430 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 112 Ostin Stinfila 3020 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 113 Joseph Yonel 3031 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 114 Janet Chapman 3591 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 115 Lourdes Vrera 3351 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 116 Olguine Dominque 3331 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 117 Richard Milts 3340 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34117 118 Rhonda Price 3341 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 119 Jessica Anderson 3311 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 120 Anthony Tavarez 3355 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 121 Angela Coffey 3361 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 122 Magaly Aneiro 3411 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 123 Rafael Herrera 3460 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34117 124 Gloria Mendez and Jorge Perez 3611 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 125 Lauren Baro 3970 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 126 Adrian Boro 3970 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 127 Enrique Sequeria 3970 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 128 Ysmary Sequeira 3970 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 129 Osualdo Mero 4347 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 130 Shirley Hinds 3585 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 131 Victor and Rosa Nienes 4060 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 132 Cliff Kobrin 4445 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 133 Rafael Acevedo 4625 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 134 Ruth and Olga Ruiz 4340 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 135 Michael Buis 3775 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 136 Debra Lista- Esposito and Charles Esposito 3310 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 137 William and Linda Wolf 4380 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 138 Reineldo Tardines 4070 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 139 Ernesto Tyira 2280 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 140 Massiel Pantalean 4221 Golden Gate Blvc Naples FL 34120 Total Sheets 1- 5 1006 2393310489 2398215678 2392482349 2392482349 2393533839 2393527625 2393537363 2394551279 2396013917 2393540422 2396879166 2394551127 2393042625 2392596273 2393535137 2393539096 7862601280 2394653460 2399639886 2398218295 2393545383 2397849191 2394558449 2393534034 2394173087 2393487904 2393487904 2393487904 2399610499 2393520332 2393532639 2393489774 9733355410 2392485516 4132752191 2393520640 2393482142 2394559480 Page 26 of 47 /—N PACKET IS RESIDENT NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP PHONE # 1 David Batten 2960 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393535444 2 Jack Harvey 2331 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393481316 3 Tamara Broker 2940 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392330781 4 Luis Roman 2991 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393542983 5 Laura Perrer 2941 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393531954 6 Belinda Pittman 3461 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 7 Onorio Adragna 3630 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 8 Amanda Merarce 3340 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393314600 9 Moraima Abrey 4170 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 10 Mary Whited 3775 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 8706560115 11 Michael Whited 3775 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393538925 12 Dana Ford 3491 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393538082 13 Dave Liddle 3441 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 14 Pedro Battle 3421 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397935262 15 Christie Brown and Michael Lehnhard 2370 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393548081 16 Eugenie Sterlingcato 2861 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393528219 17 Leonel Lopez 2971 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2398777439 18 Alejandro Del Zotto 2821 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393041204 19 Zaila Martinez 2920 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394550421 20 Scott Whidden 2840 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394551297 21 Romanico Rios 2971 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2398773835 22 Javier Roda 3791 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393312867 23 Pedro Marin 3230 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 24 Teresa Castillo 3781 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392480492 25 Edward and Kim Weisacosky 3291 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394556188 26 Rodney and Karen Michaels 3951 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393532640 27 Larry Dellsfave 3360 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393049192 28 Gregory Glemser 3240 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392532989 29 Eric Sooleyo, Sr. 3961 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394553349 30 Carl Crespo 4430 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396928296 31 Amaurys and Xiomara Guerra 4041 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396924700 32 Maritza and Jorge Lemes 4675 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393531656 33 Jennifer Austin 3811 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394030985 34 Pamela Carey 4845 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 35 Standrea Colella 3271 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393487415 36 Pete Battle 3421 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393048861 37 Jeremiah Carroll, Jr. 3481 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393532099 38 Dennis Burke 3511 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393520329 39 William Rodgers 4320 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2395301782 40 Fermin and Hilda Velez 3480 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396928085 41 Terri Davis 3431 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393488340 42 Yunayso Oro 2871 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 43 Amela Martinez 3560 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 44 Catalina and Cress Nunez 3760 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393532085 45 Juan Perez 3330 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396922414 46 Rafael Guerra 2421 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2395255481 47 Gilberto Martinez 4120 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393367890 Page 27 of 47 PACKET 6 n 48 Vicente Santiago 2880 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 49 Jorge Lemes 4675 2nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393531656 50 Ana Guerra - Thompson 250 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2398390000 51 Ernest Williams 2640 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2398250683 52 Alfredo Medina 27604th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396016637 53 Stanley Racut and Kathryn Dyroff 2930 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 8485250742 54 Sandra Fiuchman 29814th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2395726264 55 Lillian Cruz 32814th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394552131 56 John Williams 3360 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397772989 57 Kristi Poisco 34214th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393040051 58 Dawn Malburg 3420 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393535450 59 Debra and Tim Braden 3480 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393530377 60 Angelica Canete -Perez 3580 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 61 Fred Olson 4115 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394503733 62 Angie Romak 4175 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 63 Silvia Denney 2510 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393529487 64 Elienay Cortina 2980 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2395952783 65 Carlos Castillo 29414th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394041742 66 Julio Socorro 32814th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392070825 67 Carrie Randall 34614th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394557823 68 Donald Heyser 35714th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394555493 69 Dennis and Myrna Gress 37314th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396498613 70 Carlos Tejera 4290 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 3057210126 71 Juan Jiminez 39314th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 72 Adam and Amanda Peterson 3580 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396432229 73 Donna Valdez 3590 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396010309 74 Robert Valdez 3590 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392006456 75 Hector Florez 36414th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393541238 76 Juan Avila 3665 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393485483 77 Larry McDonald 37914th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2395723040 78 Erik Pohls 36714th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2395957569 79 Veronica Pohls 36714th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397776094 80 Sherry Singletary 4075 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396928190 81 Gussie Sullivan 3370 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394550073 82 David King 26414th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397930667 83 Luis and Yolanda DeLlano 27414th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397744216 84 Andrew Bitting 3770 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393482649 85 David Lindsay 26814th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393524458 86 Amy Levitre 3255 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393537040 87 Pablo Jiminez 29714th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 7865861011 88 Elizabeth Martinez 3240 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393257831 89 Jose and Maria Canizarer 27314th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 8632013883 90 Andres Rodriguez 4440 4th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393049281 91 Roberto Acosta 25814th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2398775415 92 Stephanie Gassiot 23316th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393257729 93 Robin Sizemore 23716th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2395959973 94 Annette and John Smith 3360 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 3053023687 95 Bigwave and Mary Sure Vadnais 3380 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397774823 Page 28 of 47 /I—,- PACKET 6 96 Kimberly and Anthony Swanson 2390 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 97 Rosie Campbell 2440 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392533963 98 Fred Bradley 3870 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 99 Russell Murray 2620 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392808410 100 William Kidder 25416th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393535771 101 Rogelio Martinez 26216th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397931941 102 Geoyer Cuba 2370 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394552863 103 Phil Cramer 23716th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 104 Francisco Rivera 26416th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 5516557300 105 Idalmis Mejias 28816th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394656425 106 Leonel Mjias 28816th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394658281 107 Maria Neaver 2990 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2398607130 108 Daniel Arias 37316th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394652509 109 Mark Bragg 3694 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393540276 110 Charles Lovelock 3620 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394178735 111 Cheryl Korbel 32416th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397933697 112 Keith Smith 3340 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394502076 113 Felipe Cavazos 3530 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396925526 114 Jorge Silva 3530 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2399615694 115 Anthony Swanson 2390 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393540778 116 Danny Castro 2570 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2398215249 117 Juan Rivero 2580 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394658754 118 David Butter 27816th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393483256 119 William Wiehn 32816th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393481010 120 Kelly Grandy 3690 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 121 Jeffrey Brooks and Nancy Gardon- Brooks 4825 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393532490 122 Leon and Martha Krok 4275 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 123 Paul and Karen Esala 4375 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393524537 124 Maria Tanes 4364 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 3054904138 125 George and Ellen Schneider 3210 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392720282 126 Hugo Montessi 4390 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397779901 127 Lawrence Gates 29616th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393520132 128 Luis Quintana 3819 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392346972 129 Marco Hernandez 3670 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 130 Dylan Caldwell 4160 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393042019 131 Peter Bithorn 37216th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 132 William Gilmartin 4620 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392064535 133 Lawrence Elberson, Jr. 25216th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 4436761326 134 Antonio and Hortensia Zafra 2940 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393527445 135 Consuelo Castillo 4110 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393040719 136 Ramiro and Cabidad Aria 4440 6th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394550080 137 Laurie Carron 23418th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 138 Nelson Rodriguez 24218th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393539134 139 Cheryl Earl 24418th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393535806 140 Griselda Montiel 2670 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396929788 141 Bill and Cindy Scott 26718th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2398258966 142 Dale Thompson 27218th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 143 Kelly Lawhore 28318th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 Page 29 of 47 PACKET 6 144 Robyn Fentress 2910 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 145 Susannah Burghardt 33818th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 146 Luis Guajales 36718th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 147 Gary Ervin 34318th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 148 Keith Bruneau 34418th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 149 Kenneth Swanson 34718th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 150 Serene Hellman 3520 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 151 Pedro Santovenig 35218th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 152 Marie Faugue 3559 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 153 Cristina Alfaro 3560 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 154 Michael Faircloth 3585 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 155 Greg and Deidra Barlow 36118th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 156 Curt Chapman 3680 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 157 Manuel Lopez 36818th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 158 Laura Martinez 36818th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 159 Michelle Skrivan 3740 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 160 Chris Davis 3740 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 161 Jen Stevenson 3790 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 162 Kelly Knveppel 3830 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 163 Jeff and Shannon Curl 4010 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 164 Ann Padroro 41218th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 165 Ellen Fischer 33618th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 166 Yailin Herrera 4120 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 167 Wayne and Jeannine Bunch 4060 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 168 Jacob Shineler 3825 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 169 Brian and Linda Eckels 32418th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 170 Enrique Gonzalez 4795 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 171 Allen Mitchell 3635 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 172 Russell Miller 2830 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 173 Robert Waverka 33718th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 174 Diana Ratz 3770 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 175 Laney Sampson 3720 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 176 Patrick and Mistie Merritt 32918th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 177 Nancy Riedel 29618th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 178 Eduardo Sanchez 4225 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 179 Roberto Aguiar 3035 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 180 Osdany de Rio Romero 3575 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 181 Felimon Cendejas 33418th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 182 Rene Pucha 4090 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 183 Debbie Benavidez 3780 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 184 Luis Cedeno 4335 8th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 185 Jeff Brown 266510th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 186 Jose and Marlene Alvarez 493110th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 187 Joseph KniKong 466110th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 188 Dolores Nunez 337010th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 189 Christopher Eckert 4416 10th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 190 Roler Carrasio 3445 10th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 191 John McGee 322010th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393313678 2393540711 2397778983 2394348069 2393312528 2397765306 2393522457 2394559257 2393317046 2392620574 2393538473 2393046900 2392537043 2395710820 2393040958 2394311900 2393528361 2397765513 2393480210 2394557034 2393539434 2394555312 2393542512 2393533838 2393524413 2394353720 2394551436 2397325205 3052167058 2395959777 2398258125 7862903431 2397757359 7862515628 2398774030 2393531409 2394650601 2393542678 Page 30 of 47 A01"\ 100"\ PACKET 6 192 Richard Mojena 408010th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396928343 193 Cynthia VanRensselaer 474010th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393538226 194 David and Virginia Rich 237110th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 195 Juan Gonzalez 3585 10th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393526259 196 Carol Larsen 2955 10th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393538264 197 Robert Rogers 3795 10th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397766378 198 William and Wanda Warren 276010th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393525983 199 Adam Park 276510th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393526937 200 Noemi Fraguela 361010th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 201 Debra Antoniak 4499 10th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394511034 202 Greg and Monica Young 406510th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393528675 203 Carlos and Vilma Rivera 3225 10th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393529812 204 Raisel Alfonso 2675 10th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393043613 205 Raymond and Katharine Brandon 3175 10th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393489884 206 Marilyn Wheeler 