Agenda 04/26/2011 Item # 7A
4/26/20111t.m 7.A..
r-'\
EXE~S~V
This, it... l'OquirestQt.e:tparte ~isdosure ~ p~videdbyCom",~~,,,_bers' Should. h..ring
be helcJOJ1thiSi~, a,lIpar1icipaats a..erequired to beswornilli~PIJOto..l052: OIde CypJ'e$S
Development, LTJ).anG. Vita. Pilna,LLC, represented by~hris~of WaldNP .EqjneeriJ;ag,
P.A.aDd Richard I). Yovanovich of ColemaD, Y ovaaovich .~,}t....,isrequestinga4:""
to the previQuslyapprov~ OldeCypress Develop~eut of RepoJ.lBllmpadDlU,iua.ceordancewitll
Florida Statutes, SllbHdion 38CUl6(19). the prQposetimotlile8u.s wiJlacld.63.9 acres into the
DR! bollndary, _.._MapS,aDd re..ove the 3.9 acre,.rk requireaentto ineo.-pora~tIlis
change. TThe subject ,propertyCOJlSistjng ,of 602:1: acres is >loated , in SeeqoIas..l1 and 22" ~ 48
South, T~WDship 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (CompaBiODto lOOz..PL2910..t054 aIldPOOA-
PUOlo..388)
OB.fEWWE:
To have the Board of County Comlllissioners {BCC) review sUiff's fimiirlg$ "and
recomm~ndations along with the recommendations of the .Collier, Co~PlanningJ Cotmnission
(CCPC) regarding, the above n;ferenced petition and renderadecisionreprding tmsPRl
amendntent petition;. and ensure,tbe project is .in .hannony with all.t(1~'applicable codes and
regulati(Jnsin order to eIl$ure that the comlllunity's interests are maintained.
CONSQ!E~T1QNS:
.1""'"'\
This.. O~I 'Resolution, proposes. to amend' the Development of ,Begional Impact ,,(I)RI)
Oevelolltnent Order (1)0), in accordance with Florid(J Stat~,SuPsection asO.Q6(19). The
proposed modificationswiU add 63.9 acres into the ORl bo~~aD1end,:M~H,8l)dpl'QPOses
to remove the 3.9-acrepark requirement.
FlSC~ ~A~T:
The . County collects impact fees prior to the issuance ofbuildingpermit$ to, help., oft'~ the
. impacts' of ~ht)ew development on public facilities. The$eimpact fees.-e ~ t() fund
projectsjdentified in,the Capital Improvement Element .of tbe,GrowthManagementPlJ11 as
needed to maintain adopted y:vel. of Service (LOS) for public ~lities. Ad<iitionally~in .otder
to meet the requireme~tsot:concurrency management, the developer of every local devel()p~
order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion oftpe ~mated T~tion .
Impactf'ees associated with theproj~ct in accordance with Chapter 74 oftbe ConierC~
Code of Laws and Ordi~s. Other f~ cgllected.prior t() iss~ of ~builqing pennitiJl~lude
buildingpennit review fees. Finally , additi(1)a1 revenue is generated byapplicatiQrl of ad
valorem tax. rates, and that revenue is directly. related to.the value of the improvement$. PI~ . \
note .that impact fees and taxes. collected were. not included in the criteria use4.by staff and the
Planning Commission to .analyZe this petition. .
f'..,
Packet Page -29-
.
4/26120t1 Item 7.A.
r"\
GRO'WTBMANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT:
Comprehensive Planning Staff was not required to review this petition because the proposed
action does not affect this project's original consistency determination as carried forward in the
SRAA companion petition. '
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
The CCPC' heard this petition on February 17, 2011 and continued the petition hearing to March
17, 2011, and by a vote of 8 to 0, with Commissioner Ebert abstaining, recommended forwarding
this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval.
1
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office and is legally sufficient. Thisitem
requires a minimum of four affirmativevotes-STW.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve. the request for DOA-
PL20 1 0-1 052, Olde Cypress DRI, subject' to the. attached DRI Development Order Amendment
r"\ and Resolution. i
PREPARED BY:
Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, ZOning Services Section, Land Development Services
Department, Growth Management Diyision, Planning and Regulation
Attachments: 1) Staff Reports
2) Application
3) Back-up information
4) Resolution
I
r"\
Packet Page -30-
4/26/20t11'em 7.A~
r"'.
COLLIER. COUNTY
Board of,County Commi$si..-s
Item Humber: 7.A.
\
Item Summary: This item' requires that ex parte disclosure beprovideQ\by~ommission
members. Shouldahe~ringbehetdonthis item, aUpartictPintsarerequirecito,beswom in.
DOA-PL201o-1052: Olde. Cypress Development, LTDa~(;j Vita Pima, LLC,....epresented. by Chris.
Mitchell ofWakirop Engil"ieering,P.A.and Richa~dD. YovanovichofCpleman,Yovanovich It
Koester, P.A., is requesting a change to the previouslyapprovedOldeCypr~ssDtvelopmentof
RegipnallmpaaDRI,J"accordance with Florida Statutes, Subsection'380.06(19).Thepr01'Osed
modifications will'add 63.9 acres. into the. DRI boundary,.~mend Mapfl,lInd remove the .3.9
acrep!1rk requirement to incorporate this change. The subject pro.rtyconsisting of60lt
.acres is located in Sections 21 and 22, Range 48 South, Townsbip26 East, .CoIHer,County,
Florida.. . {CompaniOntoPUDZ-PL201o-10S4.andPUDA..PL201CJ..388}
M_i"lDate: 4/12/2011
'"
Prepared By
r'\ N8n'le: DeseienU<ay.
Title:' Planner, Principal,Engineering & Envirolllllentai Ser
3/412011 3:09:16 PM
,.
Appr()vedBy
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations At\f.dyst,.CDES
Date: 3/21/2011 1:16:48 PM
Name: LorenzWilIiam
Title:. Director - CDESEngin~ngServices,CPmprehensive
Date:3/22/20n 4:58:39 PM
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Mana.ger- Planning, Comprehensive Planning
Date: 3/22/20116:26:54PM
Name: FederNorman
Title: Administrator - Growth Management Div,Transwrtati
r---, Date: 3/23/2011 10:42:42 AM
PacketPage-31-
(
~
,.-.......
r-.,
.r\.
Name: WilliamsSteven
Title: Assistant County Attorney,County Attorney
Date: 3/23/2011 3:19:53 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
Date: 3/24/2011 9:21:03 AM
Name:K1atzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 3/28/2011 12:04:03 PM
Name: IsacksonMark
. Title: Director-Corp Financial SJiQ, Mgmt Svs,CMO
Date: 4/4/2011 11:52:00AM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager
Date:4/4/20111:41:26.PM
packetPctgf: -32-
4/26/2011 Item 1.A.
)
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
----
eo'*-r eo-u:n~y
~ -... -
DRI REVIEW MEMORANDUM
To: Kay Deselem, AIcp, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
From: Corby Schmidt, AIcp, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section
Date: July 20, 2010
Subject: OIde Cpess Deu?loprrmt if Rejarnl Imrnd (DRD Redew
PETITION NUMBER: DR!-PL2010-1052
PETITION NAME: The Olde Cypress Residential Planned Unit Developrn:nt (RPUD), as a
Developrn:nt of Regional Impact (DR!)
REQUEST: The Olde Cypress RPUD Development of Regional Impact (DR!) proposes to add
approximately 65.3 acres of land to the existing 538.1-acre project, in accordance with the provisions of
~ Florida State StaMes and the Collier County Growth Managerrent Plan (GMP). No changes are
proposed that V\Ould affect the total number of approved residential tmits, phasing. cornrrencerrent or
build-out dates.
The new acreage will be tmt of the companion Vita Tuscana PUD, Wille the existing acreage remains in
the Olde Cypress PUD.
LOCATION: The proposed, larger Development of Regional Impact (DR!) contains approximately
603.4 acres and is located on the north side of Immokalee Road (CR 846), east of its intersection with
Olde Cypress Boulevard The property lies within the Urban Estates Planning CoIll1lll.1Ilityin Sections 21
and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,in Collier County.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The 65.3-acre subject property to be added to the
Olde Cypress DR! has the future land use designations of Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential
Subdistrict as depicted in the Fuhrre Land Use Map (FLUM:) of the Fuhrre Land Use Elerrent (FLUE).
Approximately 46.6 acres of the subject site is derived from the former HD Developrn:nt PUD (now Vita
Tuscana) with approval for 104 residential tmits. This portion is presently an undeveloped Residential
Planned Unit Developrn:nt (RPUD).
Another 18.7 acres presently outside either existing PUD V\Ould be incorporated in to the Olde Cypress
DR!. This portion is presently undeveloped Rural/Agriculture District land
----
-1-
Olde Cpre:o DR!
Packet Page -33-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Total Land Area of 603.4 acres
Developed Land .Area of 227.4 acres:
~
· "R", Residential Use Tracts of 184.2 acres -singl~family residences and multi-family
residences, up to 1,100 du; apportioned to 491 SF (45%) and 609 MF (55%); an overall density
of 2.4 cMelling tmits per acre.
o
· "C", Commercial Uses Tract of 12.5 acres - 165,000 sq. ft. colI'UreI'Cial space;
· "ROW", Public Right-of-Way Tracts of 30.7 acres - IE xtendingOIde Cpess Baulemrd,
wrthunrd from Immicabr Raul]
Undeveloped Land .Area of 376 acres:
· "P", Preserve Uses Tracts totaling 194.5 acres.
· GC, Golf Course, lakes, driving range and clubhouse tracts totaling 181.5 acres.
The table below illustrates the acreage figures, cMelling tmit counts and residential densities involved in
each part of the project:
Ttl ACs Ttl DUs Ttl Com'l ACs non-Com'l AC Gross Res'l Densitv
Existing DRI 538.1 1,100 12.5 525.6 2.09 DUlAC
Proposed DRI 603.4 1,100 12.5 590.9 1.86 DUlAC
Olde Cypress PUD 538.1 942 12.5 525.6 1.79 DUlAC
Vita Tuscana PUD 65.3 158 0.0 65.3 2.41 DUlAC ,.-.......
Even with the acreage increase, no additional residential tmits are proposed for the larger DR!.
Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff has determined the Olde Cypress
DR! amendment can be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth
Management Plan, subject to the Olde Cypress PUD reducing its total approved dwelling units
from 1,100 to 942, as shown in the table above.
ONOTYVIEW
cc: William Lorenz, PE Director, Land Developrrent Services Depart:rralt
Ray Bellow:;, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section
Mike Bosi, AIcp, Comprehensive Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section
David V\eeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section
Tony Russo, Jr., Senior Administrative Assistant, Public Utilities Planning & Project Management
Dept.