257510th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393536581 207 Manuel Sanchez 288010th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 208 Francisco Trevino 282510th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393531603 209 Matthew Shull 2625 10th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392899667 210 Christopher and Cindy Eckert 407010th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394650601 211 David Ward 2905 10th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393480493 212 Amaryllis Benavides 323010th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392446472 213 Robert Carden 4081 10th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 214 Monica and Jeremy Baxter 272010th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 215 Diane Depalto 274010th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397766117 216 Carlos Guillen 362010th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394657368 217 Steve Olsen 363010th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 218 German Llanten 3685 10th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2395955593 219 Pedro Mirabal 4575 10th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393530722 220 Marvin Steffen 388010th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393530508 221 Mario Torres 338010th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397321909 222 Joe Foster 2675 12th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397340996 223 Alan Laupert 282012th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393482824 224 Patrick Daly 4231 12th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 225 Marie Esti Verni 384712th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394655082 226 Renee Gallo 462012th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393485052 227 Ryan Dehnz 291012th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393521526 228 Ralph and Linda McKellar 402012th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 229 Michael Colello 472012th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 3306472731 230 Maria Delair 4681 12th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394551556 231 Lucierne Valcairo 267012th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397779871 232 Mr. and Mrs. David Jourdan 487012th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393776623 233 Brian Stouffer 274012th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397770246 234 Kenneth Ross 3212 12th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396490902 235 Robert Varaly 374012th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393541265 236 Reanne Daly 4231 12th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 237 Natalie and Scott Hogan 3295 12th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393545642 238 Richard Croasdale 378112th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2395300984 239 Marilin Alfonso 4361 12th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 Page 31 of 47 PACKET 6 240 Gereneldo Pagan 347512th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 241 Raul and Kathleen Gutierrez 4617 12th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 242 Carolyn Tuttle 426012th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 243 Mtizi Adams 337012th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 244 Matthew Mason 3575 12th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 245 Martel Henry 445012th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 246 Oscar and Dleana Rivera 293014th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 247 Ariel Dominiquez 2865 14th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 248 Jeffrey Klein 284014th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 249 Raul and Marlene Delvalle 291114th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 250 Justin Young 292314th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 251 Melissa Young 2923 14th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 252 Robert Anderson 4125 14th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 253 Robert Izzo 367014th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 254 John Fulmer, III 466114th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 255 Richard Lowery 336114th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 256 Ramiro Dominques 2865 14th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 257 Graydon and April Bullard 262214th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 258 Norge Rivero 2955 14th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 259 Dennhis Roos 367014th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 260 Randolph Guffey and Clarke Jacobelli 4515 14th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 261 Craig and Lisa Direscher 3265 14th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 262 Allen and Sandra Pflaster 3061 14th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 263 Jennifer Walls 407014th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 264 Christina Svec 476014th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 265 Dale Fey, Jr. 3925 14th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 266 Barton and Judy Bradshaw 3833 14th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 267 Lorna Walker 2627 14th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 268 Rolando Henchaca 293114th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 269 Antonio Rodriguez 306014th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 270 Dulca Rodriguez 3235 16th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 271 Jesus Octario Rodriguez 3235 16th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 272 Ronald and Jessica Arevalo 344116th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 273 Gregory Akeln 3435 16th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 274 John Lawrence Beth, Jr. 2845 16th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 275 Mike Barrile 398016th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 276 Ricardo and Odette Brito, Jr. 3885 16th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 277 Ross Friend 352516th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 278 Briana Stasiak 368016th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 279 Jose Abin 404016th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 280 Maria Belanger 2965 16th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 281 Juan Bright 296016th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 282 Alexander Ramos 488816th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 283 Arlain and Yolanda Fuente 87016th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 284 Onel Lopez 272016th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 285 Robert Silya 521 16th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 286 David Almodovan 4761 16th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 287 Frank Lorenzo 4245 16th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393530059 2393405416 2393532984 2393483255 2393541968 3059870272 2392005723 2392729313 2393988802 2394558034 2397777616 2398213642 2395378091 2393533941 2393521159 2393531728 2393481870 2396928945 2399199978 2393533941 2393487771 2396928425 2393537418 2397752727 2394173344 2397321239 9549148417 2393524596 3054951869 2393532349 2392897248 2394550696 2392491530 2393534447 2392721345 2394386262 2393487381 2394550578 2394554379 9548160316 2394171045 2393522118 2394651898 Page 32 of 47 n PACKET 6 288 Cherilyn Tuppaldos 440416th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394351131 289 Rucker 2925 18th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393317583 290 Rachelle Ferguson 273518th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 291 Scott and Fulgencia Goins 298018th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392734913 292 Robert and Jo -Anna Lewis 288018th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394557984 293 Julio Guerra 406018th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394558082 294 Patricia [son 2565 18th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393548133 295 Brenda Bunch 336518th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397740020 296 Lanil Kesselmann 441518th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394898491 297 Amaury Ranies 268518th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393049815 298 Henry Imbachi 272018th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396928100 299 Joseph Cadet 3385 18th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 300 Charlemagne Marius 376120th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393547378 301 Luis Cerda and Margarita Roldan 3520 20th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394559111 302 Zenon Conrad 2680 20th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393489612 303 Charles Schmitt 3860 20th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 304 Harris Vienes 3725 20th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392003344 305 Andres Estrada 3460 20th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397933058 306 Dayanna Cubillas 4860 20th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392535107 307 Neomi Rakow 3660 20th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393534378 308 Jaslin Aubin 3210 20th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393533656 309 Kent Lloyd 3825 20th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393521760 310 Nancy Holland 3370 20th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397349112 311 Juan and Antonia Velazquez 4020 20th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393521577 312 David Fitts 4845 20th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393532338 313 Alba Rosas 2760 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393534937 314 Jose and Nacy Colinn 2820 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394553565 315 Francisco Garcia 3130 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394307522 316 Rosa Garcia 3130 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394307522 317 Rita Galipto 3764 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 7864165760 318 Frances Nix 4830 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393535885 319 Angela Monterosso 3880 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392933421 320 Angela Monterosso 3870 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392933421 321 Jack and Eva Sobczak 3645 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396590006 322 Juan and Berta Castro 327122nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393526997 323 Osleidy Lopez 4340 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394655504 324 Jennifer Wobecky 403122nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397771346 325 Kim Shimer 4305 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397776029 326 Frank Mix 4830 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393535885 327 Jamie Caldwell 3440 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394043760 328 Jose Medina 4425 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394553278 329 Monica Shee 3160 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 9547263723 330 Mercelimo Hernandez 4866 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393483959 331 Trevor Chambers 4660 22nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 332 Charlene Vernor 2568 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 333 Ivis Castrillo 3570 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2399636087 334 Maria Pardo 3570 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394553459 335 Donna Colon 3935 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397937669 Page 33 of 47 PACKET 6 336 Laura Naples 3935 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 337 Hiloomilio Socorro 4160 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 338 Margarita Henriquez 4375 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 339 Mario Menendez 3830 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 340 Thomas and Eunice Chavie 2765 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 341 Ruth Miranda 4140 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 342 Maria Pardo 3570 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 343 Gary Custaro 4880 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 344 Ray Rangel 4795 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 345 Jose Perez 402124th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 346 Eddie and Sabrina Lagace 2720 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 347 Maria Perez 3985 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 348 Stacey Dunn 2645 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 349 Gerardo Morales 3380 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 350 Gedrick Spencer 4440 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 351 Beatris Mendez 2965 24th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 352 Richard Lytle, Jr. 3120 26th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 353 Hector Morrero 3525 26th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 354 Nareiso Diaz 3735 26th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 355 Jonathan Smelko 2760 26th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 356 Danielle Brown 3570 26th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 357 Jeff and Christina Nelson 3930 26th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 358 Robyn Anderson 264128th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 359 Noel and Olga Rodriguez 3625 28th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 360 Norman and Jacqueline De La Paz 2980 28th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 361 Miguel Lopez 4415 28th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 362 Edward Griffin 2830 28th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 363 Nnacy Bieberdorf 266128th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 364 Robert Giro 3685 28th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 365 Loren Bell 2820 28th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 366 David Cuthbertson 3810 28th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 367 Martin Andrade 3775 28th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 368 Shannon Brown 323128th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 369 Roberto and Dolores Santos 3647 28th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 370 Angella Dixon 3280 30th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 371 Hugh O'Connor 309130th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 372 Joseph DiCarlo 4835 30th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 373 Ervin Garriga 3430 30th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 374 Jose Ortiz 3169 30th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 375 Ivan Diaz 4310 30th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 376 Edel Reyes 4142 30th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 377 Joshua Wolfe 3150 30th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 378 Katia Marquina 2560 32nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 379 Reynaldo Ruiz 2560 32nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 380 Virginia Bazil 3075 32nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 381 Misael and Yolanda Betancourt 3630 32nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 382 Shari Ferguson 3074 32nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 383 Shelly Knapp 4487 32nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397937669 2393481292 2393539092 2393040071 2394558805 2394553459 2398219449 2394550658 2397842239 9546831116 7864878014 2394552313 2393542481 2393544021 2393526370 2395950147 2392506186 2392536420 2394553415 2393844995 2394558647 2394650223 2393531013 2393481335 9546126811 2394504796 2392528524 2393483351 2393523188 2392982672 2394553179 2398779193 2393480781 2392340060 2396820647 2393480470 2393488393 2397743759 Page 34 of 47 PACKET 6 384 Charles Dean Smith 4920 32nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393540140 385 P.J. Shelty 3475 32nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396826841 386 Maribel Crespo 2640 32nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393982683 387 Amy Brisson 4220 32nd Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392853008 388 Julio Irizarry 3945 34th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394552469 389 Juan Alonso 2675 34th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393539121 390 Adiela Rodriguez 4245 34th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393526896 391 Jose and Oneida Garcia 3570 34th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393487139 392 Harry and Milk Irizarry 393134th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393541892 393 Antonio Lopez 3265 34th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2399197680 394 Mario Sanchez 2815 34th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393483781 395 James White 3150 36th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394550031 396 Barbara White 3150 36th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2398606852 397 Edwin Rosales 2965 36th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393528122 398 Vicente and Maria Sancho 362136th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393981359 399 Victor Ramirez 3380 36th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393521348 400 Hiram Rodriguez 357136th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393041352 401 Alberto Esquijarosa 358136th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393489531 402 Donald Sloat 3180 36th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 403 Maria Falcon 358136th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 404 Christine Gomez 2835 38th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393549194 405 John and Christine Gibbs 3595 38th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393489022 406 Monica Garcia 2690 38th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2397841454 407 Angel Barbera 2984 38th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2395373610 408 Jaime and Luz Ceron 3480 38th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2394555100 409 Gabriel and Cynthia Pratt 2935 38th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2392690949 410 Todd Dukes 296138th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 411 Felix and Maria Negrin 336140th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393487762 412 Otoniel Cameso 2625 40th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393042259 413 Ana Alvarez 2625 40th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2396017191 414 Michael Stone 388140th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393489478 415 William Llameza 2655 40th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 2393041505 416 Pam Adkins 120 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2393483546 417 MoJun Kim 131 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2392879247 418 Yulian Perez 160 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2399199268 419 Julian Perez 160 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2399614137 420 Miguel Garcia 171 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2399616125 421 Jaime Vanegas 261 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2396929172 422 Jose Leds 280 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2394558035 423 Tommy Smith 290 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 424 Joy Smith 290 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 425 Christopher Huber 290 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 426 Reyna Berrios 310 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2392079134 427 Paula Estrada 331 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 3052826355 428 Janet Perera 341 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2396921728 429 Elena Morers 391 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2396410078 430 Perfecto Reyes 411 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2395374897 431 Yennit 411 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2396924618 Page 35 of 47 PACKET IS 432 Maritza and Iburi 411 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 433 Maritza 411 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2396924618 434 Reynaldo Soto 460 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2392897765 435 Jesus Pantoja 560 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2393844053 436 Rolanda and Isaura Llorch 720 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2394556831 437 Olwyn Smith 740 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2394555271 438 Alberto Carreras 985 