Chris D' Arco, Environrrental Specialist, Stonnwater & Environrrental Planning Section
Mike Greene, Manager, Transportation Planning Section
FLUE File
1:ICityview Documents21Comprhensive Planning Dept. Letters\Olde Cypress DRI-PUD\DOA-PL2010-1052 Olde Cypress DRl.docx
~
-2-
OIde Cymss DR!
Packet Page -34-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
O/de Cypress DRl / PUD Unit Summary
~
Last Updated: 3/15/2010
Subdivision ~ Total Lots Built to Date %
Strada Bella SF 18 17 940/0
Santorini SF 55 55 1000/0
Terramar SF 55 55 1000/0
Egret Cove SF 18 18 1000/0
Ibis Landing SF 55 55 1000/0
Santa Rosa SF 27 27 1000/0
Biscayne Place SF 8 8 1000/0
W oodsedge SF 130 125 960/0
Total SF Units 366 360 98%
Subdivision ~ Total Units Built to Date %
Fairway Preserve MF 264 264 1000/0
Amberton MF 312 132 420/0
~ Total MF Units 576 396 69%
----
Packet Page -35-
Olde Cypress DR!
Total Proposed Units
Total Units Built to Date
1100 756
Olde Cypress PUD
MF Units
SF Units
Unallocated
Total Units
Existing
576
366
158
1100
HD Development RPUD
SF Units
Total Units
Existing
71
71
Total DR! Units
OIde Cypress PUD
Vita Tuscana PUD
Total Units
Existing
1100
o
1100
Packet Page -36-
Proposed
125
125
Proposed
942
125
1067
%
690/0
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
~
""......."
~
----
,--..
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Olde Cypress DRI Transportation Summary
Packet Page -37-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
'\
Co~T County
~
~
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW;COLLlERGOV.NET
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 252-2400 FAX .. (239) 252-6358
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR
o DRI Application for DevelopmentApproval. (DRI)
[g! DRI Notice of Proposed Change (DOA)
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
DATE PROCESSED
[
DOA-PL2011).1052 REV:l
OLOE CYPRESS DRI
DATE: 6/11/10
Due: 7/2/10
J
APPLICANT INFORMA rlON
APPLlCANT(S) OLDE CYPRESS DEVELOPMENT. LTD AND VITA PIMA. LLC
FIRM
ADDRESS 2647 PROFESSIONAL CIRCLE CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34119
TELEPHONE # 239-592-7344 CELL # 239-280-6504 FAX # 239-592-7541
E-MAIL ADDRESS:KGELDER@STOCKDEVELOPMENT.COM
Is the applicant the owner of the subject property? [g1 Yes 0 No
Please provide the following information on separate sheets.
o (a) If applicant is a land trust, so indicate and name beneficiaries.
o (b) If applicant is corporation other than a public corporation, so indicate and name officers
and major stockholders.
[8] (c) If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership or other business entity, so indicate and
name principals.
o (d) If applicant if an owner, indicate exactly as recorded, and list all other owners, if any.
o (e) If applicant if a lessee, attach copy of lease, and indicate actual owners if not indicated on
the lease.
o (f) If applicant is a contract purchaser, attach copy of contract, and indicate actual owner(s)
name and address.
,,-...,
~
Packet Page -38-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
,----
Co~T County
~
COlliER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & lAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COlLlERGOV.NET
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 252.2400 FAX (239) 252-6358
AGENT INFORMATION-'
NAME OF AGENT CHRIS MITCHELL
FIRM WALDROP ENGINEERING. P.A
ADDRESS 28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE CITY BONITA SPRINGS STATE FL ZIP 34135
TELEPHONE # 239-405-7777 CELL # 239-682-2248 FAX # 239-405-7899
E-MAIL ADDRESS:CHRISM~WALDROPENGINEERING.COM
BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE
YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THESE REGULATIONS.
. PROPERTY INFORMATION'
'" ',,' "".,' --~.'. . ,.:.... ..,.'
. C', .. "
~
Detailed leaal description of the property covered bv the application: (If space is inadequate, attach
on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal
description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent
survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre-
application meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If
questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be
required.
SectionlTownship/Range 21 & 22148S/26E
Lot: Block: Subdivision: OLDE CYPRESS
Plat Book _ Page #: _ Property 1.0.#: See Attached
Metes & Bounds Description: See Attached {.,~ ,tJJ-I "l Id,o
Size of Droperty: _ ft. X _ ft. = Total Sq. Ft. _ Acres ~ ~
Address/aenerallocation of subiect DrODerty: Immokalee Road & Olde Cypress Boulevard
Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject property? If so,
give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on
separate page).
SectionlTownshipfRange 21148 8/26 E
Lot: Block: Subdivision:
Plat Book _ Page #: _ Property 1.0.#: See Attached
Metes & Bounds Description: See attached.
Packet Page -39-
--..
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Co~ County
- -- ~
f~
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358
DETAIL OF REQUEST
Does the proposed action comply with the Collier County Growth Management Plan? ~ Ves 0 No
If no, provide a written explanation.
Has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? DYes [8J No
provide a written explanation of the hearing.
If this is a NOpe application, has any portion of the DRI been [81 SOLD and/or 181
DEVELOPED? If so, please provide a written explanation.
If this is a NOpe application please provide a list of all previous actions on the subject site, beginning
with the original DRI/PUD approval and including all subsequent amendments. Include hearing
number, hearing dates and a summary of the approved action.
If 50, please
Section 10.03.05.B.3 of the Land Development Code requires an applicant to remove
their public hearing advertising sign (s) after final action is taken by the Board of County
Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public 1"""""\
hearing advertising sign (s) immediately
RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at its expense shall record in
the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of
Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use
petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The
Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements
of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County
Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice.
",-....,
Packet Page -40-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
----
~..
.:..... . .' QmKty
',-. ~.. '-l" '. ~,:
COLUER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LANOPEVELOPWIENT ReVIEW
WWW.COWERGOV.NET
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPl..ES;FLORItlA' 34104
(2a9) 252-2400. FAX (239) 252-6358
.~f.FIDAVIT
Well, VITA PIMA. LLC bein!;dirst duly'sworn, depose"a"nd say that wen afnlarErthe owners of
tli~, property describe~ herein and ~jC?h is the subject matter of the proposed ~~ring; tt!a~ all
the an$wers to th~ questio.ns in thi$. application, ,including th8:~isclosure of interest information;:
. all sketches, data, and.other .supplementary matter attached tOdsild made a part of t~is
,application, are honest.an.d true.to: the bestof our.koowle~ge. and belief. We!:1 understand that
, the. infonnationrequested on..this application ,must be ,.complete and accurate and that the
content of this form. Whether'c.omputer.generated or County printed shellaot be altered. Pliblic
hearings Will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required
irifonnation has been submitted. c. :. ...,.
,,-..,
As property owner WeJlfurther alJthor~e WALOORP ENGINEERING. P~A~and COLEMAN.
YOVANOVICH& KOESTER. P.A. to actas-our/my representative in any matters regarding this
Petition. . .. . ........ .. .. ..
. .
~ignature of Property Owner
BRIAN STOCK. MANAGER
Typ~d or Pri'!.ted Name of Owner
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
, "" .
Th~ foregQing ir:t$trumenf . was a~owfedged
.cJUh,t? -: 201", by
,.: personaDy known :to me or has produced .
:betore me thi$:;:
· dir/f1Yi(~ fo PiG
-:j.
day of
is
...,
.;--
who
-
as idelitifjcatiori~'
---.
DOA-P12010-1052 REV:1
OLOe CYPRESS ORI
DATE: 6/11/10
Due: 7/2/10
. .
. .$CD: "~:." 'ANGeLA L eoweN-=
:. ~;.; . :: MY COMMISSION # 00877953
'. lft:'i;,'" EXPIRES Aprt110. 2013
State FIandao~tvi<;e,oorn
County of Collier .
Packet Page -41-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
c&Cmmty
'- :, ~ -:,
~
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF. ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW~COLLlE~OV.NET
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLE$, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 252.2~OFAX (23$) 252-$3513
AFFIDAVIT
Well, OlDE CYPRESS DEVELOPMENT. l TO being firsf dulysWom, depOse and' say that well
am/are the ownerS of the property described nereiliand which is the subject matter of the
, proposed hearing; that all the answers t.o the questions in' this ,appliCation, including the
disclosure of iriterest infonnation;all sketches, d~ta,and other supplementary matter attached
~o and made apart of this appUcation, are, honeSt and triJeto the best of our knowledge and
belief. Well understand that the information requested on this application'mustbecompJete
and.accurate.:and that the content of.this fonn,. Whether. computer generated or:County printed
shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed
cOmplete, 'and all required infonnation has been .submitted. "
As property oWner weir furtheraUthonZe W ALDORP ENGINEERING. P.A:and COLEMAN.
YOVANOVICH&KOESTER. P.A.1o actasour/my representative in any matters rega.~ing this
Petition. . . ,.
".......",
~~
8~IAN STOCK~ MANAGER
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
H '< .
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
Th~.. foreg()lng i~trument waSEickno~.~dged p~fore me
.dlLn-L .:' 20'~,. by ~/ntJitJpb,
personaUy known to me or has produced
thj~
1-'
day of
who.. is
as identification::
DOA_PL2010-10S2 REV:1
OLOE CYPRESS DRI
DATE: 6/11/10
Due: 7/2/10
r--...
../
Packet Page -42-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
----
....
. ." .."......
. . .
. '
.Cd .CoK11tJ'
';, "".' ~., -,";
COlliER COUNTY GOVEgNMENT ;
PEPT. OF:~ONIN~ & lANO.OEVELOPM'ENT REVtEW . ,..
WWW.COlLlERGOV.NET
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
'NAPLE$.,FLORfDA. 34104' ,
(2~9) 252.2400 FAX (239) 252-tl3~
AFFIDAVrr
----
Well, OLOE CYPRESS DEVELOPMENT. L TDbeing first dulyswom, depose and 'say that well
am/are the"owne..s of the property:described tJerehiand whi~ is frie ~ubject, matter, of the
proposed: hear:if:lg; that-call the answers to thequestions~n this.,applicatiGn, includ~ng the
'disclosure of interest infonnationi-all sketches, d$ta:,:'and i::)ther supplemen18ry mattei' attached
to and ,rf:l,ade ~"p;art of this application, are honeSt ~nd tJiJe ~o the..best orour knowledge and
belief. "We/I.u'nderstand'thatthe information .~quest~c:t:on this:app"catioJimust~e complete
and. accurate . and that the content of this form, :Whether.eomputer generated or County printed
shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised .until this application is deemed
oomplete,aoo all required information has been submitted. ..' ..' ..
As property oWner Wejrfurthe(aUthorii~ WALDORP ENGINEERING. P~A.and COL.EMAN.
YOV ANOVICH & KOESTER. P A. to act. as .our/my representative in any matters regarding this
Petition~ '.:: "', ".,,' - .: . ,. ". .. ..