Everglades Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2396010154 439 Rolando Abino 1070 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 2392066102 440 Onery Ramirez 1220 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 441 Shirley Garcia 1434 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 2392491455 442 Felix Aranegui 1463 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 2393541974 443 William Badolato 1870 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 2394555530 444 Linda Badolato 1870 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 445 Howard and Donna Strobert 1995 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 2393521994 446 Sam Rogers 2041 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 447 Sang Baccam 2260 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 2393527732 448 Bevlyn Rogers 2041 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 2394388692 449 Eduardo Rodes 2340 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 2393530316 450 Jose Castello 3030 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 2393480790 451 Nicasio Fernandez 3311 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 2394658630 452 Angel Acular 3470 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 2393482799 453 Stanley Viva 3639 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 2393483709 454 Elinda Lago 3885 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 2393522866 455 Mike and Gabriela Long 3960 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 456 Deyso Acosta 3961 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 2393044499 457 Ails Shee 2770 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34117 458 Norma Marroquin 231 Everglades Blvd. n Naples FL 34120 2393520186 459 Rataela Berdute 261 Everglades Blvd. l\ Naples FL 34120 3057750787 460 Dennis and Beth Kerr 311 Everglades Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2396928651 461 Christine Crato 320 Everglades Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2392892803 462 Joe Crato 320 Everglades Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2392896433 463 Thomas Devhin 323 Everglades Blvd. l\ Naples FL 34120 2393044633 464 Elvia Fletes 361 Everglades Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2394380878 465 Aleivis Morales 430 Everglades Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2399614410 466 Rachel Lanham 631 Everglades Blvd. l\ Naples FL 34120 467 Misty Kain 631 Everglades Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 468 Saria Davenport 631 Everglades Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 469 Don Loy 631 Everglades Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 470 Cesar Ayala 691 Everglades Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 2397969280 471 Sherry Stevens 1462 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34120 472 Jeffret Rankin 1462 Everglades Blvd. Naples FL 34120 2394855322 473 Patrick and Stacey Hurley 230 Desoto Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 474 Jera and Craig Lorte 440 Desoto Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2393528681 475 Christopher Craig 530 Desoto Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2393537391 476 Cynthia Kemp 970 Desoto Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2393529033 477 Deysire Gutierrez 770 Desoto Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2396921980 478 Antonio Belliard 1080 Desoto Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2399616004 479 Pedro Gutierrez 1121 Desoto Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 2393041653 Page 36 of 47 PACKET6 480 George Mountrakis 1620 Desoto Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 481 Yerin Blanda 1860 Desoto Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 482 Oilda Lugones 2146 Desoto Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 483 Yairea Zaneora 2235 Desoto Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 484 Justin Arthur 2325 Desoto Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 485 Ronald Ballard 2430 Desoto Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 486 Tiffany Ballard 2430 Desoto Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 487 Nicholas LaRocco 2490 Desoto Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 488 Ana Corzo 2520 Desoto Blvd. S Naples FL 34117 489 Elda Rodriguez 440 Desoto Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 490 Francisco Alves 665 Desoto Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 491 Derek Hamm 1280 Desoto Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 492 Dorothy Hamm 1280 Desoto Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 493 Christopher Hall 5665 Desoto Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 494 Dacia DeLaRosa 120 Desoto Blvd. N Naples FL 34120 Total Sheets 1- 6 1500 10� 2393537142 2394555682 2398211580 2395379035 2393040971 2393540516 2393844005 2393534718 9783957751 2392533200 9542431161 Page 37 of 47 PACKET 7 RESIDENT NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP 1 Glen McDonald 2021 Golden Gate Blvd W Naples FL 34120 2 Ralph Goodard 1565 Golden Gate Blvd W Naples FL 34120 3 Carlos Guzman 3320 Golden Gate Blvd W Naples FL 34120 4 Tracy Van Holle 2860 White Blvd Naples FL 34117 5 Luz Lederson 3670 White Blvd Naples FL 34117 6 Randall Frank 3501 White Blvd Naples FL 34117 7 Lasse Franeo 430 Weber Blvd S Naples FL 34117 8 Jole Alonso 470 Weber Blvd S Naples FL 34117 9 Carl Thrushman 2811 2nd Street NW Naples FL 34120 10 Laura Nelson 2831 2nd Street NW Naples FL 34120 11 Bill Kelly 27304th Street NW Naples FL 34120 12 Michael Combs 3475 3rd Ave SW Naples FL 34117 13 Lisa Gorman 3630 3rd Ave SW Naples FL 34117 14 Kimberly Oretgon 3080 4th Street NW Naples FL 34120 15 Chastity Rivera 31314th Street NW Naples FL 34120 16 Ismael Rivera 3313 4th Street NW Naples FL 34120 17 Anne Shores 3555 5th Ave SW Naples FL 34117 18 Michael Rhodes 27316th Street NW Naples FL 34120 19 Neil Framain 28116th Street NW Naples FL 34120 20 Dan Mercer 4530 7th Ave SW Naples FL 34117 21 Barbara Hunget 4660 7th Ave NW Naples FL 34119 22 Robert English 4660 7th Ave NW Naples FL 34119 23 Dana Strom 3380 8th Ave SW Naples FL 34117 24 Sally Karian 490 8th Street SW Naples FL 34117 25 Teressa Williams 246010th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 26 Jonathan Druge 2612 10th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 27 Jeannette Sharp 262610th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 28 Gwen McHugh 2720 10th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 29 Dennis McHugh 272010th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 30 Juan Erbella 289010th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 31 Michelle Rowland 3581 10th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 32 Vernom Rowland 3581 10th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 33 Nathan Rowe 3945 10th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 34 Jennifer Borgs 3945 10th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 35 Ray Crews 424010th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 36 Karl Dogel 428010th Street NE Naples FL 34117 37 Cecil Rim 4315 10th Street SE Naples FL 34117 38 Maria Rodriguez 4415 10th Street NE Naples FL 34117 39 Carlos Suaner 434410th Street NE Naples FL 34117 40 Alina Figueroa 2939 12th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 41 Chad Butcher 3075 12th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 42 Nathan Sprag 3681 12th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 43 Wilbert Glanville 378012th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 44 Pauline Glanville 3780 12th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 45 Diana Warner 4075 12th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 PHONE# 2393535206 2394554622 2394556443 2394559523 2392806700 2393529231 2393537188 2397346453 2392625264 2392625264 2393317393 2393533303 2393533303 2398257498 9177969113 2393482321 2393522182 2393526024 2393530767 2393535247 2393042474 2392633759 2394557325 /� Page 38 of 47 PACKET 7 46 Ken Werner 4075 12th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 47 Nikolaus Andreoulakis 132012th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393541978 48 Luz and Chris Andreoulakis 1325 12th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393522103 49 Madelin Carter 680 12th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393522247 50 Noreen Kuenster 415 12th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 2393542620 51 Loretta Alijderar 434812th Street NE Naples FL 34117 52 Angela Engel 4375 12th Street NE Naples FL 34117 2394708759 53 Juan Flores 458412th Street NE Naples FL 34117 2394557193 54 Yesenia Flores 458412th Street NE Naples FL 34117 2394557193 55 Michele Diaz 171 13th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2397779988 56 Anna Trucks 200 13th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2394552411 57 James Hamilton 660 13th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2394559602 58 Andrea Morello 900 13th Street SW Naples FL 34117 59 Joseph Morello 109013th Street SW Naples FL 34117 60 Kenneth Young 1470 13th Street SW Naples FL 34117 61 Johnny Walker 2695 14th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394554059 62 Barry Liebonta 2765 14th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 63 Claire Christianson 2939 14th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394553731 64 Philip Sutton 2975 14th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2398773507 65 Thomas Coleman 2975 14th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393526933 66 Dennis Roos 367014th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393533941 67 Carolyn Holcomb 3761 14th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393522223 68 Livia Oidorez 4560 14th Street NE Naples FL 34117 69 Elisa Aikey 440 15th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2398773334 70 [same Aikey 440 15th Street SW Naples FL 34117 71 Richard Short 475 15th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2397777425 72 Brian Nidsen 1360 15th Street SW Naples FL 34117 73 William Sillery 369115th Ave SW Naples FL 34117 2395809964 74 Maria Sillery 3691 15th Ave SW Naples FL 34117 2393522345 75 Meagan Starr 4111 15th Ave SW Naples FL 34117 76 Kevin Wilkinson 3611 16th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 77 Natalie Jejencia 3611 16th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 78 Sherry Kish 367016th Street SE Naples FL 34117 2395378165 79 Laura Farnsworth 367016th Street SE Naples FL 34117 80 Juan Miguel 383416th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2396922960 81 Mario Osorio 4071 16th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 82 Gary Cholewinski 4765 16th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 83 Wayne Gonzalez 4245 16th Street NE Naples FL 34120 84 Linda Ciabattar 256 17th Street NW Naples FL 34120 85 Betty Lou Scavone 268 17th Street NW Naples FL 34120 86 Serafin Riveron, Jr. 480 17th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393532955 87 Serafin Riveron, Sr. 50017th Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393536603 88 Robert Frazier 79017th Street NW Naples FL 34120 89 Tara Sparacio 991 17th Street SW Naples FL 34117 90 Lissete Rico 1431 18th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2395373020 91 Mayida Canto 259018th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393540730 Page 39 of 47 PACKET 7 92 Diana Watson 286118th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 93 Eric Watson 2861 18th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 94 Janet Esperon 288018th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 95 Thomas Spino 328018th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 96 Judith Ospino 328018th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 97 Scott Geckler 3361 18th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 98 Laroy Caldwell 353018th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 99 Mirta Portal 364018th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 100 David Morris 377018th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 101 Chad McCumber 384018th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 102 Carlos Ravelo 443018th Street NE Naples FL 34120 103 Yamile Leal 443018th Street NE Naples FL 34120 104 Dale Chapman 4345 18th Street NE Naples FL 34120 105 Jacqueline Martin 484418th Street NE Naples FL 34120 106 Heather Robinson 487518th Street NE Naples FL 34120 107 Melvin Rodriguez 37018th Street SW Naples FL 34117 108 Tabitha Hardy 491 19th Street SW Naples FL 34117 109 Lori Sams 555 19th Street SW Naples FL 34117 110 Dan Guess 118019th Street SW Naples FL 34117 111 Enrique Perez 147119th Street SW Naples FL 34117 112 Janette Perez 147119th Street SW Naples FL 34117 113 Sylvia Schulz 187019th Street SW Naples FL 34117 114 Laurie Housworth 4345 20th Street NE Naples FL 34120 115 Robert Taylor 4345 20th Street NE Naples FL 34120 116 Laura Kline 4525 20th Street NE Naples FL 34120 117 Brian Creel 4595 20th Street NE Naples FL 34120 118 Linda Katon 3260 20th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 119 Rafael Legoso 333120th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 120 Rick MacCluggage 4445 20th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 121 Shon Stevens 122 21st Street SW Naples FL 34117 122 Julie Stevens 122 21st Street SW Naples FL 34117 123 Linda Schulz 575 21st Street NW Naples FL 34120 124 Chris Beebe 590 21st Street SW Naples FL 34117 125 Tina O'Connell 128121st Street SW Naples FL 34117 126 Don O'Connell 128121st Street SW Naples FL 34117 127 Nancy Castellano 213121st Street SW Naples FL 34117 128 Milagros Garcia 4220 22nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 129 Carlos Garcia 4220 22nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 130 John and Jacqueline Lever 4560 22nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 131 Luis Torez 2920 22nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 132 Melodi Oliveri 3531 22nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 133 Miano Bonilla 3640 22nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 134 Dennis Martin 4265 22nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 135 Angela Meister 785 23rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 136 Chanel Blunc 370 23rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 137 Jill Richards 118123rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 2399638639 2398258865 2393481352 2393488764 2392982174 2393537097 2393542659 2395808516 2393522827 2394348274 2394348274 2393044404 2393318782 2393368782 23928914244 2398258185 2392989126 2394553458 7862953517 7862953686 2396491514 2393045434 2393524232 2392533194 Page 40 of 47 138 Laura Cobet 139 Juan Coufanini 140 Christopher Scarpa 141 Tonia Jones 142 Casey Eagon 143 Lissa Hughes 144 David Eagon 145 Chris Wright 146 Robert Cleveland 147 Amy Cleveland 148 Reinier Rivero 149 Meridith Wulffen 150 Karl Wulffen 151 Daniel McKeon 152 Carolyn McAlear 153 Lois Rainey 154 Carolyn MaLinowski 155 Joseph Salmad 156 Leonardo Castillo 157 Michelle Higgins 158 Terri Hart 159 Terry Arwk 160 Ana Gilliam 161 Patrick Gilliam 162 Joseph Merriam 163 Shirley Sheldon 164 Gregory Garcia 165 Sharon Garcia 166 Laura Gomez 167 John Pedraza 168 Emily Wisland 169 James Hamm 170 Scott Mac Neil 171 Ruth Hamm 172 James Lennon 173 Sharon Lennon 174 Jeannine Ciamcaglini 175 Melania Rodriguez 176 Tamera Smith 177 Darin Ward 178 Juan Soras 179 Crowson 180 Andrea Falcon 181 Dana Holland 182 Pedro Suerra 183 SandyThalheimin PACKET 7 1470 23rd Street SW Naples FL 34117 2880 23rd Street SE Naples FL 34117 2510 24th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2510 24th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 282124th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 282124th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 282124th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2910 24th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 321124th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 321124th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 3490 24th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 4490 24th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 4490 24th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 135 25th Street NW Naples FL 34120 175 25th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 424 25th Street NW Naples FL 34120 424 25th Street NW Naples FL 34120 74125th Street NW Naples FL 34120 1130 25th Street SW Naples FL 34117 1580 25th Street SW Naples FL 34117 28127th Street NW Naples FL 34120 540 27th Street NW Naples FL 34120 540 27th Street SW Naples FL 34117 540 27th Street SW Naples FL 34117 102127th Street SW Naples FL 34117 155127th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2720 27th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2930 27th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 318127th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 3570 27th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 4075 27th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 4485 27th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 4465 27th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 4485 27th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 4540 27th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 4540 27th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2290 25th Ave SE Naples FL 34117 460 29th Street NW Naples FL 34120 650 29th Street NW Naples FL 34120 1020 29th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2780 29th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 3360 29th Ave SW Naples FL 34117 3440 29th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 3500 29th Ave SW Naples FL 34117 2894 30th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 3210 31st Ave SW Naples FL 34117 2394040830 2392862814 2392874983 2393257019 2392876997 2394558697 2392891934 2393488559 2393488559 2393521266 2393537702 2393531016 2393520574 2394556396 2394557192 2393521017 7863440985 2397328856 2395307508 2393487676 2394559985 2393487676 2394555762 2394555762 2393527952 2397775034 2393527138 2397744912 Page 41 of 47 Page 42 of 47 PACKET 7 184 Nelson Pine 2520 31st Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2395958048 185 Yusleify Aguirre 2980 31st Ave NE Naples FL 34120 186 Carlos Aguirre 2980 31st Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2399637889 187 Jennifer Sarragne 3260 31st Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393522094 188 Johanny A 3595 31st Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2392530343 189 Norta de Cespedes 3685 31st Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393527412 190 Francisco Casanova 3785 31st Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2392004501 191 Lou Cianeaglini 460 31st Street NW Naples FL 34120 192 Lisa Krout 52131st Street SW Naples FL 34117 193 Kim Linssen 780 31st Street NW Naples FL 34120 2393480628 194 Gilberto Reyes 3330 33rd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 195 Kristi Shepard 3660 33rd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 196 Adam Shepard 3660 33rd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 197 Greg Lveago 1135th Ave NW Naples FL 34120 198 Carlos Vallejo 2895 35th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 199 Luis Menedez 3290 35th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 200 Travis Delashmet 381135th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394554837 201 Lupercio Torres, Jr. 160 37th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2396018042 202 John Pequigney 220 37th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393045425 203 Kathleen Pequigney 220 37th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393045425 204 Michelle Alonso 2645 37th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393544414 205 Robert Alonso 2645 37th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393544414 206 Pedro Perez 2972 37th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 207 Gabi Andreu 2972 37th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 208 James Mourland 2645 39th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2396596501 209 Barbie Brurland 2645 39th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2396596501 210 Danielle Stauffer 2744 39th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 211 Crystal Hellingsworth 2960 39th Street SW Naples FL 34117 2398214865 212 Ivan Toruno 4546 40th Street NE Naples FL 34120 213 Lavonda Varon 6780 40th Street NE Naples FL 34120 214 Serena Santos 80 41st Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2398259729 215 Javier Fort 2445 41st Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393523147 216 James Ambrose 3840 41st Ave NE Naples FL 34120 217 Teresa Borges 2432 43rd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394558899 218 Jose Borges 2432 43rd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394558899 219 Osbaldo Rivera 3705 43rd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 220 Juan Aria 46045th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2395951443 221 Mark tesar 3585 45th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 222 Lourdes Colon 3630 45th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2397759543 223 Marta Napoles 1465 47th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2392487552 224 Roland Garcia 1725 47th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 225 Manuel Garcia 1735 47th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 226 Mariaelee Alfoun 1735 47th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393521345 227 Rebecca Garcia 1729 47th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2396928481 228 Amanda Kelson 1786 47th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 229 Chuck Kelson 1786 47th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 Page 42 of 47 110� PACKET 7 230 Leah McCormick 3710 47th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394553655 231 Jessica Negron 3790 47th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393483709 232 Gene Salerno 1260 47th Ave SE Naples FL 34120 2394557681 233 Daryl Salerno 1260 47th Street SE Naples FL 34120 2394557681 234 Inulda Gnoff 749 49th Street SE Naples FL 34120 235 Robert and Carol Adler 2760 50th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393537186 236 Andrea Gil 3820 50th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 237 Jim Haven 241152nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 238 Sergio Estrada 2480 52nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 239 Kimberly Estrada 2480 52nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394178575 240 Paul Graham 2520 52nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2398211453 241 Tiffany Graham 2520 52nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394342123 242 Guadalope Flores 52nd Street NE Naples FL 34120 243 Joseph Pinder 247154th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2399635103 244 Maigan Harvey - Pinder 247154th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2397764272 245 Michele Cole 3320 54th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 246 Juan Hernandez 3535 54th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 247 Jeffrey Zappavilli 4115 54th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 248 Jack West 4170 54th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 249 Leni Lopez 4490 56th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393042811 250 Steve Timmins 2910 56th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2395720602 251 Mercedes Arrate 3045 58th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 252 Oscar Arrate 3045 58th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 253 Donna Baduhkaid 3844 58th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 254 Sharon Sweeney 3840 60th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394255887 255 Carla Cordi 4420 60th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393487884 256 Todd Olson 2939 64th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 257 Peta Ledardson 3777 64th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 258 Cynthia Jones 4530 64th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394556907 259 Charles Rainey 2370 66th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 260 Chris and Tonya Cano 342168th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394554718 261 Judy Hall 2395 10th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393487662 262 Richard Bowenman 2395 70th Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2393487662 263 Bonnie Hamm 3542 72nd Ave NE Naples FL 34120 2394556061 264 Theresa Anders 6160 Randall Blvd Naples FL 34120 2393535843 265 Orlando Munoz 980 Randall Blvd Naples FL 34120 266 Pauline Gaynair 3674 Randall Blvd Naples FL 34120 2394555985 267 Susan Fariz 4230 Randall Blvd Naples FL 34120 268 Tom Perchonx 2850 Randall Blvd Naples FL 34120 269 Laura Wood 4360 Randall Blvd Naples FL 34120 270 Michael Wood 4360 Randall Blvd Naples FL 34120 271 Enrique Sequeira 3780 Randall Blvd Naples FL 34120 2393524287 272 Crystal Quintanilla 2475 Randall Blvd Naples FL 34120 2393702035 273 Kishia Thompson 2920 Randall Blvd Naples FL 34120 274 Steven Thompson 2920 Randall Blvd Naples FL 34120 275 Michael Gregory 2525 Randall Blvd Naples FL 34120 2393532835 Page 43 of 47 276 Julie Gregory 277 Gil Carillo 278 J.J. Snyder 279 Chris Crosseax 280 Amy Nesmith 281 Dale Nesmith 282 Marisek Estrella 283 Patricia Della Posta 284 Emily Guerrero 285 P. Gifford 286 Howard Meikle 287 Vanessa Meikle 288 Jeffrey Gershon 289 Galima Gershen 290 David Martinez 291 Nick D'Agostino 292 Aundree Jenkins 293 Albert Balido 294 David Puskaric, Jr. 295 Steven Soto 296 Maureen Soto 297 Dan Guernsey 298 Leroy Jensen 299 Mellisa Puskaris 300 Joseph VonTeinteln 301 Tammy DeCaro 302 Gabriella Reeve 303 Russell Parks 304 John Schuckert 305 Lou Anne Stacheli 306 DeeAnn Manetta 307 Carol Schulz 308 John Ploprest 309 Hector Santiago 310 Robyn Schuckert 311 Dennis DiSarro 312 Maria Casanova 313 Ernesto Rivera 314 Orlando Bouzo 315 Pedro Valez 316 Concetta DiSarro 317 Jeff French 318 Juan Hurlode 319 Susan Lohr 320 Ashley Abeln 321 Deana Petrey PACKET 7 2525 Randall Blvd Naples FL 34120 3020 Randall Blvd Naples FL 34120 2080 Par Drive Naples FL 34120 2899 Orange Grove Trail Naples FL 34120 1958 Par Drive Naples FL 34120 1958 Par Drive Naples FL 34120 2233 Chadwick Circle Naples FL 34120 3522 Ocean Bluff Court Naples FL 34120 2759 Orange Grove Trail Naples FL 34120 788 Grand Rapids Blvd. Naples FL 34117 3270 Sturgeon Bay Court Naples FL 34120 3270 Sturgeon Bay Court Naples FL 34120 2155 Grove Drive Naples FL 34120 2155 Grove Drive Naples FL 34120 3241 Orange Grove Trail Naples FL 34120 844 92nd Ave Naples FL 34108 260 Weber Blvd S Naples FL 34120 893 Summerfield Drive Naples FL 34120 980 Chesapeake Bay Court Naples FL 34120 880 Grand Rapids Blvd. Naples FL 34120 880 Grand Rapids Blvd. Naples FL 34120 3475 Ocean Bluff Naples FL 34120 1057 Pout Orange Way Naples FL 34120 980 Chesapeake Bay Court Naples FL 34120 1106 Grove Drive Naples FL 34120 2127 Grove Drive Naples FL 34120 985 Chesapeake Bay Court Naples FL 34120 1939 Par Drive Naples FL 34120 3260 Orange Grove Trail Naples FL 34120 2636 Citrus Key Lime Court Naples FL 34120 2283 Grove Drive Naples FL 34120 2176 Rush Fig Court Naples FL 34120 877 Grand Rapids Blvd Naples FL 34120 2067 Sagebrush Circle Naples FL 34120 3260 Orange Grove Trail Naples FL 34120 1724 Birdie Drive Naples FL 34120 2732 Orange Grove Trail Naples FL 34120 3160 Valencia Drive Naples FL 34120 3170 Valencia Drive Naples FL 34120 2201 Heydon Circle W Naples FL 34120 1724 Birdie Drive Naples FL 34120 863 Summerfield Drive Naples FL 34120 1740 Birdie Drive Naples FL 34120 2645 Citrus Key Lime Drive Naples FL 34120 3301 Lemon Lane Naples FL 34120 1061 Port Orange Way Naples FL 34120 n 2393532835 2394653946 2393524742 2396929600 2394387755 2393409903 2393542643 2399194698 2393532295 2395373382 2394494887 2393488111 2392802444 2393488258 2398214994 2394651999 2393480425 2393534290 2395376966 2398210436 2393987782 2393530163 2396923271 2397840090 2394551544 2399619025 Page 44 of 47 PACKET 7 322 Cara Steele 5991 Dogwood Way Naples FL 34120 323 P. Novecosky 2037 Fairmont Naples FL 34120 23968827749 324 Leanna -Mae Norris 2239 Birdsong Lane Naples FL 34120 325 Joshua Norris 2290 Robin Drive Naples FL 34117 2392534001 326 Mark Minor 1630 Birdie Drive Naples FL 34120 327 Judy Villani 6150 Westport Lane Naples FL 34120 2394554070 328 Bill McDaniel 7000 Big Island Rock Road Naples FL 34120 2392531617 329 Raul Perez 2080 Keane Ave Naples FL 34117 2398254152 330 Edward Wiggins 700 Limpkin Road Naples FL 34120 331 Angela Wiggins 700 Limpkin Road Naples FL 34120 332 Amelia Macias 686 Wild Turkey Drive Naples FL 34120 333 Jorge Elizondo Corkscrew Area Naples FL 334 Noel Gomez 2656 Fish Tail Palm Court Naples FL 34120 2398957438 335 Corin Hubers 1395 Sanctuary Road Naples FL 34120 336 Elizabeth Perez 2080 Keane Ave Naples FL 34117 2398254152 337 Lorna McFutridge 1920 Rock Road Naples FL 34120 2394507395 338 Louis Hilton 1450 Rock Road Naples FL 34120 Total Sheet 1- 7 1838 t*—,- Page 45 of 47 Page 46 of 47 Page 47 of 47 PETITION CP- 2010 -1 VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT V-.AN-DERB,I.,LT'REACHI,,R-'.OA.D., NEIGHBORHOO.D.COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND . THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 31 TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH RANGE 26 EAST PREPARED FOR: EverBank C/O Douglas W. Nelson, Vice President ^ 1185 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34110 D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 April 22, 2010 Revised October 5, 2010 Revised January 7, 2011 CP- 2010 -1 Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Amendment Justification The Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict authorizes a maximum of 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses on Parcel 1 of the Subdistrict. The property owner is seeking to amend Parcel 1 of the Subdistrict to remove the limitation that no single commercial user can exceed 20,000 square feet. The property owner seeks to permit limited commercial uses to exceed the 20,000 square feet cap, up to a maximum of 50,000 square feet. The overall maximum development limitation of 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses on this parcel will remain. The proposed 50,000 square feet maximum size will apply to uses such as grocery stores, department stores, furniture stores and physical fitness facilities -not general retail uses commonly associated as big box uses. The increased square footage will permit development of the site with a key anchor tenant, which will provide the synergy necessary to attract other neighborhood commercial uses to the site. The current market conditions strongly indicate that commercial centers with key anchor tenants are surviving and succeeding despite the poor local economy. According to the Urban Land Institute and other planning journals, traditional anchor tenants for neighborhood centers include the uses suggested in this amendment. The current size restriction has prohibited the property owner from securing a key anchor tenant for the property. Uses such as a grocery store, junior department store, hardware stores and even physical fitness facilities presently require up to 50,000 square feet in support of their successful business models. Although the size limitation was imposed by the County Commission during the plan amendment adoption hearing, it was in the context of attempting to deal with compatibility of large scale retail users adjacent to a single property that was not part of the subdistrict. Nearby property owners were supportive of the proposed subdistrict without the 20,000 square foot commercial user cap. The Land Development Code (LDC) does not define the phrase "big box "; however, additional architectural and site design standards are imposed on buildings exceeding 20,000 square feet in size. The current property owner has been working with commercial realtors and appraisers, and they have determined that the 20,000 square foot size limitation for any individual commercial use is a major factor in why this prominent commercially designated site has not been developed. They have also evaluated many sites in the Naples market and determined that those sites having strong anchor tenants are maintaining higher occupancy rates than those sites where no key anchor tenant exists. The specific uses for which the property owner is seeking to permit above 20,000 square feet are uses commonly found in neighborhood centers and commonly exceed 20,000 square feet in size. The few uses for which the amendment seeks to permit square Page 1 of 2 footages above 20,000 square feet are viable uses for the site and are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Subdistrict. Modifying the Subdistrict to permit anchor tenants at sizes commonly found in neighborhood centers represents sound land planning, and responds to a land use model that has successfully been implemented in many other locations. The uses cannot exceed the intensity of the C -3 zoning district, and in order to obtain any of the permitted uses within the Subdistrict, the property owner will be required to rezone the property to a Planned Unit Development. During the PUD rezoning process staff and the County Commission will be able to evaluate specific land uses, the conceptual master plan, and impose conditions to insure that the site remains compatible with surrounding development. The proposed amendment will not increase the overall intensity of development or types of land uses permitted within the subdistrict. Page 2 of 2 APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER GMPT -PL- 2010 -766 (CP- 2010 -1) DATE RECEIVED 4/22/2010 PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE 3/26/2010 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 INFORMATION A. Name of Applicant Douglas W. Nelson, Vice President Company EverBank Mailing Address 1185 Immokalee Road City Naples State FL Zip Code 34110 Phone Number 239.415.5024 Fax Number 239.254.2194 � B. Name of Agent* Wayne Arnold • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company /Firm Q. Grady Minor and Associates. P.A. Mailing Address 3800 Via Del Rev City Bonita Springs State FL Zip Code 34134 Phone Number 239.947.1144 Fax Number 239.947.0375 Email Address warnold(a)gradyminor.com Company /Firm Douglas W. Nelson, Vice President, Everbank Mailing Address 1185 Immokalee Road City Naples State FL Zip Code 34110 Phone Number 239.415.5024 Fax Number 239.254.2194 Email Address Douglas.Nelson(a)_EverBank.com Company /Firm Richard D. Yovanovich, Esg, Coleman. Yovanovich and Koester P.A. Mailing Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 City Naples State FL Zip Code 34103 Phone Number 239.435.3535 Fax Number 239.435.1218 Email Address ryovanovidh(a)cyklawfirm.com C. Name of Owner(s) of Record EverBank Mailing Address 1185 Immokalee Road City Naples State FL Zip Code 34110 Phone Number 239.415.5024 Fax Number 239.254.2194 D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. Page 1 of 6 VBRGMPA DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each, and provide one copy of the Articles of Incorporation, or other documentation, to verify the signer of this petition has the authority to do so. Name and Address, and Office Percentage of Stock EverBank 100% 1185 Immokalee Road Naples, 34110 C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and /or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contact purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners, and provide one copy of the executed contract. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Page 2 of 6 VBRGMPA n 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 (November. 2009) leased (): _Terms of lease _ yrs /mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing: 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. Page 3 of 6 VBRGMPA III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and the W 1/2 of the W 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 31 Townshi 48 South Ran a 26 east Collier County, Florida less the South 150 feet thereof. LESS AND EXCEPT: That portion described in Warranty Deed in Collier County, Florida recorded in Official Records Book 3022 Page 1128 and that ortion described in Order of Taking recorded in Official Records Book 3599 Page 121 both of the Public Records of Collier County . Florida. B. GENERAL LOCATION Subiect property is located on the northeast quadrant of Livingston Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. C. PLANNING COMMUNITY Urban Estates D. TAZ 159 E. SIZE IN ACRES 9.2t F. ZONING Bradford Square MPUD (Ord. 07-41) G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN Urban Residential Subdistrict PUD CFPUD and A zoning. H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION (S) Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict IV. TYPE OF REQUEST A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT(S) OR SUB - ELEMENTS) TO BE AMENDED: Housing Element Traffic Circulation Sub - Element Aviation Sub - Element Sanitary Sewer Sub - Element Solid Waste Sub - Element Capital Improvement Element ✓ Future Land Use Element Immokalee Master Plan Recreation /Open Space Mass Transit Sub - Element Potable Water Sub - Element NGWAR Sub - Element Drainage Sub - Element CCME Element Golden Gate Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE(S) 44 — 45 OF THE Future Land Use ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use StFike thmugh to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: Exhibit IV.B C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM N/A TO D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) N/A E. DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL CHANGES REQUESTED: N/A V. REQUIRED INFORMATION NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN 1" = 400'. At least one copy reduced to 8'/z x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and /or maps. A. LAND USE Exhibit V.A.1 Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI'S, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. Page 4 of 6 VBRGWA Exhibit V.A.2 Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. Exhibit V.A.2 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 DESIGNATION Exhibit V.B 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 V.C.1 a Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native habitats and Exhibit V.C.1b soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT - FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A° ABOVE. N/A Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 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.) 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: 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. N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380.,F.S. ? (Reference 9J- 11.006(1)(a)7.a, F.A.C.) N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S. ? (Reference 9J- 11.006(1)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) 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. N Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and /or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? (Reference Rule 9J- 5.006(5) F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference Rule 9J- 11.007, F.A.C.) E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Provide the existing adopted Level of Service Standard (LOS, and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: Page 5 of 6 VBRGMPA Exhibit V.E Potable Water Exhibit V.E Sanitary Sewer Exhibit V.E Arterial & Collector Roads: Name of specific road and LOS Vanderbilt Beach Road Livingston Road Exhibit V.E Drainage Exhibit V.E Solid Waste Exhibit V.E Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and /or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2. Exhibit V.E.2Provide 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 V.E 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: Exhibit V.F Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). N/A Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). N/A Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable. N/A Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable. N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION X $16,700.00 non - refundable filing fee, made payable to the Board of County Commissioners, due at time of submittal. $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. X Plus Legal Advertisement Costs (Your portion determined by number of petitions and divided accordingly. Exhibit V.G. Proof of ownership (Copy of deed). Exhibit V.G. 