Signature of Prop~ Own.er
. -..-.. .
BRIAN STOCK. MANA.GER
Typed or Prif!led Name of Owner
:. Typed or Printed Name of Owner,
The.: ,foregoing iQ:s.trument was .'~cknowl~dged '.~fore ...me
014. J.1L . 20;.L-. bY' "BV/1ll1 8fD~
personally known 10 me or has produced:
.".-.. ....
thj!;... 1-:. day: of
....- who is
---- .
as identificatiorL
.#J~. : ~NGELA-L:iioWEN .
ri.. ;;ff MY GOMMlsSlON # DDsn953
..,." EXPIRES.Apri/10.2Q13
F_otaIy8ervlce.com ..
~
DOA-Pl201D-10S2 REV:1
OLDE CYPRESS DRI
DATE: 6/11/10
Due: 7/2/10
Packet Page -43-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
WALDROP ENGINEERING
CML EN6INEER1N6 & LAND DEm..OPMENT CONSULTANTS
.r"\
June 8,2010
Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner
Zoning & Land Development Review Depar1ment
Community Development & Environmental Services
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
DOA.PLZ010-1052 REV:l
OLOe CYPRESS DRI
DATE: 6/11/10
Due: 7/2/10
Subject:
Olde Cypress DR!
DR! Notice of Proposed Change (DOA) Permit Application
Dear Ms. Deselem:
Enclosed for your review is the Application for Public Hearing for Olde Cypress DR!, 538+/- acre project located
at the northeast intersection of the Olde Cypress BoulevardlImmokalee Road intersection in Naples, Florida.
The purpose of the NOPC Application is to add approximately 65.3 acres to the DR!. The 65.3 acres is
comprised of 46.6 acres from the RPUD Zoning District and 18.7 acres from the Agriculture Zoning District
(submitted to Collier County for a PUDA rezone known as Vita Tuscana). The Vita Tuscana property is adjacent
to the Olde Cypress PUDIDR! and is located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. The property is ~
also designated within the Urban Residential Subdistrict per the Collier County Future Land Use Map.
BACKGROUND:
Vita Tuscana RPUD, formerly know as lID Development RPUD, consists of 46.6 acres between OIde Cypress
DRllPUD and Immakolee Road. There is approximately 18.7 acres of land between Olde Cypress DRIlPUD and
Vita Tuscana that is currently zoned Agricultural and is not included in either PUD. Vita Pima, LLC purchased
this property in February of20l0. Principals within Vita Pima, LLC have an ownership interest exceeding 25%
in Olde Cypress Development, Ltd which is the developer of Olde Cypress DR!. Therefore, under the
aggregation rule they are required to include this new land in the DR!. This application seeks to incorporate this
property into the Olde Cypress DR!.
THE REOUEST:
Specifically, the request is to aggregate into the Olde Cypress DR! up to 125 single-family residential units and
33 multi-family units, and associated accessory uses, within the Vita Tuscana RPUD boundary. The overall unit
allocation for Olde Cypress DR! will remain at 1,100 units. The aggregation will not add density or units to the
DR!. The water and sewer for this project will be provided by Collier County Public Utilities through existing
infrastructure serving Olde Cypress and/or Immokalee Road.
TRANSPORTATION:
Vita Tuscana RPUD will be accessed from Treeline Drive. Per discussion with Collier County Transportation
Staff, Immokalee Road improvements (specifically the interstate interchange) are deemed complete and the
roadway is functional as a six lane roadway. There are no expected impacts from. the development of Vita
Tuscana RPUD as this RPUD is being incorporated into the Olde Cypress DR!. The overall DR! units will not be
,"""""'"
J:\I9S-01 v... T.......\WordIPUDAa & DR! N01'CIOIde c_ DIU\OIdo c_ NOpe eo.... Letter.duo
Packet Page -44-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
----
increased. Rather they will be re-allocated to reflect current and build-out conditions for the DR! to include Olde
Cypress and Vita Tuscana. The only analysis required is the conversion of trips to reflect the.additional single
family homes versus the estimated number provided in the original TIS. The calculation is attached and reflects
the trip generation assumptions provided in the pre-application meeting with the Southwest Florida Regional
Planning Council.
CONCLUSION:
In summary, we trust the proposed aggregation will be found consistent with the LDC and GMP. Per the Pre-
Application Meeting NoteslMinutes, the following items are enclosed for your review:
~
1. A check (#1508) in the amount of $8,725 for the DR! Notice of Proposed Change Application Fees;
2. Twelve (12) copies of the submittal cover letter detailing why the amendment is necessary;
3. Twelve (12) copies of the completed DRI Notice of Proposed Change Application;
4. Twelve (12) copies of the Pre-Application Meeting NoteslMinutes;
5. Twelve (12) copies of the DRI Conceptual Site Plan (24"x36" and one 8 W' x 11" 'copy);
6. One (1) copy of the DR! Conceptual Site Pla,n on COROM in JPG format;
7. Twelve (12) copies of the completed State NOPC Form;
8. Two (2) copies of the legal description;
9. Two (2) copies of the List of Owners of Corporation;
10. Two (2) copies of the Owner Affidavit signed & notarized;
11. Two (2) copies of the approved Addressing Checklist dated 03/08/1 0;
12. Two (2) copies of the Notices sent to DCA andRPC;
13. Four (4) copies of the Boundary Survey (signed and sealed);
14. Three (3) copies of the revised Traffic Impact Statement (TIS);
15. Two (2) copies of an email stating no methodology meeting required for the TIS;
16. One (1) copy of the TIS on CDROM;
17. Five (5) copies of the Aerial taken within previous 12 months (min. scaled 1" = 200') showing FLUCCS
Codes, Legend and Project boundary;
18. Two (2) copies of an email detailing the fee calculation as determined by Collier County;
19. Two (2) copies of all other DR! ADA and Sufficiency responses on CDROM;
20. Two (2) copies of the entire submittal documents on CDROM
Should you require additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact my office.
Very truly yours,
WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A.
hristopher R. Mitchell, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Enclosures
cc: Keith Gelder, Stock Development, w/enclosures
Richard Y ovanovich, Coleman, Y ovanovich & Koester, w/enclosures
~
Packet Page -45-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
WALDROP ENGINEERING
CML ENGINEERING" lAND DEVElDPMENT CONSULTANTS
~
October 29, 2010
Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner
Zoning & Land Development Review Department
Community Development & Environmental Services
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
OOA-Pl2010-10S2 REV:3
alOE CYPRESS DRI
DATE: 11/2/10
DUE: 11/24/10
Subject:
Olde Cypress DR!
DR! Notice of Proposed Change (DOA) Permit Application
Cover Letter Update
Dear Ms. Deselem:
Enclosed for your review is the Application for Public Hearing for Olde Cypress DR!, 538+/- acre project located
at the northeast intersection of the Olde Cypress BoulevardlImmokalee Road intersection in Naples, Florida.
The purpose of the NOPC Application is to add approximately 63.9 acres to the DR!. The 63.9 acres is
comprised of 45.2 acres from the RPUD Zoning District and 18.7 acres from the Agriculture Zoning District
(submitted to Collier County for a PUDA rezone known as HD Development RPUD). The lID Development r-...
property is adjacent to the aIde Cypress PUDIDRI and is located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26
East. The property is also designated within the Urban Residential Subdistrict per the Collier County Future Land
Use Map.
BACKGROUND:
lID Development RPUD, consists of 46.6 acres between OIde Cypress DRIlPUD and Immakolee Road. There is
approximately 18.7 acres of land between Olde Cypress DRI/PUD and lID Development RPUD that is currently
zoned Agricultural and is not included in either PUD. Vita Pima, LLC purchased this property in February of
2010. Principals within Vita Pima, LLC have an ownership interest exceeding 25% in aide Cypress
Development, Ltd which is the developer of OIde Cypress DRI. Therefore, under the aggregation rule they are
required to include this new land in the DRI. This application seeks to incorporate this property into the Olde
Cypress DR!. There is a portion of the lID Development RPUD that is not owned by Vita Pima, LLC and that
1.4 acres will not be incorporated into the Olde Cypress DR!.
THE REOUEST:
Specifically, the request is to aggregate into the OIde Cypress DR! up to 125 single-family residential and
associated accessory uses, within the HD Development RPUD boundary. The overall unit allocation for aIde
Cypress DRI will remain at 1,100 units. The aggregation will not add density or units to the DRl. The water and
sewer for this project will be provided by Collier County Public Utilities through existing infrastructure serving
Olde Cypress and/or hnmokalee Road.
~.
1:\195-41 V... TIIJCIIIIlIWonI\PUDAs" DIU NOPCIOhI. Cypress NOPCIJnlllIlnnittaIIIJp Olde C_ NOPe Ccwcr Loaor.dcc:
Packet Page -46-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
----
TRANSPORTATION:
lID Development RPUD will be accessed from Treeline Drive. Per discussion with Collier County
Transportation Staff, Immokalee Road improvements (specifically the interstate interchange) are deemed
complete and the roadway is functional as a six lane roadway. There are no expected impacts from the
development of lID Development RPUD as this RPUD is being incorporated into the aIde Cypress DR!. The
overall DR! units will not be increased. Rather they will be re-allocated to reflect current and build-out
conditions for the DR! to include aide Cypress and HD Development. The only analysis required is the
conversion of trips to reflect the additional single family homes versus the estimated number provided in the
original TIS. The calculation is attached and reflects the trip generation assumptions provided in the pre-
application meeting with the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council.
CONCLUSION:
NOTE lHESE ITEMS WERE SUBMlTIED IN JUNE OF 2010 WITH THE ORIGINAL SUBMITfAL. ANY
UPDATED ITEMS ARE LISTED IN THE RE-SUBMITIAL LEITER FOR TInS APPLICATION.
In summary. we trust the proposed aggregation will be found consistent with the LDC and GMP. Per the Pre-
Application Meeting NoteslMinutes, the following items are enclosed for your review:
1. A check (#1508) in the amount of$8,725 for the DR! Notice of Proposed Change Application Fees;
2. Twelve (12) copies of the submittal cover letter detailing why the amendment is necessary;
____ 3. Twelve (12) copies of the completed DRINotice of Proposed Change Application;
4. Twelve (12) copies of the Pre-Application Meeting Notes/Minutes;
5. Twelve (12) copies of the DR! Conceptual Site Plan (24"x36" and one 8 Yz" x 11" 'copy);
6. One (1) copy of the DR! Conceptual Site Plan on COROM in JPG format;
7. Twelve (12) copies of the completed State NOPC Form;
8. Two (2) copies of the legal description;
9. Two (2) copies of the List of Owners of Corporation;
10. Two (2) copies of the Owner Affidavit signed & notarized;
11. Two (2) copies of the approved Addressing Checklist dated 03/08/10;
12. Two (2) copies of the Notices sent to DCA and RPC;
13. Four (4) copies of the Boundary Survey (signed and sealed);
14. Three (3) copies of the revised Traffic Impact Statement (TIS);
15. Two (2) copies of an emaiJ stating no methodology meeting required for the TIS;
16. One (1) copy of the TIS on CDROM;
17. Five (5) copies of the Aerial taken within previous 12 months (min. scaled I" = 200') showing FLUCCS
Codes, Legend and Project boundary;
18. Two (2) copies of an email detailing the fee calculation as determined by Collier County;
19. Two (2) copies of all other DR! ADA and Sufficiency responses on CDROM;
20. Two (2) copies of the entire submittal documents on CORaM.
,-.