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. Page 6 of 6 VBRGN PA EXHIBIT I.D, PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Exhibit I.D. Professional Consultants Planning /Project Management: Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. D. Wayne Arnold, AICP 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 (239) 947 -1144 (239) 947 -0375 fax Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 (239) 435 -3535 (239) 435 -1218 fax n n Page 1 of 2 D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Principal, Director of Planning Education Master of Urban Planning, University of Kansas, Lawrence Bachelor of Science, Urban and Regional Planning/Geography, Missouri State University Professional Registrations/ Affiliations • American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) • American Planning Association (APA) • Urban Land Institute, S.W. Florida Chapter, Board of Directors 1996 • Collier County Rural Fringe Committee, Chairman, 1999 • Collier County Streetscape Ad hoc Committee, 1999 • Leadership Collier, Class of 2000 • Bonita Springs Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee • Collier Building Industry Association, Board of Directors • Collier County Jr. Deputy League, Inc., Board of Directors 0 GradyMinor Mr. Arnold is a Principal and co -owner of the firm and serves as the Secretary/Treasurer and Director of Planning. As Director of Planning, Mr. Arnold is responsible for and oversees services related to plan amendments, property rezonings, expert witness testimony, ROW Acquisition, public participation facilitation, and project management. Mr. Arnold previously served as the Planning Services Director at Collier County, where he oversaw the County's zoning, comprehensive planning, engineering, platting and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) functions. Mr. Arnold also has prior Florida planning experience with Palm Beach County Government and the South Florida Water Management District. Mr. Arnold has been accepted as an expert in land planning matters in local and state proceedings. Relevant Projects • Collier County Growth Management Plan • Marco Island Master Plan • Immokalee Area Master Plan • Collier County Land Development Code • Logan Boulevard Right -of -Way Acquisition Planning Analysis • U.S. 41 Right -of -Way Expansion Planning Analysis • Copeland Zoning Overlay • Collier County Government Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI) • Winding Cypress DRI • Pine Ridge /Goodlette Road Commercial Infill District • Lely Lakes PUD Rezoning • Henderson Creek Planned Development/Growth Management Plan Amendment • Orangetree (Settlement Area) Growth Management Plan Amendment • Mercato Mixed Use Planned Development • North Point DR WD • Vornado RPUD • Orange Blossom Ranch MPD • Palermo Cove RPD Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Civil Engineers • Surveyors • Land Planners • Landscape Architects Page 2 of 2 EX�� ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION /I--- 2010 FOR PROFIT CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT DOCUMENT# P04000142463 Entity Name: EVERBANK FINANCIAL CORP _irrent Principal Place of Business: 501 RIVERSIDE AVE. 12TH FLOOR JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202 Current Mailing Address: 501 RIVERSIDE AVE. 12TH FLOOR JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202 FEI Number: 52- 2024090 FEI Number Applied For ( ) Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: C T CORPORATION SYSTEM 1200 SOUTH PINE ISLAND ROAD PLANTATION, FL 33324 US FILED Jan 21, 2010 Secretary of State New Principal Place of Business: New Mailing Address: FEI Number Not Applicable ( ) Certificate of Status Desired( ) Name and Address of New Registered Agent: The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent, or both, in the State of Florida. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Date Election Campaign Financing Trust Fund Contribution ( I. OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS: I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under oath; that I am an officer or director of the corporation or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 607, Florida Statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered. 3NATURE: THOMASAHAJDA S 01/21/2010 Electronic Signature of Signing Officer or Director Date DCEO 1-ZlItle: -ne: CLEMENTS, ROBERT M /ress: 501 RIVERSIDE AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR City -St -Zip: JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202 Title: DNC Name: MEEKS, GARY A Address: 501 RIVERSIDE AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR City -St -Zip: JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202 Title: DIP Name: WILSON, W. BLAKE Address: 501 RIVERSIDE AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR City -St -Zip: JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202 Title: D Name: COMMANDER, CHARLES E III Address: 200 LAURA ST City -St -Zip: JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202 Title: EVP Name: SURFACE, JOHN S Address: 501 RIVERSIDE AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR City -St -Zip: JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202 Title: S Name: HAJ DA, THOMAS A Address: 501 RIVERSIDE AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR City -St -Zip: JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202 I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under oath; that I am an officer or director of the corporation or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 607, Florida Statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered. 3NATURE: THOMASAHAJDA S 01/21/2010 Electronic Signature of Signing Officer or Director Date EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTION � LEGEND POB = POINT OF BEGINNING POC = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT OR = OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK PG(S) = PAGE(S) ROW = RIGHT —OF —WAY M O O O- z J � 0' 60' 120' 240' SCALE.' 1 "= 120' THIS PLAN MAY HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED FROM INTENDED DISPLAY SCALE FOR REPRODUC77ON REASONS LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 S 8958'07" W 114.28' L2 N 00'0153" W 26.50' L3 N 694627' W 8.19' OR 2632 PGS. 1892 S 89 °5642 'E 826.29' OR 4509 PGS. 1454 -1455 0 S 89 °5807" W 704.79' OR 3022 PGS 1128 -1131 — — — — — OR 3599 PGS 121 -124 � Li 2----- - - - - -- ro ` g 0 VANDERBIL TBEACH ROAD P a L 36 31 S. LINE THE SW. 1 4 OF SECTION 31 1 6 S89 °5672 'E 2644.16' PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4509 PAGES 1454 THROUGH 1455 THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE SOUTH 150 FEET THEREOF. A DRAWN BY: DLS LESS AND EXCEPT: SKETCH AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION 0 N THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN WARRANTY DEED IN COLDER o _ L. RA FL LICE ER #6O91SM FOR THE FIRM COUNTY, FLORIDA RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3022, DESCRIBED IN ORDER OF cn m A PAGE 1128, AND THAT PORTION TAKING RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3599, PAGE 121, SHEET.• 1 01 1 c °j 1v BOTH OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (Q3 CONTAINING 9.18 ACRES MORE OR LESS M cn o ti NOTES: �^ 1. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE SOUTH LINE y OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING SOUTH 89'56'12' EAST. 2. THIS SKETCH AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF ABSTRACT OF TITLE AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND /OR Q RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. ALL MATTERS OF TITLE SHOULD BE REFERRED TO AN ATTORNEY AT LAW. 3. DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN U.S. SURVEY FEET AND a DECIMALS THEREOF. J Q S.1/4 CORNER I c� OF SECTION 31 — 0 A DRAWN BY: DLS GradyMinor Bonita Springs 239.6 .1144 Fort Myers z3sso s90.438o 3800 WA DEL REY - BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 North Port 941.426.5858 Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects CERT. OF AUTH. EB 0005151 CERT. OF AUTH. LB 000515] BUSINESS LC 26000266 www.GradyMinor.com Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. SKETCH AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECKEDBY.• RH OR. 4509 PGS. 1454 -1455 A PORTION OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA _ L. RA FL LICE ER #6O91SM FOR THE FIRM JOB CODE: xlDOOax SCALE: 1 "= 120' DATE: 4/06110 FILE: 1032-001 SL.DWG SHEET.• 1 01 1 EXHIBIT IV.B. PROPOSED, GROWTH M ANAGEMENT PLANTEXT Exhibit IV.B Amended Language FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION I. URBAN DESIGNATION A. Urban Mixed Use District (XV) 16. Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide primarily for neighborhood commercial development at a scale not typically found in the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. The intent is to provide commercial uses to serve the emerging residential development in close proximity to this Subdistrict, and to provide employment opportunities for residents in the surrounding area. Allowable uses shall be a variety of commercial uses as more particularly described below, and mixed use (commercial and residential). Prohibited uses shall be gas stations and convenience stores with gas pumps, and certain types of fast food restaurants. This Subdistrict consists of two parcels comprising approximately 17 acres, located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and east of Livingston Road, as shown on the Subdistrict Map. For mixed -use development, residential density shall be limited to sixteen dwelling units per acre. Residential density shall be calculated based upon the gross acreage of the Subdistrict parcel on which it is located (Parcel 1 or Parcel 2). Rezoning of the parcels comprising this Subdistrict is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD, Planned Unit Development. At the time of rezoning, the applicant must include architectural and landscape standards for each parcel. a. Parcel This parcel is located at the intersection of Livingston Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. A maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial uses may be allowed. Allowable uses shall be the following, except as prohibited above: retail, personal service, restaurant, office, and all other uses as allowed, whether by right or by conditional use, in the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04 -41, as amended, in effect as of the date of adoption of this Subdistrict (Ordinance No. 2005 -25 adopted on June 7, 2005); other comparable and /or compatible land uses not found specifically in the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts, limited to: general and medical offices, government offices, financial institutions, personal and business services, limited indoor recreational uses, and limited retail uses; mixed -use development (residential and commercial uses). The maximum floor area for any single commercial user shall be 20,000 square feet except for a grocery /supermarket, physical fitness facility, craft/hobby store home furniture /furnishing store, or department store use which shall not exceed a maximum of 50,000 square feet. In addition to the prohibited uses applicable to both parcels the following list of uses shall also be prohibited on Parcel 1. 0742 — Veterinary services for Animal Specialties - Horses are prohibited other animals are allowed. 0752 — Animal specialty services Except Veterinary (dog grooming is allowed) 5261 — Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores 5499 — Poultry dealers — retail and egg dealers — retail 5531 — Auto and home supply store, except automobile accessory and parts dealers — retail (no on -site installation) Exh NB - Amended Language rev3.doe Page 1 of 2 VBRGMPA 5813 — Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) 5921 — Liquor stores exceeding 5,000 square feet 5932 — Used merchandise stores 5962 — Automatic merchandising machine operators 7211 — Power laundries family and commercial 7215 — Coin - operated laundries and drycleaning 7216 — Drycleaning plants except rug cleaning 7299 — Miscellaneous personal services not elsewhere classified Coin operated service machine operations Comfort station operation Escort service Locker rental Massage parlors (except those employing licensed therapists) Rest room operation Tattoo parlors Turkish baths Weddinq chapels privately operated 7389 Business services not elsewhere classified except Appraisers 7623 — Refrigeration and air - conditioning service and repair shops 7629 Electrical and electronic repair shops not elsewhere classified 7641 — Re- upholstery and furniture repair 7692 — Welding repair 7694 — Armature rewinding shops 7699 — Repair shops and related services not elsewhere classified 7841 — Adult oriented video tape rental 7993 — Coin operated amusement devices 8641 — Civic social and fraternal associations (XV)b. Parcel This parcel is located approximately '/4 mile east of Livingston Road and is adjacent to multifamily residential uses. A maximum of 80,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial uses may be allowed. Allowable uses shall be the following, except as prohibited above: General and medical offices, community facilities, and business and personal services, all as allowed, whether by right or by conditional use, in the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04 -41, as amended, in effect as of the date of adoption of this Subdistrict (Ordinance No. 2005 -25 adopted on June 7, 2005). The maximum floor area for any single commercial user shall be 20,000 square feet. At the time of rezoning of Parcel 2, the developer shall provide restrictions and standards to insure that uses and hours of operation are compatible with surrounding land uses. Permitted uses such as assisted living facilities, independent living facilities for persons over the age of 55, continuing care retirement communities, and nursing homes, shall be restricted to a maximum of 200 units and a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.6. The developer of Parcel 2 shall provide a landscape buffer along the eastern property line, abutting the Wilshire Lakes PUD, at a minimum width of thirty (30) feet. At the time of rezoning, the developer shall incorporate a detailed landscape plan for that portion of the property fronting Vanderbilt Beach Road as well as that portion along the eastern property line, abutting the Wilshire Lakes PUD. Exh IVB - Amended Language rev3.doe Page 2 of 2 VBRGMPA AXI�I$ I. V.A. L A D US,,,,E / N C -4 n c n 34 C -4 C -4 COMMONS ROAD (C.R. 846) VENTRY GRANA A QUARE SHOPP S GREEN LIST NAPLES URCH DAILY NEWS —3 CREEKSIDE N� COMMERCE H P PARK PELICAN Z 27 —3 PELICAN TREE MARSH N C -4 n c n 34 C -4 C -4 COMMONS Z y C- y GREEN PELICAN w o Z� Z N N� MARSH H H P U M PELICAN Z -A (DRI) U MARSH O TREE Of ( (DRI) 0 3 31 ol 35 ¢ ¢ 3 SURREY CENTER WILSHIRE �, VILLAS M REGENT APRIL 0 V) zzw PLACE CONVALESCENT PARK CIRCL o I S C -4 NORTHSIDE LIVINGSTON 2 MEDICAL IMMOKALEE = LAKES (S) 26 ROAD it STONEBRIDGE CENTER 25 THE BOSLEY 30 0 v BREEZEWOOD CRESCENT (S) 0 LAKE w HAMILTON 0 ESTATES o GREENS O 29 MALIBU GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 28 LAKE UNIT 97 HE I RIGAS C a DRI VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD LEMURIA BRADFORD VANDERBILT VINEYARDS SQUARE TRUST VENETIAN BRIGHTON (DRI) ^ PLAZA GARDENS HEAVENLY Lo MONTEREY FOUNTAIN VINEYARDS PARK CITRUS (DRI) GARDENS PINE U EMERALD ORANGE OAK uj RIDGE o LAKES m BLOSSOM(S) GROVE SAVANNAH 2 CAY 1 3 j a PLACE LAGOON CARLISLE NAPLES 6 w J J o P REGENCY LONGVIEW FIRST 0 0� SLEEPY CENTER ~ a g z Y BAPTIST m HOLLOW V.F.W. SUNSHINE LONE CHURCH (S) VILLAGE BEAR OAK o (S ) CREEK LL o 0 w WILLOW PRINCESS PARK PARK m ewe o 0 w DmYum or: © rnny �1nw 23 8LEGEND o 9,690330 GradyMinor ABDERR a•tlAffiSnGn ® N .re.ovm: rvlmm 219.4- w.zsW 0 (;lull Englncers • ccLe 1 SarveyDrs • Planners • Landscape ArchUe Ls 1000' 2000' � �r. nr�m�I. rnl zr.reAimr Dlrolln, nleixrss u; zanmzal SCALE: t" = 2000' q•Nel•n Det• Deecdpnon �, °� _ mr":GruJyAllnor.ram Q. Gluly Mlnor Intl A—l-, P.A. STANDING - OAKS ISLANDWALK 32 (DRI) GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ' l UNIT 96 �w 33 VANDERBILT BEACH 0 Q w VINEYARDS O (DRI) m 4 Z 5 < GOLDEN GATE 0 ESTATES - UNIT 95 BEAM RW RBICRBORROOD COMRCIAL SUED EXHIBIT V.A.1 p1O GENERAL LOCATION MAP_ �Crr t ar t Z y y PELICAN Z N N� MARSH H H P U M PELICAN Z -A (DRI) U MARSH O m Of ( (DRI) 0 3 31 ol 35 ¢ ¢ 3 36 x W WILSHIRE �, VILLAS M MARSH VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD LEMURIA BRADFORD VANDERBILT VINEYARDS SQUARE TRUST VENETIAN BRIGHTON (DRI) ^ PLAZA GARDENS HEAVENLY Lo MONTEREY FOUNTAIN VINEYARDS PARK CITRUS (DRI) GARDENS PINE U EMERALD ORANGE OAK uj RIDGE o LAKES m BLOSSOM(S) GROVE SAVANNAH 2 CAY 1 3 j a PLACE LAGOON CARLISLE NAPLES 6 w J J o P REGENCY LONGVIEW FIRST 0 0� SLEEPY CENTER ~ a g z Y BAPTIST m HOLLOW V.F.W. SUNSHINE LONE CHURCH (S) VILLAGE BEAR OAK o (S ) CREEK LL o 0 w WILLOW PRINCESS PARK PARK m ewe o 0 w DmYum or: © rnny �1nw 23 8LEGEND o 9,690330 GradyMinor ABDERR a•tlAffiSnGn ® N .re.ovm: rvlmm 219.4- w.zsW 0 (;lull Englncers • ccLe 1 SarveyDrs • Planners • Landscape ArchUe Ls 1000' 2000' � �r. nr�m�I. rnl zr.reAimr Dlrolln, nleixrss u; zanmzal SCALE: t" = 2000' q•Nel•n Det• Deecdpnon �, °� _ mr":GruJyAllnor.ram Q. Gluly Mlnor Intl A—l-, P.A. STANDING - OAKS ISLANDWALK 32 (DRI) GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ' l UNIT 96 �w 33 VANDERBILT BEACH 0 Q w VINEYARDS O (DRI) m 4 Z 5 < GOLDEN GATE 0 ESTATES - UNIT 95 BEAM RW RBICRBORROOD COMRCIAL SUED EXHIBIT V.A.1 p1O GENERAL LOCATION MAP_ �Crr t ar t STANDING - OAKS ISLANDWALK 32 (DRI) GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ' l UNIT 96 �w 33 VANDERBILT BEACH 0 Q w VINEYARDS O (DRI) m 4 Z 5 < GOLDEN GATE 0 ESTATES - UNIT 95 BEAM RW RBICRBORROOD COMRCIAL SUED EXHIBIT V.A.1 p1O GENERAL LOCATION MAP_ �Crr t ar t BEAM RW RBICRBORROOD COMRCIAL SUED EXHIBIT V.A.1 p1O GENERAL LOCATION MAP_ �Crr t ar t �. 10"*" na qD> US 3f � :/)J§�z ; . .: , \ \ . . } :\ d) \/ �\ \ :\ <..�1 : »© . ! ' °! :£ !\ ) ;> }\\ / \ }» . .mil» R25E R26E R27E R28 2006 — 2016 FUTURE LAND USE MAP N Collier County Florida a DETAILS OF THE RLSA OVER LAY AREA ARE SHOWN ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPTRLED: E03FFF F 'COLLIER COUNTY RURAL S AGRICULTURAL AREA ASSESSMENT STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP SUBJECT SITE COUNTY i V, CLAM BAY NRPA R29E I R30E VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD 31 E R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL URBAN DESIGNATION SUBDISTRICT K c xRx ■ M. .Rx° x„ a.M ❑ °�'" ��D°I °`®slNa ESTATES DESIGNATION x °—No " °°° ■ p EXHIBIT V.B EXISTING FUTURE LAND (� �yucr x u mac+ p CONSERVATION DESICNAAON °' USE DESIGNATION ® c°1� "c ALE wAp6°s'' OVERLAYS ANO AN N cvFCIAL FERES SUBJECT SITE: VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL Rio xmi su°„os /mortr xau Mv. mm/x ■ � T�, � sfxR a<w ®oo � x� x, ,,,oM„ _� N war � SUBDISTRICT = 9.2t ACRES ®parue= un „t¢Ixuu+ rw„ suomvn ®MM %umxr muxaE v null DESIGNATIONL I RURAL T gi x xr „art moor r Ln o„ w—E 1- p "ana,uun"4xuu.L uam u o smm , �xxE m w ®R xN ® :,r xlzuxvl .,v ,x<xula+ r ml susosTxm ® xamu uxxz Go wr wx Go In OI � (sl Imo HENDRY COUNTY „w. o + m N1UKUN: xvu�o ¢ A amxlN, tNm UJ + 3 N rmxwmttNt On - g v) ,�,bx,i°a. O'� � FAKANATCHEE STRAND .m�P _ NnDNm v. Mor (n Ln _ STATE R _ so•Idnu ,0. moa N 2' PRESERVE O — l g BIG CYPRESS ° cOW[x- L `! NATIONAL Nlrx °lab. x> xam-M1 sEHO PRESERVE Ywun a nm l �� lora tm. mo,moaga��nAil� � cc Ln swi 0 s � rArL xo .alunc '� R6LV Mx •x m CD w In r.x x�w N was o,.MOx - MONROE cauNrr R 34 E w R29E R30E R31 E R32E R33E J R25Ex R26E R27E R28E /011*1 a., ff 0 41, N NMI\ (I m vi Ht B [I T E EXHIBIT V.E. PUBLIC FACILITIES V.E.1. Provide the existing adopted Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: The subject Growth Management Plan Amendment proposes to permit a maximum of 100,000 square feet of commercial development on the 9+ acre property that comprises the Vanderbilt Neighborhood Commercial land use category. Approximately 100,000 square feet of general commercial use will be constructed within this land use category. Additionally up to 10 residential units will be constructed. Potable Water The subject project is located within the urban boundary with standards for Potable Water established in the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Service to this area is provided by Collier County Water and Sewer District. The currently adopted minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standards and 2009 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) for Potable Water are as follows: Potable Water LOS Standard 170 GPD /Capita Available Inventory as of 7/09 46.8 MGD Required Inventory as of 7/09 31.9 MGD Planned CIE FY 09 -14 2.0 MGD 5 -Year Surplus or (Deficit) 16.9 MGD Minimum standards for Potable Water are being met or exceeded. It is estimated that potable water demand for the project will be as follows. 