Packet Page -47-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
~
Should you require additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact my office.
Very truly yours,
~~G'M
hri""'pber ~ M;"h.l~ P.E.
Director of Engineering
Enclosures
cc: Keith Gelder, Stock Development, w/enclosures
Richard Y ovanovich, Coleman, Y ovanovich & Koester, w/enclosures
~
.~
Packet Page -48-
~
,,-.,
----
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
www.sunbiz.org - Department of State
Page 10f2
Home
Contact Us
E-FlUng Services
Document Searches
Forms
Help
Previous on List Next on List Return To List
! Entity Name Search .
. .
I Submit.!
Events No Name History
. _two;: T ...~...._--~_.
Detail by Entity Name
Florida Limited Partnership
OlDE CYPRESS DEVELOPMENT, lTD.
Filing Information
Document Number A98000002058
FEIJEIN Number 650867395
Date Filed 0910211998
StrtB FL
S1atus ACTIVE
Last Event AMENDMENT
Event Date Filed 0212012003
Event Effective Date NONE
Principal Address
2647 PROFESSIONAL CIRCLE
SUITE 1201
NAPLES FL34119-8091
Changed 04/1912008
Mailing Address
2647 PROFESSIONAL CIRCLE
SUITE 1201
NAPLES FL 34119-8091
Changed 04/1912008
Registered Agent Name & Address
GOODLETTE COLEMAN JOHNSON ET AL
4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH
SUITE 300
NAPLES FL 34103 US
Name Changed: 04/1912008
Address Changed: 06/0212006
General Partner Detail
Name & Address
Document Number L01000011007
STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
2647 PROFESSIONAL CIRCLE, SUITE 1201
NAPLES FL34119
Annual Reports
DOA.PU010-10S2 REV:1
OLOE CYPRESS DRt
DATE: 6/11/10
Due: 7/2/10
httn://www.sunbiz.orelscriotslcordet.exe?ac Packet Page -49-1 doc number=A980000020... 5/13/2010
www.sunbiz.org - Department of State
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Page 2 of2
Report Year Flied Date
2008 04/1912008
2D09 04123/2009
2010 0412012010
Document Images
04/2012010 ANNUAL REPORT [ View i"1age in PDF format. ]
0412312009 ANNUAL REPORT [ View image in PDF format ]
04/19/2008 ANNUAL REPORT I VIeW image in PD'Fformat ]
0413012007 ANNUAL REPORT [ VieW iFrnige in PDF format ]
0610212006 ANNUAL REPORT [ View image in PDF format. ]
07/0212005 ANNUAL REPORT [ Vrew image in PDF foim.at ]
06/1712004 ANNUAL REPORT r Vrew image in POE format ]
0510812003 - ANNUAL REPORT [ VieW image in PDF format 1
0212012003 Amendment [ View image in PDF.format 1
04/2312002 ANNUAL REPORT [ View image in PDF fO'rrn.Elt J
05130/2001 - Merger L VieW image in PDF fOrmat ]
04/24/2001 - ANNUAL REPORT t View image in PDF fo""~ ]
05122/2000 ANNUAL REPORT [ View image In PDF format ]
09/18/1998 ANNUAL REPORT I View image in PDF format ]
09/02/1998 Domestic LP [ View imag~ in .PDF format ]
I Note: This Is not official record. See documents If question or conflict I
~ - ...- -
Previous on List Next on Ust Return To List l Entity Name Search I
~ No Name History I Submit .1
1---------- - ~- -...- p-_._---
I Home I Contact us I Document SearchE!s I E-Flllng Services I Forms J Help I
Copyright and Privacy PoliCies
Copyright e 2007 State of Florida, Department of State.
http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?acpack;t-Page -50- L.doc number=A980000020... 5/13/2010
r--...
r--...
~
----
,.,.-...,
----
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
www.sunbiz.org - Department of State
Page 1 of2
.
, '
F, O"ID" DI"I"~R'1"'1E"T 0-1.' ~'l""'-C; ~ .. A"
L !\ _ ~ .J j... 2. 1"'. .. f',. 1 J ~....) . /
C ~--JI -" ~
DI'nSIOl': or OI:rOR!lIIO\S c?/{/I!J;';:. <"', -. _-..~__ ,.-; .,c'
--:- ------.... '1C:."I..'-....;r, ,- ~ .{..' J
,,__----..,:.--- -- ',. ~ -. - . 1
__ _ _ _~~ ~_ ~_ __ _ _ ___ ~__ _ ____ _ _ _ __ _ ~~~':. c' \~~,ili~
Home
Contact Us
E-Flllng services
Document Searches
Forms
Help
Previous on list Next on list Return To List
I Entity Name Search !
. ... . ....
I SUbinlt I
~ No Name History
___..._.....,..,.__-...1__--4.......... --~.....--""'-~_ ... ..
Detail by Entity Name
Florida Limited Liability Company
STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
Filing Information
Document Number L01000011007
FEIJEIN Number 593740488
Date Filed 07/0912001
State FL
Status ACTIVE
Last Event AMENDED AND RESTATED ARTICLES
Event Date Flied 10/2712004
Event Effective Date NONE
Principal Address
2647 PROFESSIONAL CIRCLE
SUITE 1201
NAPLES FL 34119
Changed 01/1512008
Mailing Address
2647 PROFESSIONAL CIRCLE
SUITE 1201
NAPLES FL 34119
Changed 01/1512008
Registered Agent Name & Address
GOODLETTE COLEMAN JOHNSON YOVANOVlCH ET AL
4001 TAM lAM I TRAIL NORTH
SUITE 300
NAPLES FL 34103 US
Name Changed: 01/1512008
Address Changed: 0411912006
Manager/Member Detail
Name & Address
TrUe MGR
STOCK, BRIAN K
2647 PROFESSIONAL CIRCLE, SUITE 1201
NAPLES FL 34119
TrUeVP
http://www.sunbiz.orglscripts/cordetexe?ac' Packet Page -51- _doc_number=LOl0000110... 5/1312010
www.sunbiz.org - Department of State
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Page 2 of2
IMIG, BOB
2647 PROFESSIONAL CIRCLE, SUITE 1201
NAPLES FL 34119
T1t1eVP
KOCSES, CHAD
2647 PROFESSIONAL CIRCLE, SUITE 1201
NAPLES FL 34119
Annual Reports
Report Year Flied Date
2008 0413012008
2009 04/23/2009
2010 0412012010
Document Images
0412012010 ANNUAL REPORT [ View image inPOF fonnat ]
0412312009 - ANNUAL REPORT [ VieViimage in POF fonnat ]
0413012008 - ANNUAL REPORT [ View imlilge inPDf folTllat 1
0111512008 - ANNUAL REPORT [ View image in POF fol'!11at ]
0413012007 - ANNUAL REPORT [ View image in POFformat )
04/1912006 - ANNUAL REPORT l VieW itnage in POF fonn~t _ ]
0412912005 - ANNUAL REPORT l View image in pOF fonnat ]
10126/2004 - Amended and Restated Articles [ View imllge in pop format ]
04/3012004 - ANNUAL REPORT l View lmage.in POF fonnat ]
0412112003 - ANNUAL REPORT l View image in POF format 1
1211912002 - ANNUAL REPORT [ . .Viewimage.inPOF ~nnlilt ]
0412212002 - ANNUAL REPORT [ View image in POF format ]
0710912001 - Florida Umited Uabllltes [ VieW. image in POF format ]
I Note: This is not official record. See documents If question or conflict. I
~ ........... ---.--~------....__..._-_......._,_.-
Previous on List Next on List Return To List ! Entity Name Search I
L--____..__:
Events No Name History I Submit I
..~....___....,..~_.-.-v....__..___.-.*_...__....___.__.._____............. _....._...r ___. _,,_,,_.__~r,,_,-,,--__..........__....
I Home I Contact us I Document Searches I E-Fillng Services I Forms I Help I
Copyright and Prlvacy Polldes
Copyright @ 2007 State of Florida, Department of State.
http://www.sunbiz.org/scriptslcordetexe?ac1packet Page -52- doc number=LOIOOOOIIO... 5/13/2010
~
~
----
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
----
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
DMSION OF COMMUNITY PLANNING
BUREAU OF LOCALPLANNrnG
2555 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
850/488-4925
NOTIFICATION OF A PROPOSED CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)
SUBSECTION 380.06(19), FLORIDA STATUTES
Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, requires that submittal of a proposed change to a previously
approved DRI be made to the local government, the regional planning agency, and the state land
planning agency according to this foml.
1. I, Brian Stock, the undersigned owner/authorized representative of OIde Cypress
Development, LTD & Vita Pima, LLC, hereby give notice of a proposed change to a (developer)
----
previously approved Development of Regional Impact in accordance with Subsection 380.06(19),
Florida Statutes. In support thereot: I submit the following information concerning the Olde Cypress
DRI (flkla The Woodlands DR!) development, which (original & current project names) information is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I have submitted today, under separate cover, copies of
this completed notification to Collier County, (local government) to the Southwest Florida Regional
Planning Council, and to the Bureau of Local Planning, Department of Community Affairs.
0/7/'0
.
Date
,-...
DOA-PL201o-10S2 REV:1
OLOe CYPRESS OR'
DATE: 6/11110
Due: 712/10
Packet Page -53-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
2. Applicant (name, address, phone).
.~
Olde Cypress Development, LTD
2647 Professional Circle, Suite 1201
Naples, Fl34119
Contact: Keith Gelder
(239) 592-7344
Olde Cypress DRI
DOA-PL201 0-1052
submittted: 1-12-11
(this page only)
3. Authorized Agent (name, address, phone).
Waldrop Engineering, P.A.
28100 Bonita Grande Drive
Bonita Springs, Fl 34135
Contact: Chris MitcheY
(239) 405-7777
4. Location (City, County, Township/Range/Section) of approved DR! and proposed change.
Olde Cypress Dri (FIK/A The Woodlands Drij
Naples, Fl3.f103
Section 21 & 22/ Township .f8s / Range 26e
5. Provide a complete description of the proposed change. Include any proposed changes to the plan of
development, phasing, additional lands, commencement date, build-out date, development order
conditions and requirements, or to the representations contained in either the development order or the
Application for Development Approval.
Indicate such chan~es on the project master site plan, supplementing with other detailed maps, as
appropriate. Additional information may be requested by the Department or any reviewing agency to
clarify the nature of the change or the resulting impacts.
.~
No changes are proposed to the phasing, commencement, or build-out dates. The developer proposes
to add 63.88 acres to the existing DRl with no change in total number of approved units. The
additional acreage is planned for residential development
6. Complete the attached Substantial Deviation Determination Chart for all land use types approved in
the development. If no change is proposed or has occurred, indicate no change.
Please See Attached
7. List all the dates and resolution numbers (or other appropriate identification numbers) of all
modifications or amendments to the originally approved DR! development order that have been adopted
by the local government, and provide a brief description of the previous changes (i.e., any information
not already addressed in the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart). Has there been a change in
local government jurisdiction for any portion of the development since the last approval or development
order was issued? If so, has the annexing local govemnient adopted a new DR! development order for
the project?
There have been fzve (5) development order amendments adopted by Collier County since the original
"The Woodlands DRU' development order (Ord. 86-1) was issued on November 6, 1986. The
following is a description of the five (5) do amendments:
,,-......,
Packet Page -54-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
,.-..,
(1) Resolution (87-96) adopted April 28, 1987, amended section b(5)(a)(7) and (8), transportlltion,
to clarify responsibilities of Collier County and the developer; amended section b(5)(b)(4),
transportation conditions, clarifying and redefining criteria by which a substantial deviation
shall be determined;
(2) Resolution (87-207) adopted September 15,1987, amending section a(4),fmding offact, to
state a maximum square footage of permitted commercial retail development and to increase
the total acreage of preservation areas and to set forth a revised land use schedule that did not
increase the total amount of acreage or dwelling units previously approved.
The two (2) development order amendments described above were adopted by Collier County
to resolve appeals of the of the original Woodland's DRl develompent order to the Florida
Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission take by the Florida Department of Community
Affairs and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. The Woodland's DRI
development order became effective on November 7, 1990, the date on which the Florida Land
and Water Adjudicatory Comission issued itsfuuzl order of dismissal of the appeaL
(3) Resolution (94-774) adopted November 1,1994, extended the woodland's DRl commencement
date and the buildoutltermination date by four (4) years, eleven months (11) or until October
7, 2000 and October 7, 2015, respectively.
CoOier County remains the local government with jurisdiction over all portions of the Olde
Cypress DR!.
...-....
(4) On October 22, 1996, the BCe amended the development order with resolution (96-482) to
reduce the number of dwelling unitsfrom 1,460 to 1,100 dwelling units and a reduction of the
commercial use from 200,000 sf to 165,000 sf and miscellaneous changes to the plan resulting
solely from permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management. Also, the right-
of-way reservation on the east side of the Woodlands was eliminated. Miscellaneous changes
were also made to drainage/water quality, transportation, vegetation and wildlife, wetlands,
consistency with the comprehensive plan and fU'e by the deletion thereof.
(5) In December 1999, Resolution (99-472) 28.69 acres were added to the eastern edge of Olde
Cypress in Section 22. Lands to be added. included a 2.1 acre archaelogical preserve area.
Standards were also incorporated in the development order to provide protection for
archaelogical resources. The gross density was also reducedfrom 2.2 to 2.1 dwelling units per
acre. Minor adjustments in land use tabulations, along with other miscellll.neous changes were
made to the development order to accommodate the notice of change.
(6) Resolution (2000-155) adopted May 23,2000 added 9.3 acres to accommodate the addition of
the golf course driving range. The request also included a modifzcation of the golf course/open
space acreage from 161.7 to 168.3 acres, including lakes. The residential acreage was
modifredfrom 152.5 acres to 155.2 acres. No changes to the number of dwelling units,
commercialfloor area, phasing schedule, commencement date, or build-out date was
requested.
..-....
Packet Page -55-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
8. Describe any lands purchased or optioned within 1/4 mile of the original DR! site subsequent to the
original approval or issuance of the DR! development order. Identify such land., its size, intended use,
and adjacent non-project land uses within Y2 mile on a project master site plan or other map.
".........,
Ylttl Pima, LLC recently purchased 65.29 acres directly adjacent (south) of the Olde Cypress DRI.
The easterly 46.64 acre parcel is an existing RPUD (HD Development Ordinance #05-65). The
westerly 18.65 acres is currently zoned agriculturaL "Vita Pima, LLC hasfiled a concurrent PUD
Amendment application with Collier County to rezone the entire 65.29 acres to RPUD.
9. Indicate if the proposed change is less than 40% (cumulatively with other previous changes) of any of
the criteria listed in Paragraph 380.06(l9)(b), Florida Statutes.
The proposed change is less than 40% of any of the criteritz listed in 380(I9)(b), F.S.
Do you believe this notification of change proposes a change which meets the criteria of Subparagraph
380.06(19)(e)2., F.S.
YES
NO
x
10. Does the proposed change result in a change to the buildout date or any phasing date of the project?
If so, indicate the proposed new buildout or phasing dates.
No changes to buildout dates or phasing are proposed.
11. Will the proposed change require an amendment to the local government comprehensive plan?
".........,
The proposed change wiU not require any comprehensive plan changes.
Provide the following for incOIporation into such an amended development order, pursuant to
Subsections 380.06 (15), F.S., and 9J-2.025, Florida Administrative Code:
12. An updated master site plan or other map of the development portraying and distinguishing the
proposed changes to the previously approved DR! or development order conditions.
Attached.
a. All proposed specific changes to the nature, phasing, and build-out date of the development; to
development order conditions and requirements; to commitments and representations in the
Application for Development Approval; to the acreage attributable to each described proposed
change ofland use, open space, areas for preservation, green belts; to structures or to other
improvements including locations, square footage, number of units; and other major
characteristics or components of the proposed change;
13. Pursuant to Subsection 380.06(19)(f), F.S., include the precise language that is being proposed to be
deleted or added as an amendment to the development order. This language should address and quantify:
See attached Proposed Master Plan, Map H and Proposed changes to the CoWer County
Development Order.
".-....
Packet Page -56-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
~
b. An updated legal description of the property, if any project acreage is/has been added or
deleted to the previously approyt:d plan of development;
See attached legal description of the property to be attached to the Development Order.
c. A proposed amended development order deadline for commencing physical development of
the proposed changes, if applicable;
No change.
d. A proposed amended development order termination date that reasonably reflects the time
required to complete the development;
No change.
e. A proposed amended development order date until which the local government agrees that the
changes to the DR! shall not be subject to down-zoning, unit density reduction, or intensity
reduction, if applicable; and
No change.
----
f. Proposed amended development order specifications for the annual report, including the date
of submission, contents, and parties to whom the report is submitted as specified in Subsection
9J-2.025 (7), F.A.C.
No change.
----
Packet Page -57-
~
u
~Z;
~o
;Z;E:
B~
a~
tl:2r;;;'l
o~
~r;;;'l
~~
~;z;
lirotS
o~
~s:
g::r;;;'l
o~
~3
....~
~;z;
<
~
l"-l
~
l"-l
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
r"..
10 ~ 0 ~
v ..-.. 0\ 0
o ~ ~ ..... 0\ 0: ~
0 c-
oo I N .....
0
ac($ 0
0
o ~ ~
'E ~ -d
... t.s
Po. 0 ...
0
0 \0 V 0 0
~ 0 0\ 0 N ~
-A N co ll'i 00
..... LO \0
<il - .....
.~
.tl
0
j 0 ..... 0\ 0 0
0 0\ 0 N "'l
-A V \0 .."f
t:l.. .....
..... co co
"'tl ...... .....
V
ftl
0
c..
E
Po.
VA
~
.~ .~ .,
., 'E '"
~ u t ~ .,
.... 8 1:1
!l v ~ 0
~ .~ co l "'~ -B ~ ...c: t.s 'Jj
~ p... p... . .... ~ u c.. ~ ~
a 0 '" 5
bO ..e v 1 'p ] a 0
~ ~ .9 ~ ~ ;0 v 'p CIl
col ~]] 0 1 0 g.. ~ v
U '" 'Jj s 'p a ~
!l ~ to:l
j ~ ~"t~ v v col ~ t.s ...... 0 41
0 ~~ u U u 0 u ...
v ~.p - 0 ~ ..9 ~
...... ...... - d ~ v d
0 ~a:l 0 t 0 v ~ ~
.... 0 u 0
U ::J:t: f-<v.i~ ::J:t: <~ .... ::J:t: <: .....
tI) tI)
't:l
a 'U)'
to:l 0
'"0 u
~t2!
41 ~ El
'"
0 ~ '"
1 41 '"
41 ~ g
] U <il 'E
....:l a B 0
...... 5
0 tI) t.s g
0 "'tl a a .
..... II) I
~ '" c..~ ;::
~ o.......g
r"..
,,-....
Packet Page -58-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
~
Olde Cypress DR! / PUD Unit Summary
Last Updated: 3/15/2010
Subdivision ~ Total Lots Built to Date %
Strada. Bella SF 18 17 94%
Santorini SF 55 55 100%
Terramar SF 55 55 100%
Egret Cove SF 18 18 100%
Ibis Landing SF 55. 55 100%
Santa Rosa SF 27 27 100%
Biscayne Place SF g 8 100%
Woodsedge SF 130 125 96%
Total SF Units 366. 360 98%
Subdivision ~ Total Uriits Built to Date %
Fairway Preserve MF 264 264 100%
Amberton MF 312 . 132 42%
~ Total MF Units 576 396 69%
~
Olde Cypress DRI
DOA-PL201 0-1 052
email submittal 12/6/1 0
Packet Page -59-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
"-.,,
OIde Cypress DR!
Total Proposed Units
Total Units Built to Date %.
1100 756 69%
OIde Cypress PUD
MF Units
SF Units
Unallocated
Total Units
Existing
576
366.
158
1100
HD Development RPUD
SF Units
Total Units
Existing
71
71
Proposed
125
125
Total DR! Units Existing Pro.,posed r".
OIde Cypress PUD 1100 942
Vita Tuscana PUD 0 125
Total Units 1100 1067
Olde Cypress DRI
DOA-PL201 0-1 052
email submittal 12/6/1 0
~.
Packet Page -60-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
----
aide Cypress DR! Transportation Summary
ExistiQg Unit Mix
PM Peak Total
~ ~ Hour Trips ~
SF 296 1.0 296
MF 804 0.5 402
Total 1100 698
Proposed Unit Mix
PM Peak Total
~ ~ Hour Trips ~
SF 491 1.0 491
MF 576 0.5. 288
~ Total 1067 779
I % ChaO.ge in Total Trips 10.40%1
----
Olde Cypress DRI
DOA-PL201 0-1 052
amail submittal 12/6/1 0
Packet Page -61-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
~
HD Development RPUD
Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Management Plan
The Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) is a large tree squirrel that nests
in pine, cypress, and melaleuca trees in southwest Florida. Forested areas with
relatively open shrub and ground cover stratum are preferred habitat. No Big Cypress
fox squirrel nests have been observed on the 18.7i: acres of undeveloped land in the
western portion of the HD Development RPUD. Potential Big Cypress fox squirrel nests
have been previously reported in the general vicinity of the HD Development RPUD.