100,000 sq. ft. retail at: 0.1 GPD /SF = 10,000 GPD 10 units at: 170 GPD /UNIT = 1.700 GPD TOTAL = 11,700 GPD The total combined demand for potable water for the new land use category is approximately 11,700 gallons per day. Based on the available inventory identified in the 2009 AUIR, this demand will not have a significant impact on the Collier County Regional Water System. Sanitary Sewer The subject project is located within the urban boundary with standards for Sanitary Sewer established in the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Exhibit V.E Page 1 of 6 Growth Management Plan. The currently adopted minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standards and 2009 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) for Sanitary Sewer are as follows: Sanitary Sewer LOS Standard Available Inventory as of 7/09 Required Inventory as of 7/09 Planned CIE FY 09 -14 5 -Year Surplus or (Deficit) 100,000 sq. ft. retail at: 10 units at: 120 GPD /Capita 29.1 MGD 23.8 MGD 0.0 MGD 5.3 MGD 0.1 GPD /SF = 10,000 GPD 120 GPD /UNIT = 1,200 GPD TOTAL= 11,200 GPD Standards for Sanitary Sewer are being met or exceeded. It is estimated that wastewater demand for the project will be equal to that identified in the potable water analysis above and is approximately 11,200 gallons per day. This demand is within the available capacity identified in the AUIR, will not have a significant impact on the Regional Wastewater System. Arterial and Collector Roads The proposed amendment does not modify the previously approved maximum intensity of development. The previously approved impact statement for this site had an adjusted Total Daily trip count of 5185 with 480 adjusted PM Peak Hour trips (6880 Total Daily, 635 P.M. Peak Hour Trips — Unadjusted). The PM Peak hour service volume on Livingston Road between Vanderbilt and Immokalee Roads is 3,840 vehicles (Total Volume is 1510 trips and Remaining Capacity is 2330 trips). The PM Peak hour service volume on Vanderbilt Beach Road between Logan and Livingston Roads is 3,540 vehicles (Total Volume is 1934 trips and Remaining Capacity is 1606 trips). No new traffic impacts result from the amendment. Drainage The subject project is located within the urban boundary with standards for Drainage established in the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Exhibit V.E Page 2 of 6 Growth Management Plan. The currently adopted minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standards and 1999 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) for Drainage are as follows: Drainage LOS Standard Future Development — 25 year, 3 day storm Existing Development — current service level Available Inventory as of 7/09 373 Canal Miles Required Inventory as of 7/10 373 Canal Miles Planned CIE FY 10 -14 N/A 5 -Year Surplus or (Deficit) N/A The proposed development in the amendment area will be designed to comply with the 25 year, 3 day storm routing requirements. Solid Waste The established Level of Service (LOS) for the solid waste facilities is two years of landfill 011..,1� disposal capacity at present fill rates and ten years of landfill raw land capacity at present fill rates. No adverse impacts to the existing solid waste facilities from the proposed project of 100,000 square feet of commercial uses. Solid Waste Generation: Retail: 100,000 sf x 0.01 Ib /sf /day x 1 cy /250 Ibs = 1,400 cy /yr Residential: 10 UNITS x 5 Ibs /unit/day x 1 cy /250lbs = 73 cy /yr Data source: "Solid Wastes: Engineering Principles and Management Issues ", Tchobangolous/Theisen and "Environmental Engineering and Sanitation ", Salvato. Parks: Community and Regional A maximum of 10 residential units will be allowed. Computation of projected demand is as calculated below. This demand is nominal and will not adversely affect Park capacity. 1.2 acres /1000 unincorporated population x 10 units x 2.5 pop /unit = fraction of an acre The currently adopted minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standards and 2009 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) for Regional Park Land is as follows: Exhibit V.E Page 3 of 6 Parks LOS Standard 1.2 acres /10( Available Inventory as of 9/30/09 Required Inventory as of FY2016 Planned CIE FY 10 -15 Available Inventory as of FY 2016 5 -Year Surplus or (Deficit) Q unincorporated population 544.54 Acres 473.70 Acres (47.00) Acres 497.54 Acres 23.84 Acres No adverse impacts to the existing parks are anticipated from this project. Impact fees at the current fee structure will be paid and provide funding for future park needs. The development will be responsible for payment of impact fees if residential development occurs on this site. Exhibit V.E Page 4 of 6 LEGEND w LL D ® SCHOOLS ` Z , PARKS 1 j ® AIRPORTS U7 E FIRE STATIONS , NAPLES MS PLES I E EMERGENCY MEDICAL STATIONS C.R.888 GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS * SHERIFF'S STATIONS AND B4 SUBSTATIONS COASTAL Heal m m ` ` HAZARD ZONE ❑ LIBRARIES , , E H p WATER TREATMENT PLANTS ' APLE5 PARK H 8 ' NAPLES IMMOKALEE RD C.R. 846 MEDIC 7J H PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS AND EUM PROP050 HOSPITALS EXISTING OR MODIFIED IF , O A WATER RETENTION STRUCTURES ' ' MEDIC 4z LAUREL Cu�SCHOOL Kw G4 Lf) SOLID WASTE FACILITIES ' ' WW1 + T 0 Z m � } WASTEWATER TREATMENT 0 0 C) PLANTS ' W DNS NORDI COLLIER REaONAL PARK Q > � w Z OMKDDL V INDICATES HIGH ACES PARK ® w O VELOCITY ZONE SHERIEE. PELICAN MARSH COASTAL HIGH i SUBS T4nav ¢EM• m O m W _ _ _ _ _ _ HAZARD ZONE IF FACHPIAW VANE Rel i BEACH Y SAY YANDfHB/LT BEACH o Q Ro SITE LIBRARY 0� VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD MEDIC J Y Z E 44 & BI NN YARDS ELEMENTARY MEDIC 7J BIG CWRESS Div. F PROPOSED ® Z "Ni COMM. Q F- L d O w Z PARK MAX HASSE O O 0 F- 0 z _ oEDLA z o PNE RIDGE Q EZEA ® j J � � M /DOLE SCALE P 1 C L ®coWcuEx R I IF F4 HIGH PINE RIDGE RD U 0 1 MI. — �LE a 1/2 MI. I PINE RIDGE RD IF \\v S C2 ° LEGEND —9r: Snot 8,0,o F.11 Myers 2:19.947.1144 239.091143811 ARDERBILT BEACH ROAD NEICKBOR900D COMMERCIAL SUBDISWC1 GradyMinor NOMPPrL 941.420.5858 u>P NPPICH 239.4442397 EXHIBIT V.E.2 f.IVll Engineers • Land EurveyDrs • DnnRnl. --51 escr Denurn. LDMbDlP1 Planners • LaarLse3De ArchltecGS srs1A63lc zeawme PUBLIC FACILITIES MAP vMff �+RN'1 3 �� w Cmdytilnr. 0.GmdyMiw— dAnsll —.PA. DATE AERIAL FLOWN: JANUARY 2008 �� I or I RWI,ion Dote DnodPnon Dy V.E.3. 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. Schools A maximum of 10 residential units will be allowed. Given the mixed use nature of the project and likely residential component, maximum students would be 0.5 /unit or 5 students. This demand is nominal and will not adversely affect School capacity. The development will be responsible for payment of impact fees if residential development occurs on this site. Fire Service The proposed land use category is within the North Naples Fire District service area. No known service deficiencies exist or are anticipated. Fire impact fees will be paid at the time of development, which will offset increases in service demand. EMS e-111 Three EMS facilities are located in close proximity to the proposed land use district. No known service deficiencies exist. Impact fees will be paid at the time of development to off -set any increased service demand as a result of commercial development within this district. Exhibit V.E Page 6 of 6 /"I'- El---XIH.3F-IIIBIIT V�Fi I,r k 0,)UHER .01111. C S z cT N O Z O F 8631N -o m D) X ✓S � r* Ol N0. NAME 1 ONE SHE.LAX &PHHASE NSN E' EAK PHASE MO 4 I.SNIR E -% PHASE TW -A 5 MARSHA AT IBUROx e -- - - - - -- INDICATES SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY P.B. P% -NAME 19 1 —J is 2J 81 -62 27 24- 27 13 30 48 -49 47 11 -14 iS 9606N .R2 �2 0 „°2 6$ jT tl — saavaWgog } 4 s° ag rfg$a�zu��aia8"ll 4 8s_a8°°i's s8 °888ll 86oaao8 y adep'1571dAA „ „S "elld U FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP WFORMATICN 1W5 IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A PACE OF ME OFYlgA1 ZONING ATLAS REFERRED TO AM AOWTED BY REFERENCE BY ORDINANCE NO. 04 -41 OF COMMUNITY NUMBER:120057 PANEL NUMBER: _ ME OWHTY OF COWER. RWDA, ADOPTED JUNE 22, 2004. PROGRAM: REGULAR EFFECTIVE DATE NOV. 17, 200E ATTEST FLOW ZONE; AL r OR AS SHOWN ON MAP. %AND ZONE: ALL 129 OR AS SHOWN ON MAP, CHNRMAN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION TWP 48S RNG 26E SEC(S) 31 SO 1/: Dec SCALE MAP NUMBER: N ® 8631S PLF��J I� x H bd H H C X I IT j. ` NFQTRI'\M ION /"-'\ Details Property Record I Aerial j Sketches Trim Notices Current Ownership Parcel No. 00203042108 Property Addressil 14258 LIVINGSTON RD Owner Name EVERBANK Addresses 1186IMMOKALEE RD City NAPLES State FL Zip 34110 - 0 Page 1 of 1 Legal 3148 26 S112 OF SW114 OF SW 114 LESS S 15OFT LESS E 495FT + -LESS R W DESC IN OR 3022 PG 1128& LESS RW DESC IN OR 3599 'For more than four lines of Legal Description please call the Property Appraiser's Office. Section Township Range Acres Map No. Strap No. 31 48 26 9.04 3831 IF 482631085.0003631 Sub No. I 100 II ACREAGE HEADER 11.0 rnda 1 10 VACANT COMMERCIAL 2010 Final Tax Roll (Subject to Change) If all Values shown below equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll Land Value $ 3,937,824.00 ( +) Improved Value $ 0.00 ( =) Market Value $ 3,937,824.00 ( -) SOH Exempt Value & Other Exemptions $ 0.00 (_) Assessed Value $ 3,937,824.00 ( -) Homestead and other Exempt Value $ 0.00 (_) Taxable Value $ 3,937,824.00 (_) School Taxable Value (Used for School Taxes) $ 3,937,824.00 SOH = "Save Our Homes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. 47 I Millaae Rates School Other Total 5.6990 6.1239 11.8229 'See Instructions for Calculations Latest Sales History The Information is Updated Weekly. http:// www. collierappraiser .com /RecordDetail. asp ?Map= &FolioID= 0000000203042108 Page 1 of 8 1/7/2011 INSTR 4514575 OR 4641 PG 2164 RECORDED 1/10/2011 3:34 PM PAGES 6 RE- RECORD DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REC $52.50 a 0 u En m v o� v v 0 H a, 0 14 U O1 U a 14 0 U 0 b b 14 0 U d i a s� INSTR 4485577 OR 4614 PG 2846 r RECORDED 10/15/2010 8:33 AM PAGES 6 DWIGHT E. BROCK COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT DOC @.70 $27,565.30 REC $52.50 CONS $3,937,824.00 Prepared by and after recording return to: J. Thomas Conroy, III Conroy, Conroy & Durant, P.A. 2210 Vanderbilt Beach Road Suite 120I Naples, Florida 34109 Folio No.:00203042108 RECEIVER'S DEED (Deed Without Covenant, Representation, or Warranty) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER This Receiver's Deed is the FEDERAL DEPOSIT IN FLORIDA — SOUTHWEST Baymeadows Way West, SOUTHWEST having been lay referred to as "Grantee "), ho Road, Naples, Florida 3411. 1- day of October, 2010, between CORPO RECEIVER OF BANK OF referred to as ant " ), whose address is 7777 the sai BANK OF FLORIDA - rece s ' on a 28 20 0, and EVERBANK (herein s P P f usiness is 1185 Immokalee For good and valuabl sideration in hand id t G r by Grantee, the receipt and sufficiency of which are here ., c owledged, Gran t resents does hereby GRANT, SELL and CONVEY to Grant out covenant, repr a on or warranty of any kind or nature, express or implied, and an warrant' a ht arise by common law and any covenants or warranties created by sta - -s be hereafter amended or superseded, are excluded, all of Grantor's right, title an s in certain tract or parcel of land lying and being in Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Together with all of Grantor's right, title and interest in any and all improvements and fixtures thereon and thereto (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Subject Property"), and all and singular the rights and appurtenances pertaining thereto, including, but not limited to, any right, title and interest of Grantor in and to adjacent streets, alleys or rights -of -way, subject, however, to all liens, exceptions, easements, rights -of -way, covenants, conditions, restrictions, a reservations, encroachments, protrusions, shortages in area, boundary disputes and discrepancies, y matters which could be discovered or would be revealed by, respectively, an inspection or v current survey of the Subject Property, encumbrances, impositions (monetary and otherwise) 4 access limitations, licenses, leases, prescriptive rights, rights of parties in possession, rights of U tenants, co- tenants, or other co- owners, and any and all other matters or conditions affecting the a Subject Property, as well as standby fees, real estate taxes, and assessments on the Subject Property for the current year and prior and subsequent years, and subsequent taxes and assessments for prior years due to change in land usage or ownership, and any and all zoning laws, regulations, and ordinances of municipal and other governmental authorities affecting the Subject Property (all of the foregoing being collectively referred to as the "Permitted Record & Return To: Conroy. Conroy & Durant, p,p 2210 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Suite 1201 Naples, Florida 34109 Page 2 of 8 OR 4641 PG 2165 Encumbrances "). Grantee, by its execution and acceptance of delivery of this Receiver's Deed, assumes and agrees to perform all of Grantor's obligations under the Permitted Encumbrances. FURTHER, GRANTEE, BY ITS EXECUTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF DELIVERY OF THIS RECEIVER'S DEED, ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT (i) GRANTOR HAS NOT MADE, DOES NOT MAKE, AND SPECIFICALLY NEGATES AND DISCLAIMS ANY REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES, PROMISES, COVENANTS, AGREEMENTS OR GUARANTEES OF ANY KIND OR CHARACTER WHATSOEVER, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ORAL OR WRITTEN, PAST, PRESENT, OR FUTURE, OF, AS TO, CONCERNING, OR WITH RESPECT TO (A) THE VALUE, NATURE, QUALITY, OR CONDITION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE WATER, SOIL, AND GEOLOGY, (B) THE INCOME TO BE DERIVED FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, (C) THE SUITABILITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR ANY AND ALL ACTIVITIES AND USES WHICH GRANTEE MAY CONDUCT THEREON, (D) THE COMPLIANCE OF OR BY TH R PERTY OR ITS OPERATION WITH ANY LAWS, RULES, ORDIN y� IONS OF ANY APPLICABLE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHO OR BODY, HE OWNERSHIP, TITLE, POSSESSION, HABITABIL Y, ERCHANTABILIT , PR FITABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PU 0 T PR E TY, (F) THE MANNER OR QUALITY OF THE CONS R Y, INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBJECT PROPER Y, I Y, STATE OF REPAIR, OR LACK OF REPAIR OF J R Y PORTION THEREOF OR ANY IMPROVEMENTS O, E , QUALITY, NATURE, ADEQUACY, OR PHYSIC NDITION OF U IL SERVING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, OR (I) ANY ER MATTER T PECT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND SPECIFIC THAT GRANT S NOT MADE, DOES NOT MAKE AND SPECIFICALLY RESENTATIONS REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH ANY ENVIR.P ECTION, POLLUTION, OR LAND USE LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS, O RS, OR REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE DISPOSAL OR EXISTENCE, IN OR ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, OF ANY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS; (ii) GRANTEE HAS FULLY INSPECTED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THAT THE CONVEYANCE AND DELIVERY HEREUNDER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS "AS IS" AND "WITH ALL FAULTS ", AND GRANTOR HAS NO OBLIGATION TO ALTER, REPAIR, OR IMPROVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR ANY PORTION THEREOF OR ANY IMPROVEMENTS THERETO; AND (iii) NO WARRANTY HAS ARISEN THROUGH TRADE, CUSTOM, OR COURSE OF DEALING WITH GRANTOR, AND ALL STATUTORY, COMMON LAW, AND CUSTOMARY COVENANTS AND WARRANTIES, IF ANY, OF WHATSOEVER KIND, CHARACTER, NATURE, PURPOSE, OR EFFECT, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED OR ARISING BY OPERATION OF LAW, ARE HEREBY EXPRESSLY, UNCONDITIONALLY, AND IRREVOCABLY WAIVED, DISCLAIMED, AND EXCLUDED FROM THIS RECEIVER'S DEED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY CUSTOM OR PRACTICE TO THE CONTRARY, OR ANY STATUTORY, COMMON LAW, DECISIONAL, HISTORICAL, OR CUSTOMARY MEANING, IMPLICATION, SIGNIFICANCE, EFFECT, OR USE OF CONTRARY IMPORT OF ANY WORD, TERM, PHRASE OR PROVISION HEREIN. Page 3 of 8 OR 4641 PG 2166 Further, by its execution and acceptance of delivery of this Receiver's Deed, Grantee or anyone claiming by, through, or under Grantee hereby fully releases Grantor, its employees, officers, directors, representatives, and agents from any and all claims, costs, losses, liabilities, damages, expenses, demands, actions, or causes of action that it may now have or hereafter acquire, whether direct or indirect, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, liquidated or contingent, arising from or related to the Subject Property in any manner whatsoever. This covenant releasing Grantor shall be a covenant running with the Subject Property and shall be binding upon Grantee, its successors and assigns. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Subject Property together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereto in any wise belonging, unto Grantee, its successors and assigns forever, without covenant, representation, or warranty whatsoever, subject, however, to the Permitted Encumbrances. The fact that certain mentioned, disclaimed, or ex whether in the body hereof i warranty of Grantor as to an mentioned, disclaimed, or e c nothing herein shall be con r party of the existence, v 1 limitations, or other matters 1 and nothing shall be constru rights, if any, but without enforceability, scope, or locati w. ther matters or conditions may be cQ anyway herein, . er specifically or generally, and '/exhibit hereto, shall n t b a covenant, representation, or i ces, s, or y her matters or conditions not of t he in to the contrary, however, d d i Gr for or Grantee to any third en c a il' cop r 1 a ion of any encumbrances, Ir ns i dis ' e excepted in any way herein, deemed as a waiby Gr or Grantee of its respective ation, to challe? o rce the existence, validity, e against third p Grantee hereby assumes the ptfTaracter l. alorem taxes, standby fees, and general and special assessments of whatever kind an c affecting the Subject Property which are due, or which may become due, for any tax year or assessment period prior or subsequent to the effective date of this Receiver's Deed, including, without limitation, taxes or assessments becoming due by reason of a change. in usage or ownership, or both, of the Subject Property. [SIGNATURE PAGES TO FOLLOW] Page 4 of 8 OR 4641 PG 2167 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Receiver's Deed is executed by Grantor and Grantee on the dates set forth below their respective signatures herein below, but to be effective for all purposes, however, as of the date first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of plk""107 e f� STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrum 2010, by Charles Tipton as Atto Receiver for Bank of Florida —Soi personally known to me, or _ has acknowledge a,-Fact of the ................................ e••••••••Bj{ KOSTENO w ANN DD0873046 p � �; Comm# Eores 3122!2013 ;�?n�'=� NotarY Assn.• Inc - GRANTOR: FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, RECEIVER OF BANK OF FLORIDA — SOUTHWEST M. t orney -in -Fact `s�7 7 Baymeadows Way West Vac onville. FL 32256 d ) /Zr� day of October, Feder a it Insurance Corporation, as oration, which person is./ e s license as,identification. 7 Notary Publly My Commission Expires: 422–/=/3 Page 5 of 8 OR 4641 PG 2168 Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER GRANTEE: EVERBANK By: arles Tipton Title: President ..0.24F Address: 1185 Immokalee Road Naples, Florida 34110 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /z7%/ day of October, 2010, by Charles Tipton as President ; o behalf of the bank, which person is personally known to me, or_ has 0d� i cerise as identification. •••••...BETHANN K STo.. - o a c v� Com #o' 8 s y i ,q Expires:, /,ZZ, /W0 s �A 1 �h E „Inc 1 +* FCFp� . F6W ... C R: (Bank of FloridalBradford SquarelDocumentsl Receiver's Deed.docx Page 6 of 8 * ** OR 4641 PG 2169 * ** EXHIBIT A — LEGAL DESCRIPTION The SW '/4 of the SW '/4 of the SW '/4 and the W %z of the W %z of the SE'/ of the SW '/4 of the SW '/4 of Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, less the South 150 feet thereof. LESS AND EXCEPT: That portion described in Warranty Deed in Collier County, Florida, recorded in Official Records Book 3022, Page 1128, and that portion described in Order of taking recorded in Official Records Book 3599, Page 121, both of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Page 7 of 8 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 1 hereby authorize Douglas W Nelson Vice President of Everbank Q Grady Minor and Associates. P.A. and Coleman Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. (Name of Agent(s)) to serve as my Agents in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified in this Application. Signed: Date:' NVt �° 12b I I ripp Guliiford, is Pr (dent of Everbank I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the foregoing application, and that the application is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. e of Applicant Douglas W Nelson Vice President of Everbank Name - Typed or Printed STATE OF ( t= L ) COUNTY OF ( 0ol,\yCj- ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this (D day of a) 1U 2011 by_ &1wil �iSsytt MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Notary Public Yl► tJ` _._ ,• " ":P °� GILLIAN FISHER Notery PubllC • State of j CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: My Comm. Expires Jul 6Commission � EE 6Bonded Through National Not 1{ who is personally known to me, who has produced as identification and did take an Oath did not take and Oath NOTICE - BE AWARE THAT: Florida Statute Section 837.06 - False Official Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement In writing with the Intent to mislead a public servant In the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of %500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day Jail term." Page 8 of 8 E I 1� ---X,H--["RliTj,,-� V/.,Ga Ij 1 Unanimous Written Consent of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of EverBank December 15, 2010 (Appointing Officers) The undersigned, being all of the members of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of EverBank, a federally chartered stock savings bank (the "Bank "), do hereby adopt the following resolutions by unanimous written consent in lieu of a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors, and do hereby instruct the Secretary of the Bank to file this Unanimous Written Consent in the minute book of the Bank. RESOLVED, that Tripp Gulliford is hereby appointed to the position of Vice President of the Bank effective as of September 1, 2010; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that Fabriena A. Dorgan is hereby appointed to the position of Vice President of the Bank effective as of November 29, 2010; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that any and all actions taken by each of Tripp Gulliford and Fabriena A. Dorgan relating to or within the terms of the foregoing resolutions before their adoption are hereby approved, ratified, and confirmed as the act and deed of the Bank. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being all of the members of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of EverBank, hereby execute this Unanimous Written Consent in lieu of a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors, for the uses and purposes herein expressed, as of the 15th day of December, 2010, at Jacksonville, Florida. Rob6t M. Clements, Chairman W. Blake Von, Director n Gary A. eks, Vice- hairman October 4, 2010 Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department RE: Authorization and Ownership of property in CP- 2010 -1 Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict To Whom It May Concern: The Florida Department of Revenue closed Bank of Florida on May 28, 2010. As a result all Bank of Florida assets were transferred to FDIC, as receiver for Bank of Florida. Simultaneously EverBank was approved by the FDIC to make a "whole asset acquisition" of the former Bank of Florida assets and therefore EverBank now owns the Bradford Square asset. In order to complete the deed transfer to show ownership, EverBank needs to transfer the deed from the FDIC, as receiver for Bank of Florida to EverBank. There is not an immediate timeframe required for the deed transfer. Typically this deed transfer is done as a double deed transfer at the time of sale from EverBank to buyer (FDIC to EverBank and then EverBank to buyer). In cases where the bank needs to show ownership or authorization for action on the asset prior to a sale, the deed transfer is completed as a stand alone action. EverBank is currently in the process of completing the deed transfer for the Bradford Square asset; however, it will not be complete for another week or so. Attached is the FDIC POA authorization for the deed transfer as reference. Thank you, uglas W. Nelson P Real Estate Sales Manager EverBank Commercial Loss Share Management Group 1185 Immokalee Rd. Naples, FL 34110 EverBank Customer Care Center • 11 Oval Drive o Suite 107 • Islandia, NY 11749 -1416 Exhibit VGa Page 1 of 4 iINAAL O[PMT FD14 INSURANCE CORPORATION Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Division of Resolutions and Receiverships East Coast Temporary Satellite Office, 7777 Baymeadows Way West, Jacksonville, Fl 32256 Attached you will find the Limited Power of Attorneys. In the event you require additional certified copies, you may request them directly from the Duval County Clerk's Office at the following address: Duval County Clerk's Office 330 East Bay Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 -2959 (904) 630 -2028 www.duvalclerk.com Sample wording you may use when endorsing the notes is detailed at the bottom of the first page of the Limited Power of Attorney. Regards, /0-111 Exhibit VGa Page 2 of 4 Doc # 2010127676, OR BK 15264 Page 1390, Number Pages: 4, Recorded 06/04/2010 at 12:59 PM, JIM FULLER CLERK CIRCUIT COURT DUVAL COUNTY RECORDING $35.50 Prepared by: Renee Marie Araujo, Esq. FDIC East Coast Temporary Satellite Office 7777 Baymeadows Way West Jacksonville, FL 32256 (Leave Blank Above this Line for Recording Information) (Space above ibis line must be at iesst 3 inches) LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that the FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under an Act of Congress, hereafter called the "FDIC ", hereby designates the following individual(s) of EVERBANK, organized under the laws of the United States of America, as "Attomey(s) -in- Fact" for the sole purpose of executing the documents outlined below: THOMAS A. HAJDA JAMIE B. BUCKLAND PATRICK D. MCELHANEY RUTH A. OWEN GAYLE G. EDWARDS CHUCK R. IVY VINCENT F. AMATO KELLY GREEN KATHLEEN A. OTOCKI MARK G. BAUM CHARLES TIPTON WHEREAS, the undersigned has full authority to execute this instrument on behalf of the FDIC under applicable Resolutions of the FDIC's Board of Directors and redelegations thereof. NOW THEREFORE, the FDIC grants to the above -named Attorneys) -in -Fact the authority, subject to the limitations herein, as follows: 1. - To execute, acknowledge, seal and deliver on behalf of the FDIC as Receiver of BANK OF FLORIDA - SOUTHWEST, all instruments of transfer and conveyance, including but not limited to deeds, assignments, satisfactions, and lien releases, appropriately completed, with all ordinary or necessary endorsements, acknowledgments, affidavits and supporting documents as may be necessary or appropriate to evidence the sale and transfer of any asset of BANK OF FLORIDA - SOUTHWEST, including all loans held by BANK OF FLORIDA - SOUTHWEST Limited Power of Attorney — EVERBANKMank of Florida Southwest Page I of 4 Exhibit VGa Page 3 of 4 OR BK 15264 PAGE 1391 to EVERBANK pursuant to that certain Purchase and Assumption Agreement, dated as of May 28, 2010 between FDIC as Receiver of BANK OF FLORIDA - SOUTHWEST and EVERBANK. The form which the Attomey(s) -in -Fact shall use for endorsing promissory notes or preparing allonges to promissory notes is as follows: Pay to the order of Without Recourse FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION as Receiver for BANK OF FLORIDA - SOUTHWEST, Naples, Florida Name: Title: Attomey -in -Fact All other documents of assignment, conveyance or transfer shall contain this sentence: "This assignment is made without recourse, representation or warranty, express or implied, by the FDIC in its corporate capacity or as Receiver." 2. FDIC further grants to each Attorney -in -Fact full power and authority to do and perform all acts necessary to carry into effect the powers granted by this Limited Power of Attorney as fully as FDIC might or could do with the same validity as if all and every such act had been herein particularly stated, expressed and especially provided for. This Limited Power of Attorney shall be effective from May 28, 2010 and shall continue in full force and effect through May 28, 2011, unless otherwise terminated by an official of the FDIC authorized to do so by the Board of Directors ( "Revocation "). At such time this Limited Power of Attorney will be automatically revoked. Any third party may rely upon this document as the named individual(s)' authority to continue to exercise the powers herein granted unless a Revocation has been recorded in the public records of the jurisdiction where this Limited Power of Attorney has been recorded, or unless a third party has received actual notice of a Revocation. Limited Power ofAttomey— EVERBANK/Hank of Florida-Southwest Page 2 of 4 Exhibit VGa Page 4 of 4 i D d q ■ � Oak MEETING NOTES COLLIER COLINIY COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE I NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PHONE: 2M262-2400 . DATE: ,z6_ D TIME: -� `�/, NOTES BY: �- o-v�A we-e-itS TOPIC OF MEETING: &/q Fh ^ V `kJTtar;dh P4Ad, (Pod- N t; 68r1rOOcP 666 xgkzj ( 7vb ATTENDANCCE: Wz�9f &,4 �:,4.4�— iL -11- is 5yi-j" w - v —v p apt ivC KEY POINTS /UNDERSTANDINGS /CONCLUSIONS 1noi• „R p,. ao aAlavi -a WO -IV 2.0 eft S is PWc. ar co,. 7 of el.- Elf-%F, uracz+. "Mel fildiri7 a7� n s°ovt/io„ ? n'Apod� in v Eel �,. �1,� �i�•��11f, -tom rhe+•t flF s, tw�� mss.. / ? L p A f . 5 ¢� f .s cs3+ -� i� i,.,f► one coa • (rl We w3tl. fv f %�tl� use- 4 894,, i-A-He, /"� �1GaG1�3L vfGS� c�f.y[S� Aa'T "h �ajjj°��” •�c,, hEs�*afte dv ``Lr + cagM.`l • }��'d�a.�s a:ff�w rrcar�- S•� a.� �r �T� �h�n r,s�s � �iSa -Gri% � Wjp � �„dR.r?� P�u.✓° z {�a�ai[iae,a�• • /Vv I-I f hc4d 1 f 2`2 a 11 f• � 9'i= �v1�c��J�i i?� � y% f rnGYIR ttl /! 1� f L!ltGS fe, e-AYfTr7 ,k"-Ftt %'� /✓D /%% k(Q A' !CVY - ��t�� .x�'rf�.� 9�+� o� pal •� �� s��;�1. ~- `' ' %w�ira� 91�!?I`ru� tl�h�+CfilQ liJ�cCrt7�lo� b - Lr /- �rda1M;9 / sl�%Me77'l+ct,a ��'!1 —� �� ► e- muftoosuftm.)k 0, 000IP, D"m BANK oF FLORIDA Douglas W. Nelson vke rkw;dge Real Estate Sala W,,q, 1185 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34110.4806 Teh 239.415.5024 • Fax: 239MC2194 • Cell: 239398.2939 dnelson ®bankofflorida.com • Nasdaq: $OFL Page 1 of 1 Ii',- WHEREAS, Kerry Kubacki for Livingston Village, LLC, and Tammy Turner Kipp of Vanderbilt Holdings II, LLC, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED By THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the Agriculture (A) Zoning District and a conditional use for a church, which has since expired to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for project known as the Bradford Square MPUD in accordance with the MPUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps as described in Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super- majority /vote by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier-County, Florida, this o2 y day of G� '2007. ATTEST.r` '' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT 6. BROfC., COLLIE O , FL A A. BY: uty CJerk J S Aprrov 7A•ti3rF6%n 0 legal sufficiency: / /l_it w..JOw .:, � • �iL7.Ld LU:G f'r`� � MarioriVM. Student - tirling Assistant County Attorney Ti,Is ordinome filed Vd + the M dry of ote's Offiew *0 ay of , -Z GM ledgeme� f tKgt filing received this �;:. El +iy of 8Y ' r Page t of 28 ORDINANCE NO. 07 41 2545678,9 �► >> AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY p COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004 -41, AS .4 AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND a DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE 7r' Y 19� COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED G�NI �L ZZ1,1, FLORIDA BY APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE RURAL AGRICULTURE (A) ZONING DISTRICT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A CHURCH TO MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE BRADFORD SQUARE MPUD, IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 9.18 ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Kerry Kubacki for Livingston Village, LLC, and Tammy Turner Kipp of Vanderbilt Holdings II, LLC, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED By THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the Agriculture (A) Zoning District and a conditional use for a church, which has since expired to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for project known as the Bradford Square MPUD in accordance with the MPUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps as described in Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super- majority /vote by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier-County, Florida, this o2 y day of G� '2007. ATTEST.r` '' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT 6. BROfC., COLLIE O , FL A A. BY: uty CJerk J S Aprrov 7A•ti3rF6%n 0 legal sufficiency: / /l_it w..JOw .:, � • �iL7.Ld LU:G f'r`� � MarioriVM. Student - tirling Assistant County Attorney Ti,Is ordinome filed Vd + the M dry of ote's Offiew *0 ay of , -Z GM ledgeme� f tKgt filing received this �;:. El +iy of 8Y ' r Page t of 28 BRADFORD SQUARE MPUD A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED FOR: Livingston Village LLC 2055 Trade Center Way Naples, FL 34109 And Vanderbilt Holdings II, LLC 6625 New Haven Circle Naples, FL 34109 - 7220 PREPARED BY: Hole Montes, Inc. Robert Duane, AICP 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 (239) 254 -2000 And Goodiette, Coleman & Johnson, PA Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq, 4001 Tamiami Trial North Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Exhibit A DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC April 24, 2007 ORDINANCE NUMBER 2007 -41 AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL Paget of 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS THE BRADFORD SQUARE MPUD SECTION I: STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 1 -1 SECTION II: PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, SHORT TITLE, AND STATEMENT OF UNIFIED CONTROL 2 -1 SECTION III: MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION IV: PRESERVE SUBDISTRICT SECTION V: DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT "A" MPUD MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT "B" LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC 3 -1 4 -1 5 -1 Page 3 of 28 SECTION I STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 9.18 acres of property In Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East as a Mixed Use Commercial Planned Unit Development (MPUD) will be in compliance with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The project will be consistent with all applicable provisions of the growth policies, land development regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives for each of the elements of the GMP for the following reasons: The subject property is located in the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict and will provide neighborhood commercial development at a scale not typically found In the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. The intent is to provide commercial uses to serve the emerging residential development in close proximity to this Subdistrict. Allowable land uses are a variety of commercial mixed uses and residential uses. The Subdistrict Includes two parcels and the subject property located at the intersection of Livingston Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The project is allowed a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area whether by right or by conditional use in the C -1 through C -3 Zoning District. The Subdistrict prohibits certain uses Including gas stations and convenience stores. Residential densities are permitted up to sixteen dwelling units per acre. The proposed MPUD with ten residential dwelling units and up to 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area including the proposed uses can be found consistent with the GMP, FLUE, and the provisions set forth in the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. Therefore, consistency with the GMP can be established for this proposed MPUD. 1 -1 CADocuments and Settings\mclissazone\Local SettingATemporary Internet Files\OLK20MRevised MPUD 4 -23 -07 document per MS 4 -9- 07 ccpc 04 -3 6 -07.doe Page 4 of 28 2.1 2.2 2.3 SECTION 11 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, SHORT TITLE AND STATEMENT OF UNIFIED CONTROL PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is owned by Vanderbilt Holdings, LLC located at 6625 New Haven Circle, Naples, FL 34109 and Is under contract for purchase by Livingston Village, LLC (Co- Applicants) at the time of rezoning. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter and the west half of the west half of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, less the south 150 feet thereof. Also less and except: That portion described in warranty deed record in O.R. Book 3022, Page 1128, and Order of Taking, recorded in O.R. Book 3599, of Collier County, Florida. PROJECT DESCRIPTION to Collier County, Florida that portion described in Page 121, Public Records The project is comprised of 9.18 acres, more or less, and is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach and Livingston Roads. The MPUD has approximately 820 feet of frontage on Vanderbilt Beach Road and approximately 470 feet of frontage on Livingston Road. Bradford Square is expected to develop with a mixture of office, retail, and residential uses, with a maximum of 100,000 square feet of floor area for office and retail uses. However, the maximum floor area for any commercial user shall not exceed 20,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. 2 -1 Page 5 of 28 2.4 SHORT TITLE This ordinance shall be known and cited as "BRADFORD SQUARE MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE". 2.5 STATEMENT OF UNIFIED CONTROL This statement represents that the contract sellers, Vanderbilt Holdings, LLC, have the project or property under unified control for the purpose of obtaining MPUD zoning on the subject property. 2 -2 Page 6 of 28 SECTION III MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT 3.1 MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY AND NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS The maximum development Intensity is 100,000 square feet of gross leasable office or retail area and a maximum of 10 dwelling units. 3.2 PERMITTED USES A. General Permitted Uses: 1. Essential services as set forth under the Land Development Code (LDC) including but not limited to, gas lines, water lines, sewer lines, pump stations and wells. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. 3. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 4. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 5. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the developer and developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas, and related uses, subject to the procedures for a temporary use permit provided in the LDC. b. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls. 7. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, consistent with the permitted uses for this MPUD, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. (BZA) B. Principal Uses: 1. Multi- family dwellings. 2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the BZA. 3 -1 Page 7 of 28 C. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal residential uses permitted in this MPUD, including recreational facilities, such as swimming pool, and clubhouse, and maintenance facilities. The location of the recreational area is depicted on the MPUD Master Plan. 2. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, consistent with the uses for this MPUD as determined by the BZA.. D. Commercial and Residential Uses: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: Permitted Principal Uses and Structures (SIC Code) 1. Accounting services (group 8721); 2. Apparel and accessory stores (groups 5611 - 5699), 3. Architectural, engineering and surveying services (groups 0781, 8711 - 8713); 4. Attorney offices and legal services (group 8111); 5. Business services (groups 7311 - 7313, 7322 - 7338, 7361 - 7379, 7384, 7389), 6. Child day care services (group 8351); 7. Depository (financial) Institutions (groups 6011 - 6099); 8. Drinking places (group 5813); No outdoor amplified entertainment shall be permitted for any restaurants (music or television) and no bar areas with outside seating shall be permitted. 9. Eating and drinking places (group 5812 only as outlined as follows: box lunch stands, cafes, coffee shops, dairy bars, diners, eating places), food bars, frozen custard stands, grills, (eating places), Ice cream stands, luncheonettes, oyster bars, pizza parlors, pizzerias, restaurants -carry-out, restaurants- sit -down, restaurant with drive - through window (limited to one only) sandwich bars or shops, snack shops, soda fountains, submarine sandwich shops, tea rooms, (See also Section 32E.3); No outdoor amplified entertainment shall be permitted for any restaurants (music or television) and no bar areas with outside seating shall be permitted. 