Prior to clearing the 18.7:t acres of undeveloped land, a qualified biologist will survey
the construction limits for the presence of Big Cypress fox squirrels or their nests. Any
potential nests will be monitored to determine if they are currently being utilized by Big
Cypress fox squirrels. Nests found to be utilized by a Big Cypress fox squirrel will be
temporarily protected from clearing by a 125-foot-radius undisturbed buffer until any
juvenile squirrels have vacated the nest(s). These nests will be removed, outside of the
nesting season, once the absence of young fox squirrels within the nests is confirmed
by a qualified biologist. The nesting season is February 1s1 to May 30th, Any required
authorization from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) will be
obtained prior to removing the nest tree(s).
The HD Development RPUD has already implemented a management plan for the 16.2:t:
acre on-site and 20.0i: acre off-site preserves which includes enhancement of potential
Big Cypress fox squirrel habitat. This consists of the treatment of exotics from 34.9i:
acres of wetlands and 1.3i: acres of uplands. The enhancement of these lands has
significantly increased their value as potential Big Cypress fox squirrel habitat.
~
DOA-PL2010-1052 REV:3
OLDE CYPRESS DRI
DATE: 11/2/10
DUE: 11/24/10
W:\STOCK-5\BCFS Mang Plan HD.Docx
.---.....
Packet Page -62-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
~
Rhodes & Rhodes Land Surveying, Ine.
28100 Bmdta Gruule Drive, Suite 107, Bonita Springs, FJmid& 8U35
Phone (239) 405-8166 Fa.x (239) 405-8163
DESCRIPTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND
LYING IN
SECTIONS 21 & 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A PORTION OF SECTIONS 21 AND 22, TOWNSIllP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTIlWEST CORNER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: THENCE RUN N.00059'51 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE
OF SAID SECTION 21, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE
PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE N.Ooo59'51 "W. ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SECTION 21 A DISTANCE OF 2560.17 FEET TO THE WEST ONE-QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE RUN N.Ol oOO'08"W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF
SAID SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2659.99 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID SECTION 21; THENCE RUN N.89004'49"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION
21 A DISTANCE OF 2645.04 FEET TO THE NORTH ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SAID
SECTION 21; THENCE RUN N.89004'26"E., ALONG THE NORTIl LINE OF SAID SECTION 21,
FOR A DISTANCE OF 2644.36 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21;
THENCE RUN S.Ooo55'09"E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE
OF 2663.26 FEET TO THE EAST ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE RUN
S.00055'37''E., ALONG TIIE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE OF 666.00
FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AMBERTON, A CONDOMll'lIUM, ACCORDING TO
---- THE DECLARATION OF CONDOMINIUM RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4278 AT
PAGE 3396 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN
N.89006'04"E., ALONG THE NORTII LINE OF SAID CONDOMINIUM FOR A DISTANCE OF
656.66 FEET; THENCE RUN S.Ol oOI'19"E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 1898.09 FEET TO THE NORTH
RIGHT -OF- WAY LINE OF THE COCOHATCHEE CANAL (100 FEET WIDE)AS RECORDED IN
DEED BOOK 43, PAGE 251 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN S.89009'07"W., ALONG
SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 659.81 FEET TO THE EAST LINE
OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE RUN S.89009'28"W., ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY,
FORA DISTANCE OF 660.31 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FAIRWAY PRESERVE
AT OLDE CYPRESS, A CONDOMINIUM, ACCORDING TO THE DECLARATION OF
CONDOMINIUM RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3866 AT PAGE 4006 OF SAID
PUBLIC RECORDS AND TO THE EAST LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN
OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4079 AT PAGE 1265 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN
N.00056'04"W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID CONDOMINIUM AND EAST LINE OF SAID
PARCEL, FOR A DlST ANCE OF 1231.49 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
PARCEL; TIIENCE RUN S.89008'07"W., ALONG THE NORTII LINE OF SAID PARCEL AND THE
NORTH LINE OF A PARCEL DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4079 AT PAGE 1259
OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS, FOR A DISTANCE OF 660.47 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4079 AT PAGE 1259 OF
SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN S.00056'31 "E., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
PARCEL, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1231.23 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
PARCEL AND TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE AFORESAID COCOHATCHEE
CANAL; THENCE RUN S.89009'28"W., ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, FORA
DISTANCE OF 990.47 FEET TO THE EAST LINE A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN
SHEET 1 OF Z
----
DOA-PU010-10S2 REV:3
OLDE CYPRESS DRI
DATE: 11/2/10
DUE: 11/24/10
Packet Page -63-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Rhodes & Rhodes Land S1ll'Veying, Ine.
28100 Bonita GDDde Drive, Suite 107, Bonita. Springs, Florida. 3fi35
Plume (239) 400-81fi6 Fax (239) 405-8163
OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3579 AT PAGE 3894 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE
N.Oo057'12"W., ALONG SAID EAST LINE, FORA DISTANCE OF 224.51 FEET TO THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID
PARCEL THE FOLLOWING THIRTEEN (13) COURSES: (1) THENCE S.65"23'20"W., FOR A
DISTANCE OF 43.57 FEET; (2) THENCE S.78026'13"W., FORA DISTANCE OF 61.22 FEET; (3)
THENCE S.80004'25"W., FORA DISTANCE OF 45.57 FEET; (4) THENCE S.84027'31 "W., FORA
DISTANCE OF 31.15 FEET; (5) THENCE S.80009'47"W., FORA DISTANCE OF 30.89 FEET; (6)
THENCE S.58048'23"W., FORA DISTANCE OF 24.42 FEET; (7) THENCE S.54027'05"W., FORA
DISTANCE OF 36.02 FEET; (8) THENCE S.40025'12"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 33.11 FEET; (9)
TIIENCE S.47057'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 62.74 FEET; (10) THENCE S.50021'05"W., FOR A
DISTANCE OF 49.97 FEET; (11) THENCE S.68022'05"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 37.47 FEET; (12)
THENCE S.42018'38"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.61 FEET; (13) THENCE S.56049'27"W., FORA
DISTANCE OF 15.80 FEET TO THE AFORESAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF A 100
FEET WIDE DRAINAGE CANAL; THENCE RUN S.89008'23 "W., ALONG SAID NORTII RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE, FORA DISTANCE OF 2528.93 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
r-....
LESS THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL:
DA VINCI ESTATES AT OLDE CYPRESS, A SUBDMSION RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 35 AT
PAGES 33 THROUGH 37, INCLUSIVE, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
A PORTION OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, BE~G MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUm, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: THENCE RUN N .00059'51 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE
OF SAID SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET POINT OF BEGINNlNG OF THE
PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE N.00059'S 1 "W. ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2560.17 FEET TO THE WEST ONE-
QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE RUN N.89006'45 liE., ALONG THE SOUTH
LINE OF THE NORTIIWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE OF
660.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED;
TIIENCE RUN N.D1 oOO'Ol"W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID DA VINCI SUBDMSION, FOR
A DISTANCE OF 1330.06 FEET; THENCE RUN N.8900S'40"E., ALONG THE NORTII LINE OF
SAID DA VINCI SUBDNISION, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1321.51 FEET; THENCE RUN
S.Oo058'40"E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID DA VlNICI SUBDNISION, FOR A DISTANCE
OF 1330.47 FEET; TIIENCE RUN S.89006'4S"W., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID DA VINCI
SUBDMSION, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1320.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL AS DESCRIBED CONTAINS 602.04 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
~
SHEET 2 OF 2
~
Packet Page -64-
..-...
Property Folio Numbers:
00186000005
00186760002
00185880006
00186560008
00186600007
00186760109
00186520006
,,-..,.
.-..
OLDE CYPRESS DRI
HD DEVELOPMENT
FOLIO NUMBERS
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
DOA-Pl201D-1052 REV:3
OLOE CYPRESS DRI
DATE: 11/2/10
DUE: 11/24/10
J:\19S-01 Vila TUSC8Da\Word\PUDAs &. DR! NOPClOlde Cypn:ss NOPC\3rd submittal\Oldc Cypress DR! HD Development Folio Numbers.doc
Packet Page -65-
OLDE CYPRESS DRI FOLIO NUMBERS
Folio # Street # Street Name
2]990005929 8] ]6 DREAM CATCHER CIR
2]990005945 8116 DREAM CATCHER CIR
2]99000596] 8116 DREAM CATCHER CIR
2]990005987 8116 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990006009 8116 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990006025 8116 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990006041 8116 DREAM CATCHER CIR
2]990003620 8117 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990003646 8117 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990003662 8117 DREAM CATCHER CIR
2]990003688 8117 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990003701 8117 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990003727 8117 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990003743 8117 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990003769 8117 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990006067 8120 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990006083 8120 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990006106 8120 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990006122 8120 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
2]990006148 8120 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990006164 8120 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990006180 8120 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990006203 8120 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990006229 8120 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990006245 8120 DREAM CATCHER CIR
68391446108 7740 PRESERVE LN
68391446205 7755 PRESERVE LN
68391446166 7770 PRESERVE LN
68391446085 7774 PRESERVE LN
68391446182 7775 PRESERVE LN
68391446027 No Site Address
Packet Page -66-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
.~
~
~
~
----
OLDE CYPRESS DR! FOLIO NUMBERS
Folio # Street # Street Name
21990005107 8094 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005123 8094 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005149 8094 DREAM CATCHER. CIR
21990005165 8094 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005181 8094 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005204 8094 DREAM CATCHER. CIR
21990005220 8094 DREAM CATCHER. CIR
21990005246 8094 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005262 8098 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005288 8098 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005301 8098 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005327 8098 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005343 8098 DREAM CATCHER. CIR
21990005369 8098 DREAM CATCHERCIR
21990005385 8102 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005408 8102 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005424 8102 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005440 8102 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005466 8102 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005482 8102 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005505 8102 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005521 8102 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005547 8106 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005563 8106 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990005589 8106 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990005602 8106 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005628 8106 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005644 8106 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005660 8106 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005686 8106 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005709 8106 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005725 8106 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005741 8110 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005767 8110 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005783 8110 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990005806 8110 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990005822 8110 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005848 8110 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005864 8110 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005880 8110 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990003785 8113 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990003808 8113 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990003824 8113 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990003840 8113 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990003866 8113 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990003882 8113 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990003905 8113 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990003921 8113 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005903 8116 DREAM CATCHER CIR
----
Packet Page -67-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
OLDE CYPRESS DR! FOLIO NUMBERS
Folio # Street.# Street Name
21990003604 8076 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004506 8079 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004522 8079 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004564 8079 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004580 8079 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004603 8079 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004629 8079 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004645 8079 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004548 8079 DREAM CATCHER. CIR
21990004467 8083 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004483 S083 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004302 8083 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004328 80S3 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004344 8083 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004360 S083 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004386 S083 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004409 8083 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004425 8083 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004441 8083 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
219900048S1 8086 DREAM CATCHER ClR
21990004904 8086 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004920 8086 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004946 8086 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004962 8086 DREAM CATCHERCIR.
21990004865 S086 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990004140 8087 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004166 80S7 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004182 8087 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004205 8087 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004221 8087 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004247 8087 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004263 8087 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004289 8087 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004988 8090 DREAM CATCHERCIR
21990005000 8090 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990005026 8090 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005042 8090 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990005068 8090 DREAM CATCHER ClR
21990005084 8090 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990003947 8093 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990003963 8093 DREAM CATCHER ClR
21990003989 8093 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004001 8093 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004027 8093 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990004043 8093 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990004069 8093 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004085 8093 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004108 8093 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004124 8093 DREAM CATCHER CIR
Packet Page -68-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
~
~
~
~
----
OLDE CYPRESS DR! FOLIO NUMBERS
h"" Folio.# """" " "" Street#"" .. Street Name"'"""h
32382104867 7985 PRESERVE em
32382105060 7985 PRESERVE CIR.
32382104980 7985 PRESERVE CIR.
32382104825 7985 PRESERVE CIR.
32382105125 7985 PRESERVE em
32382105044 7985 PRESERVE CIR.
32382105002 7985 PRESERVE CIR.
32382105028 7985 PRESERVE ClR
32382105141 7985 PRESERVE ClR
32382105086 7985 PRESERVE CIR.
32382105109 7985 PRESERVE CIR.
32382105206 7985 PRESERVE CIR.
32382105264 7985 PRESERVE CIR.
32382104883 7985 PRESERVE CIR
32382104906 7985 PRESERVE CIR.
32382104922 7985 PRESERVE CIR
32382105248 7985 PRESERVE CIR
32382104964 7985 PRESERVE CIR
32382105222 7985 PRESERVE CIR
32382104948 7985 PRESERVE Cm.
32382105167 7985 PRESERVE Cm.
32382104841 7985 PRESERVE ClR
21990003264 8070 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990003280 8070 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990003303 8070 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990003329 8070 DREAM CATCHER em.
21990003345 8070 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990003361 8070 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990003387 8070 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990003400 8070 DREAM CATCHER em
21990004661 8071 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004687 8071 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004700 8071 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990004726 8071 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004742 8071 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004768 8071 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004784 8071 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004807 8071 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004823 8071 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990004849 8071 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990003426 8076 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990003442 8076 DREAM CATCHER em.
21990003468 8076 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990003484 8076 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990003507 8076 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990003523 8076 DREAM CATCHER CIR.
21990003549 8076 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990003565 8076 DREAM CATCHER CIR
21990003581 8076 DREAM"CATCHER CIR
.-....
Packet Page -69-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
OLDE CYPRESS DR! FOLIO NUMBERS
Folio # Street # Street Name
32382]03282 7965 PRESERVE CIR
3238210332] 7965 PRESERVE CIR.
32382]03266 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382]03020 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382]02908 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382102924 7965 PRESERVE CIR.
32382103]69 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382]03062 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382]03240 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382103305 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382102982 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382]03004 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382103101 7965 PRESERVE CIR.
32382]03224 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382]02940 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382103046 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382103185 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382103363 7965 PRESERVE CIR.
32382]03143 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382]03127 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382103347 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382102966 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382103088 7965 PRESERVE CIR
32382]04346 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382104566 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382104401 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382]04540 7975 PRESERVE cm
32382104728 7975 PRESERVE CIR.
32382104469 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382104744 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382104443 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382104362 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382104689 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382104508 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382]04786 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382104809 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382104647 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382104663 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382104427 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382104760 7975 PRESERVE CIR.
32382104524 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382104605 7975 PRESERVE CIR.
32382104621 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382104702 7975 PRESERVE CIR.
32382]04582 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382104388 7975 PRESERVE CIR
32382104485 7975 PRESERVE CIR.
32382105183 7985 PRESERVE CIR.
32382105280 7985 PRESERVE CIR.
Packet Page -70-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
~
.~
,~
----
---....
OLDE CYPRESS DR! FOLIO NUMBERS
......Folio # ............ Street # . Street Name
32382103486 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103826 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103389 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103800 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103444 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103680 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103509 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103541 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103729 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103745 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103606 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103622 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103460 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103402 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103583 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103842 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103525 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103664 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103648 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103761 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103787 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103703 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103567 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382103428 7950 PRESERVE CIR
32382102704 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102500 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102746 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102568 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102827 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102487 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102429 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102526 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102542 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102843 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102869 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102623 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102801 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102885 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102607 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102445 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102788 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102681 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102665 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102762 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102584 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102461 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102649 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382102720 7960 PRESERVE CIR
32382103208 7965 PRESERVE CIR
~
Packet Page -71-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
OLDE CYPRESS DR! FOLIO NUMBERS
Folio # Street # Street Name
32382101624 7935 PRESERVE CIR.
32382104249 7940 PRESERVE CIR.
32382104281 7940 PRESERVE CIR.
32382104087 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382104168 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382104320 7940 PRESERVE CIR.
32382104142 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382103884 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382104265 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382104184 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382103868 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382104029 7940 PRESERVE CIR.
32382104045 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382103981 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382104003 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382103923 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382103949 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382104100 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382104207 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382103965 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382]04126 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382104223 7940 PRESERVECIR
32382103907 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382104304 7940 PRESERVE CIR
32382104061 7940 PRESERVE CIR.
32382102089 7945 PRESERVE CIR.
32382102047 7945 PRESERVE CIR.
32382102283 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382102144 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382102021 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382102348 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382102225 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382102186 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382102160 7945 PRESERVE CIR.
32382102403 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382102241 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382102267 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382102380 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382102005 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382101983 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382102364 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382102322 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382101941 7945 PRESERVE CIR.
32382102063 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382102102 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382102209 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382102128 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382102306 7945 PRESERVE CIR
32382101967 7945 PRESERVE CIR
Packet Page -72-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
~
~
r---..
----
~
OLDE CYPRESS DR! FOLIO NUMBERS
Folio # Street # Street Name. ..
32382100609 7915 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100900 7915 PRESERVE cm
32382101420 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101307 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101080 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101187 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101064 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101404 7925 PRESERVE CIR.
32382101145 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101226 7925 PRESERVE cm
32382101284 7925 PRESERVE cm
32382101446 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101323 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101103 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101048 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382100984 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101129 7925 PRESERVE CIR.
32382101242 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101381 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101268 7925 PRESERVE CIR.
32382101365 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101161 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101200 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101349 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101022 7925 PRESERVE CIR.
32382101006 7925 PRESERVE CIR
32382101608 7935 PRESERVE CIR
32382101569 7935 PRESERVE CIR
32382101828 7935 PRESERVE CIR
32382101585 7935 PRESERVE CIR
32382101763 7935 PRESERVE CIR
32382101501 7935 PRESERVE CIR
32382101747 7935 PRESERVE CIR.
32382101543 7935 PRESERVE CIR
32382101488 7935 PRESERVE CIR
32382101705 7935 PRESERVE CIR.
32382101721 7935 PRESERVE CIR
32382101844 7935 PRESERVE CIR
32382101909 7935 PRESERVE CIR
32382101462 7935 PRESERVE CIR
32382101666 7935 PRESERVE CIR.
32382101527 7935 PRESERVE CIR
32382101789 7935 PRESERVE CIR.
32382101640 7935 PRESERVE CIR
32382101886 7935 PRESERVE CIR.
32382101802 7935 PRESERVE CIR
32382101925 7935 PRESERVE CIR.
32382101682 7935 PRESERVE CIR
32382101860 7935 PRESERVE CIR
----
Packet Page -73-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
OLDE CYPRESS DR! FOLIO NUMBERS
Folio # Street # Street Name
29734001084 3029 RENAISSANCE CT
29734001149 3030 RENAISSANCE CT
29734001107 3033 RENAISSANCE CT
29734001123 3034 RENAISSANCE CT
32382100188 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100382 7905 PRESERVE CIR
32382100201 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100269 7905 PRESERVE CIR
32382100463 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100366 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100340 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100324 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100146 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100049 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100489 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100447 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100120 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100405 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100285 7905 PRESERVE CIR
32382100081 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100023 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100227 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100065 7905 PRESERVE CIR
32382100243 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100162 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100308 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100421 7905 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100104 7905 PRESERVE CIR
32382100887 7915 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100829 7915 PRESERVE CIR
32382100764 7915 PRESERVE CIR
32382100560 7915 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100942 7915 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100706 7915 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100641 7915 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100803 7915 PRESERVE CIR
32382100722 7915 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100780 7915 PRESERVE CIR
32382100845 7915 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100502 7915 PRESERVE CIR
32382100528 7915 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100926 7915 PRESERVE CIR
32382100861 7915 PRESERVE CIR
32382100667 7915 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100544 7915 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100586 7915 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100683 7915 PRESERVE CIR
32382100625 7915 PRESERVE CIR.
32382100968 7915 PRESERVE CIR
Packet Page -74-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
,.-...,
~
~.
----.
----
OLDE CYPRESS DR! FOLIO NUMBERS
. Folio # Street # Street Name
29734000409 2921 LEONARDO AVE
29734000425 2930 FLORENTINE CT
29734000441 2934 FLORENTINE CT
29734000483 2935 FLORENTINE CT
29734000467 2938 FLORENTINE CT
29734000548 2939 MONA USA BLVD
29734000522 2940 MONA USA BLVD
29734000564 2943 MONA USA BLVD
29734000506 2944 MONA USA BLVD
29734000580 2947 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000603 2951 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000247 2953 MONA USA BLVD
29734000629 2955 MONA USA BLVD
29734000645 2959 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000661 2963 MONA USA BLVD
29734000687 2967 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000700 2971 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001424 2974 MONA USA BLVD
29734000726 2975 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001408 2978 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000742 2979 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001385 2982 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001369 2986 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000768 2987 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001343 2990 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001327 2994 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000784 2995 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001301 2998 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001288 3002 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001262 3006 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001246 3010 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000807 3011 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001220 3014 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000823 3015 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001204 3018 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000849 3019 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001181 3022 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000865 3023 MONA USA BLVD
29734001165 3026 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000881 3027 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000904 3031 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000920 3035 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001068 3036 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001042 3040 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001026 3044 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000946 3045 MONA LISA BLVD
29734001000 3048 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000962 3049 MONA LISA BLVD
29734000988 3052 MONA LISA BLVD
...-.