3 -2 Page 8 of 28 E. 10. Food stores (groups 5411 - 5499) "except as prohibited in Section 3.2.E of this Document," 11. General merchandise stores (groups 5311 - 5399); 12. Governmental offices (groups 9111- 9199); 13. Hardware stores (group 5251); 14. Health services (groups 8011 - 8049, 8082); 15. Home furniture, furnishings, equipment store (groups 5712 - 5736); 16. Home supply store (group 5531); 17. Insurance agencies, brokers, carriers (groups 6311 - 6399, 6411); 18. Large appliance repair service (group 7623), 19. Management and public relations (groups 8741 - 8743, 8748); 20. Membership organizations (groups 8611 - 8699); 21. Miscellaneous repair services (groups 7629 - 7699); 22. Miscellaneous retail services (groups 5912 - 5963); 23, Museums and art galleries (group 8412); 24. Non - depository credit institutions (groups 6111 - 6163); 25. Office machine repair service (groups 7629 - 7631); 26. Paint, glass, wallpaper store (group 5231); 27. Personal services (groups 7211, 7212, 7215, 7216, 7221 7251, 7291, 7299); 28. Photographic studios (group 7221); 29. Physical fitness facilities (group 7991); 30. Residential multi- family- maximum of 10 dwelling units 31. Real estate (groups 6531 - 6541); 32. Retail nurseries, lawn and garden (group 5261), 33. Security brokers, dealers, exchanges, services (groups 6211 - 6289); 34. Shoe repair shops or shoe shine parlors (group 7251); 35. Travel agencies (groups 4724); 36. Veterinarian's office (groups 0742, 0752) (except for outdoor kenneling); 37. Videotape rental (group 7841); 38. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses as determined by the BZA. Specifically prohibited uses: 1. Automotive service stations; 2. Convenience stores with or without gas pumps, 3. Fast food restaurants; 3 -3 Page 9 of 28 /001*1 /00"111 4. No outdoor amplified entertainment shall be permitted for any restaurants (music or television). 5. No bar areas with outside seating shall be permitted. F. Development Standards for Commercial and Residential Uses: Table 1 below sets forth the development standards for land uses with this MPUD Ordinance. Standards in the LDC, not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified In effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. Table 1: A. Principal Structures 1. Minimum lot width: One - hundred feet (100'). 2. Minimum lot area: Ten - thousand square feet (10,000 s.f.). 3. Front yard setback: Thirty -five feet (35') from both Livingston and Vanderbilt Beach Roads. 4. Rear yard setback: Seventy feet from north property fine (70'). 5. Side yard setbacks: Seventy feet from east property line (70' each). 6. Minimum distance between structures: One -half the sum of each building height but not less than twenty feet (20'). 7. Maximum building height: Thirty -five within three stories as zoned but not to exceed fifty (50') feet (actual height). 8. Minimum floor area: One - thousand square feet (1000 s.f.). 9. Minimum preserve area setback: Twenty -five feet (25') See also Subsection 5.6.G of this Ordinance. 3 -4 Page 0 . B. Accessory Structures: 1. Front setback: Fifteen feet (15'). 2. Side setback: Fifteen feet (15'). 3. Rear setback: Fifteen feet (15'). 4. Preserve setback: Ten feet (10'). 5. Distance between principal structures: `SPS. 6. Maximum height: Fifteen feet (15') Notes: " See also Subsection 5,6.G of this Ordinance. SPS- same as principal structures. Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth in the Table 1 above, shall be understood to be In relation to individual parcels or lot boundary lines. Condominium and /or residential dwelling unit boundary lines shall not be utilized for determining development standards. Size Umitafions on Uses: A maximum of 20,000 square feet of floor area for any single commercial user. This is the only limit on the size of permitted uses within the 100,000 square foot maximum of gross leasable floor area allowed. Architectural Common Theme: Structures within this MPUD shall have a Mediterranean architectural theme, inclusive of common or compatible use of materials and colors. All buildings will be in the Mediterranean style, and all pitched roofs will be barrel file or similar material. 3 -5 Page 11 of 28 Mixed Use Standards: Residential multi- family dwelling units shall be permitted above commercial structures and shall have a minimum floor area of 1000 square feet and shall be limited to a maximum of ten (10) units. 3 -6 Page 12z 28 SECTION IV PRESERVE SUBDISTRICT 4.1 USES PERMITTED A minimum of 15 percent of the native vegetation area or 1.38 acres of the MPUD shall be preserved and set aside as a preserve area. No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following. A. Permitted Uses and Structures: 1. Principal Uses: a. Passive recreation areas. b. Water management and water management structures. c. Nature trails and boardwalks that do not reduce the amount of required preserve area to be retained. d. Mitigation areas. Page 13 of 28 ___ SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS The purpose of this Section is to set forth the transportation commitments of the project development. A. All traffic control devises, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the LDC. B. All Internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. C. If a gate Is proposed at any /or all development entrance(s), the gate shall be designed so as not to cause vehicles to be backed up onto any adjacent roadway. To meet this requirement, the following shall be the minimum requirements to achieve that purpose: 1. The minimum throat depth from the nearest Interconnecting roadway edge of pavement shall be no less than 100 feet to the key pad /phone box for the proposed gate. 2. A turn around area of sufficient width and with sufficient inside turning radii shall be provided between the aforementioned key pad /phone box and the proposed gate. D. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting must be in place prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (CO). 5 -1 Paget of 2 _8.. E. Access points and proposed streets shown on the MPUD Master Plan are considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plan or final plat submissions. All such access shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy as it may be amended from time to time, and with the Colller County Long Range Transportation Plan. F. Site - related improvements (as apposed to system - related Improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required Improvements shall be In place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. G. Payment in lieu of construction of sidewalks and bike lanes for Vanderbilt Beach Road frontage shall be required. The amount shall be determined utilizing FDOT's 2004 Transportation Cost Manual estimates, as amended. Payment shall be required within 30 days of the zoning approval by the Board of County v Commissioners. H. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right -in /right -out condition at any access point. Neither shall the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress, a median opening, nor the lack thereof, be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. I. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of any existing County rights -of -way or easements, compensating right - of -way shall be provided without cost to the County as a con - sequence of such improvement. J. A bus stop shall be incorporated into the Vanderbilt Beach Road right -of -way. The bus shelter location and design shall be coordinated with, and approved by, the Collier County ATM Department. A detailed plan of the shelter shall be included in the submittal of the first application for this project. The shelter shall be constructed by the applicant and shall be completed prior to issuance of the first CO. K. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign or pavement marking improvement 5 -2 Page 15 of 28 __�_ within a public right-of-way or easement is determined to be necessary, the developer shall pay its proportional share of the cost of such improvement and shall be paid to Collier County before the Issuance of the first CO. 5.2 UTILITY REQUIREMENTS The purpose of this Section is to set forth the utilities and engineering commitments of the project developer. A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and Interim water and /or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project shall be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with applicable County ordinances, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. All customers connecting to the water distribution and sewage collection facilities to be constructed will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance with the County's established rates. C. The development shall be subject to application for and conditions associated with a water and sewer availability letter from the Collier County Utilities Division, 5.3 EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES Easements, where required, shall be provided for water management areas, utilities and other purposes as may be required by Collier County. All necessary easements, dedications or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all services and utilities in compliance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time SDP and plat approvals are requested. 5.4 ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS A. Detailed paving, grading, site drainage and utility plans shall be submitted to the Development Services Department for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless detailed paving, grading, site drainage and utility plans are submitted and until approval of the proposed construction, in accordance with the submitted plans, is granted by the Development Services Department. 5 -3 B. A copy of the SFWMD Surface Water Management Permit, if required, shall be reviewed by the Development Services Staff prior to any construction drawing approvals. 5.5 WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS The purpose of this Section is to set forth the water management commitments of the project developer. A. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with the appropriate provisions of the LDC. B. An excavation permit shall be required where applicable, in accordance with the LDC and South Florida Water Management District rules. C. A surface water management permit shall be obtained from the (SFWMD) prior to any subdivision or SDP approval, if applicable. D. Any existing or proposed easements for Collier County storm water facilities shall be maintained free of landscaping berm, or any other kind of obstacle that could impede adequate access to maintenance crews and equipment. E. If 3.1 slopes are used in this MPUD, possible guardrail, fencing, outlet and gratings may be required In addition to plantings and ground cover plantings. 5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS The purpose of this Section is to set forth the environmental commitments of the project developer. A. The MPUD shall be required to preserve 15°/ of native vegetation. The preservation plans shall meet or exceed the requirements of the LDC. B. All approved agency SFWMD, United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), FWC) permits, as applicable, shall be submitted prior to final SDP /construction plan approval. Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be counted towards mitigation for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands. S -4 Page 17 of 28 -- - C. All conservation areas shall be designated as conservation/ preservation tracts or easements on all construction plans and shall be recorded on the plat or SDP, whichever is applicable, with protective covenants per or similar to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. D. In the event the project does not require platting, all areas shall be recorded as conservation /preservation tracts or easements dedicated to an approved entity or to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance and subject to the uses and limitations similar to or as per Florida Statutes of the Section 704.06, E, An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic -free) plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation /preservation areas, shall be submitted to Environmental Services Staff for review and approval prior to final SDP / construction plan approval, F. All Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida ,�. Exotic Pest Plant Council, shall be removed from within preserve areas and subsequent annual removal of these plants in perpetuity shall be the responsibility of the property owner. This information shall be provided to Environmental Services Staff for review at the time development orders are requested. G. All principal structures shall have a minimum setback of 25 -feet from the boundary of any preserve. Accessory structures and all other site alterations shall have a minimum 10 -foot setback. H. The stormwater management system shall be monitored on an annual basis. If the stormwater management system negatively affects native vegetation in the Preserve Area, then the vegetation shall be recreated. A preserve management plan shall be provided to the Environmental Services Staff for approval prior to site construction approval Identifying methods to address treatment of invasive species and fire management. S -S -•• .-------------- w..- �........... ._ ........__��_____._ ... Page 18 of 28 EXHIBIT "A" MASTER PLAN pqg�9 of 28. ^ I! I i i i M` 111M i y 0 1.� tip. trr EXHIBIT "B" LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC The purpose of this section is to set forth the deviations to the LDC that governs the development of this MPUD. A. The Collier County Access Management Policy Resolution No. 01.247 requires a minimum spacing 1320 feet from the Intersection of Livingston Road for access location. Due to the size of the parcel, the access onto Livingston Road is shown approximately 420 feet from the intersection of Livingston Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road, This access point was agreed to as part of a stipulated final judgment between Collier County, FL vs. Tiburon Golf Ventures L.P., et al, case # 04- 4678 -CA parcel # 15. B. The requirement for a wall between commercial and residential uses prescribed in Subsection 5.03.02 E 2 and 3 of the LDC shall be waived along the north and east property lines that are - adjacent to residential development. The buffer areas shown on the MPUD Master Plan are presumed to provide sufficient screening and buffering and shall provide the same level of screening as to the LDC requirements after exotic removal. CADocuments and Settings\melissawne \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Fi1es \0LK20D\itevised MPUD 4 -23 -07 document per MS 4 -9- 07 ccpc 04- 16- 07.doc Page 21 of 28 ' —FOR "�PRCIPERIY UNL "Me KNW SECTION A—A SECTION E—E TA D CURB BUFFER PRWERTY AZD PRESERVE RWETER BERM AREA KIL LAWSCAPWC BUFFER TER PRE AIWEhl LT CU BUFFER 5.0- PAR —PROPERW UNE SECTION D-1) BRADFORD SOUARE 950 E— W., 05134SEC 4396-05 DEVELOPER '02/0 14M Ph_A; g4j) 2"-2000 SECTIONS -- - 02/0 �(D im c') 10 N3 00 4 ZONED PUD PELICAN MARSH I lit (TIBURON GOLF COURSE) .................. 3 424 ................................... . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . lit 0 .......... ....... i ZONED A 0 !H ..................... ...... ........... ............... (BEST FRIENDS PET RESORT) 0 ...... . . . . . . 4 jil ........... 2 434 .............. . . . . . . . 411 .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WETLAND UNE ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --------------------------------------------- 411 . . . . . '�-IFLIJCFCS CODE ----------- L (TYPICAL) VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD L--------------------------------- ------ ------------- BRADFORD SQUARE KXWLOPER LIVINGSTON VILLAGE LLC 1". 1—cl/os *m HOLE MONTM V50 E� Way ttamm.FL34110 P. (941) M41-2= PRESERVE AREA VATHIN M.P.U.D. AREA AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 05134AER 4396-04 2-10-1134 4 or 5 • .� a �� ,��,i�� .d ice''' � ' s �.h ~�„•a6 e� ` � ` '• , � . ��sar•._ � •_�i'R; � j'i•.ti r'�e, .� � ,��„�ubie. - - y,y N. .. � '' ` R . F•. � . -o a -�'. � `' i�a. �. �+ _yi: � •yam �1j �;� . �, Ir «d ' _ � tJl:: M� - -.� rj `t• � ems. , +� Y +>lia`'� � ; sw Y TJ` �. '� i .ice.. .S yM S.. '�I •J �. +..i•. ,,,.��`,.� �; ,� i ...`•�Li.. r • •:.`t' i�� S 1� , A.� t 5q S'� i� 4...L .� �I, Yet i -_ .• r !14ir. � � tg'.y •i `� (•n� �"'�`�,iuJ- �• g� �� ' �. � ».�� Y. -" a .yt. �� e• STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of: ORDINANCE 2007 -41 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 24th day of April, 2007, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 26th day of April, 2007. DWIGHT E. BRQCX Clerk of Courts and Clerk Ex- officio to Board'.o County Commissioners' jV,Lk LAet p L By: Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk Page.25.of 98 CHARLIE CRIST Governor June 15, 2007 dF WE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT D STATE 9 STATE LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES OF FLORIDA Honorable Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County Post Office Box 413044 Naples, Florida 34101 -3044 Attention: Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk Dear Mr. Brock: 17 18 9 ir. all y s� KURT S. BROWNING Secretary of State Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes, this will acknowledge receipt of your letters dated June 13, 2007, and copies of Exhibits E -1 through E -4 of Collier County Ordinance No. 2007 -40 which was filed in this office on May 1, 2007 and Exhibit "A" of Collier County Ordinance No. 2007 -41, which was filed in this office on April 27, 2007. As requested, one date stamped copy of each is being returned for your records. Sincerely, A�5" Liz Cloud Program Administrator LC/lbh Enclosure DIRECTOR'S OFFICE R.A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -0250 850.245.6600 • FAX: 850.245.6735 • TDD:850.922.4085 • httpWdlis.d•s.state.fl.us COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STATE LIBRARY OF FLORIDA STATE ARCHIVES OF FLORIDA 850.245.6600 • FAX: 850.245.6643 850.245.6600 • FAX: 850.245.6744 850.245.6700 • FAX: 850.488.4894 LEGISLATIVE LIBRARY SERVICE RECORDS MANAGEMENT SERVICES 850.488.2812 • FAX: 850.488.9879 850.245.6750 • FAX: 850.245.6795 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND WEEKLY 850.245.6270 • FAX: 850.245.6282 .County. of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT Dwight E. Brock COLLIER COUNTY ICOURTHOUSE Clerk of Courts 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOAC 41304 NAPLES, FLORIDA'1.4 101 -3044 June 13, 2007 Ms. Karlyn Solis Department of State Bureau of Administrative Code RA Gray Building Room 101 500 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -0250 Re: Ordinance Number: 2007 -41 Dear Ms. Solis: Clerk of Courts Accountant Auditor Custodian of County Funds Transmitted herewith for the record is Exhibit "A" Master Plan that was inadvertently omitted from Collier County Ordinance 2007 -41. The ordinance with the enclosed exhibit, was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on Tuesday, April 24, 2007, during Regular Session. Please place this exhibit with Ordinance 2007 -41 that was filed with your office on April 27, 2007. Thank you. Very truly yours, D_ WIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk Enclosure(s) This ordinance filed with the Secretary of State's Office the I '+day of June , 2 903 and acknowledgement of that filing receive of Jod this 4+4 day ne eo7 D" e Phone- (239) 732 -2646 Fax- (239) 775 -2755 Website- www.clerk.collier.fl.us Email- collierclerk Ciuclerk.collier.fl.us Page 27 of 28 . . TYPE 'a' Iii 15' MIN. LANDSCAPE BUFFER TOP OF III TYPE V CURB ZONED PUD PELICAN MARSH (TIBURON GOLF COURSE) TIE NEW BERM — INTO EXISTING BERM TOE RETAINED F PRESERVE VEGETATION , PROP OSED W SIDEWALK 100 p n PROPERTY I, LINE 0 TYPE D, COUNTY J. 0 c," DRAINAGE 200 (TYPICAL) 11 0 EASEMENT PROPOSED SIDEWALK E TYPE 'D fl EWALK_ "PE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER ID V L= 15' TYPE 'D' LAN05CAPE BUFFER \_PROPERTY LINE ------- ---- ----- ------------------ Ik VANDERBIL D, T BEACH ROAD TYPE Y' CURO-'�:\ ...... ... ... -------- — ------ ---------------- — ------ — ------- — ----------- ... .. .... ... . ......... .... .. Lu, ,—TIE NEW BERM INTO EXISTING BERM BERM PROPERTY LINE t -TOE OF BERM 15' MIN. TYPE W LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED A 11 (BEST FRIENDS PET RESORT) I I LAND UtE SLUMY If N. TYPE LANDSCAPE BUFFER 0,2 WATER QUALITY ! lit 4010 PRETREATM T III C 4c ACIN OF BERM If PROPERTY LINE P OPOSED WISIDEWALK a—, TV --------------------- i ---------------------- L ------------ - ----------- -------------- ------------------------ -_ ------------- JC--, PILTATKII WIVE WdETATJ� CAL�Tl= 11`X"ll 1 "- BRADFORD SQUARE 950 E_ IN NaO".FL.34110 Al I DEVELOPER Dim pl,_: IN 1) 254-NW KP.U.O. MASTER PLAN 05134MPV 4.396-01 r.sr ,12, — 2005134 1 'OF 5 LMNIGSTON VILLAGE LLC HOLE IMIONTIES Cdffi�a EXHIBIT "A" (CONCEPTUAL PLAN) — —1 rumnwmwwvm ALIJ-Ok� MON12