Packet Page -75-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
OLDE CYPRESS DRI FOLIO NUMBERS
Folio # Street # Street Name
76713001100 3060 TBRRAMARDR
76713000127 3063 TERRAMARDR
76713001087 3064 TERRAMAR DR
76713000143 3067 TERRAMAR DR
76713001061 3068 TERRAMARDR
76713000169 3071 TERRAMARDR
76713001045 3072 TERRAMARDR
76713000185 3075 TERRAMARDR
76713001029 3076 TERRAMARDR
76713001003 3080 TERRAMARDR
76713000981 3084 TERRAMARDR
76713000208 3085 TERRAMARDR
76713000965 3088 TERRAMARDR
76713000224 3089 TERRAMAR DR
76713000949 3092 TERRAMARDR
76713000240 3093 TERRAMARDR
76713000266 3097 TERRAMARDR
76713000282 3101 TERRAMARDR
76713000305 3105 TERRAMAR DR
76713000680 3108 TERRAMAR DR
76713000321 3109 TERRAMARDR
76713000664 3112 TERRAMARDR
76713000347 3113 TERRAMAR DR
76713000648 3116 TERRAMARDR
76713000363 3117 TERRAMARDR
76713000389 3121 TERRAMARDR
76713000622 3124 TERRAMARDR
76713000402 3125 TERRAMAR DR
76713000606 3128 TERRAMARDR
76713000428 3129 TERRAMARDR
76713000583 3132 TERRAMARDR
76713000444 3133 TERRAMARDR
76713000567 3136 TERRAMARDR
76713000460 3137 lERRAMARDR
76713000541 3140 TERRAMAR DR
76713000486 3141 TERRAMARDR
76713000525 3144 lERRAMAR DR
76713000509 3145 TERRAMAR DR
29734000302 2901 LEONARDO A VB
29734001505 2902 LEONARDO A VB
29734000166 2903 LEONARDO A VB
29734000328 2905 LEONARDO A VB
29734001482 2906 LEONARDO A VB
29734000344 2909 LEONARDO A VB
29734001466 2910 LEONARDO A VB
29734000027 2911 LEONARDO A VB
29734000360 2913 LEONARDO A VB
29734000386 2917 LEONARDO AVE
29734001440 2920 LEONARDO A VB
Packet Page -76-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
,~
,~
----
~
..............
OLDE CYPRESS DR! FOLIO NUMBERS
Folio # Street # Street Name .......
72590004683 3075 SANTORINI CT
72590005705 3078 SANTORINI CT
72590004706 3079 SANTORINI CT
72590005682 3082 SANTORINI CT
72590004722 3083 SANTORINI CT
72590005666 3086 SANTORINI CT
72590004748 3087 SANTORINI CT
72590005640 3090 SANTORINI CT
72590004764 3091 SANTORINI CT
72590005624 3094 SANTORINI CT
72590004780 3095 SANTORINI CT
72590005608 3098 SANTORINI CT
72590004803 3099 SANTORINI CT
72590005585 3102 SANTORINI CT
74977000101 3064 STRADA BELLA CT
74977000127 3068 STRADA BELLA CT
74977000444 3071 STRADA BELLA CT
74977000143 3072 STRADA BELLA CT
74977000169 3076 STRADA BELLA CT
74977000185 3080 STRADA BELLA CT
74977000208 3084 STRADA BELLA CT
74977000224 3088 STRADA BELLA CT
74977000240 3092 STRADA BELLA CT
74977000266 3096 STRADA BELLA CT
74977000282 3100 STRADA BELLA CT
74977000305 3104 STRADA BELLA CT
74977000321 3108 STRADA BELLA Cr
74977000347 3112 STRADA BELLA CT
74977000363 3116 STRADA BELLA CT
74977000389 3120 STRADA BELLA CT
74977000402 3124 STRADA BELLA CT
74977000428 3128 STRADA BELLA CT
76713000703 3107 TERRAMAR CT
76713000923 3110 TERRAMAR CT
76713000729 3111 TERRAMAR CT
76713000907 3114 TERRAMAR CT
76713000745 3115 TERRAMAR CT
76713000884 3118 TERRAMAR CT
76713000761 3119 TERRAMAR CT
76713000868 3122 TERRAMAR CT
76713000787 3123 TERRAMAR CT
76713000842 3126 TERRAMAR CT
76713000800 3127 TERRAMAR CT
76713000826 3130 TERRAMAR CT
76713001142 3050 TERRAMAR DR
76713000062 3051 TERRAMARDR
76713001126 3054 TERRAMARDR
76713000088 3055 TERRAMARDR
76713000101 3059 TERRAMAR DR
..-..
Packet Page -77-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
OLDE CYPRESS DRI FOLIO NUMBERS
Folio # Street # Street Name
64625005303 2898 LONE PINE LN
64625005824 2901 LONE PINE LN
64625005329 2902 LONE PINE LN
64625005808 2905 LONE PINE LN
64625005345 2908 LONE PINE LN
64625005785 2909 LONE PINE LN
64625005769 2913 LONE PINE LN
64625005743 2917 LONE PINE LN
64625005361 2918 LONE PINE LN
64625005727 2921 LONE PINE LN
64625005701 2925 LONE PINE LN
64625005387 2928 LONE PINE LN
64625005688 2929 LONE PINE LN
64625005662 2933 LONE PINE LN
64625005400 2936 LONE PINE LN
64625005646 2937 LONE PINE LN
64625005426 2940 LONE PINE LN
64625005620 2941 LONE PINE LN
64625005442 2944 LONE PINE LN
64625005604 2945 LONE PINE LN
64625005468 2948 LONE PINE LN
64625005581 2949 LONE PINE LN
64625005484 2952 LONE PINE LN
64625005507 2956 LONE PINE LN
64625005523 2960 LONE PINE LN
64625005549 2964 LONE PINE LN
64625005565 2968 LONE PINE LN
64626000381 3021 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000048 3024 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000365 3025 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000064 3028 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000349 3029 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000080 3032 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000323 3033 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000103 3036 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000307 3037 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000129 3040 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000284 3041 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000145 3044 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000268 3045 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000161 3048 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000242 3049 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000187 3052 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000226 3053 OLDE COVE WAY
64626000200 3057 OLDE COVE WAY
72590004641 3067 SANTORlNI CT
72590005747 3070 SANTORINI CT
72590004667 3071 SANTORlNI CT
72590005721 3074 SANTORlNI CT
Packet Page -78-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
~
~
~
,..-..,
~
OLDE CYPRESS DR! FOLIO NUMBERS
Folio # Street # Street Name
64625001103 2758 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001585 2761 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001129 2762 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001145 2766 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001608 2767 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001161 2770 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001624 2773 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001187 2774 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001640 2777 OLDECYPRESSDR
64625001200 2778 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001666 2781 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001226 2782 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001682 2785 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001242 2786 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001705 2789 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001268 2790 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001721 2793 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001284 2794 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001747 2797 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001307 2798 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001763 2801 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625006124 2839 LONE PINE LN
64625005044 2840 LONE PINE LN
64625006108 2843 LONE PINE LN
64625006085 2847 LONE PINE LN
64625005060 2850 LONE PINE LN
64625006069 2851 LONE PINE LN
64625005086 2854 LONE PINE LN
64625006043 2855 LONE PINE LN
64625005109 2858 LONE PINE LN
64625006027 2859 LONE PINE LN
64625005125 2862 LONE PINE LN
64625006001 2863 LONE PINE LN
64625005141 2866 LONE PINE LN
64625005989 2867 LONE PINE LN
64625005167 2870 LONE PINE LN
64625005963 2873 LONE PINE LN
64625005183 2874 LONE PINE LN
64625005947 2877 LONE PINE LN
64625005206 2878 LONE PINE LN
64625005921 2881 LONE PINE LN
64625005222 2882 LONE PINE LN
64625005905 2885 LONE PINE LN
64625005248 2886 LONE PINE LN
64625005882 2889 LONE PINE LN
64625005264 2890 LONE PINE LN
64625005866 2893 LONE PINE LN
64625005280 2894 LONE PINE LN
64625005840 2897 LONE PINE LN
----
Packet Page -79-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
OLDE CYPRESS DR! FOLIO NUMBERS
Folio # Street # Street Name
72590000360 7352 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000289 7355 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000386 7356 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000263 7359 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000409 7360 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000247 7363 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000425 7364 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000221 7367 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000441 7368 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000205 7371 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000467 7372 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000182 7375 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000483 7376 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000166 7379 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000140 7383 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000506 7384 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000124 7387 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000522 7388 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000108 7391 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000548 7394 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000085 7395 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000564 7398 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000069 7399 MONTEVERDE WAY
64626001128 2701 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64626001144 2705 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625000845 2706 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64626001160 2709 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625000861 2710 OLOE CYPRESS DR
64625000887 2714 OLDE CYPRESS DR
72590000043 2717 OLOE CYPRESS DR
64625000900 2718 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001789 2719 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001420 2721 OLOE CYPRESS DR
64625000926 2722 OLOE CYPRESS DR
64625001446 2725 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625000942 2726 OIDE CYPRESS DR
64625000968 2730 OIDE CYPRESS DR
64625001462 2731 OIDE CYPRESS DR
64625000984 2734 OIDE CYPRESS DR
64625001488 2737 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001006 2738 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001022 2742 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001501 2743 OIDE CYPRESS DR
64625001048 2746 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001527 2747 OLOE CYPRESS DR
64625001064 2750 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001543 2753 OLDE CYPRESS DR
64625001080 2754 OIDE CYPRESS DR
64625001569 2757 OLOE CYPRESS DR
Packet Page -80-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
,-...."
~
~
----
---.
OLDE CYPRESS DR! FOLIO NUMBERS
Folio # Street # Street Name
64625003321 7512 TREELINE DR
64625003347 75]6 TREELINE DR
64625003703 7519 TREELINE DR
64625003363 7520 TREELINE DR
64625003680 7523 TREELINE DR
64625003389 7524 TREELINE DR
64625003664 7527 TREELINE DR
64625003402 7528 TREELINE DR
64625003648 7531 TREELINE DR
64625003428 7532 TREELINE DR
64625003622 7535 TREELINE DR
64625003444 7536 TREELINE DR
64625003606 7539 TREELINE DR
64625003460 7540 TREELINE DR
64625003583 7543 TREELINE DR
64625003486 7544 TREELINE DR
64625003567 7547 TREELINE DR
64625003509 7548 TREELINE DR
64625003541 7551 TREELINE DR
64625003525 7555 TREELINE DR
64625003923 2802 WTI.D ORCHID CT
64625004401 2803 WILD ORCHID CT
64625003949 2806 WTI.D ORCHID CT
64625004388 2807 WlLD ORCHID CT
64625003965 2810 WTI.D ORCHID CT
64625004362 2811 WTI.D ORCHID CT
64625003981 2814 WTI.DORCHIDCT
64625004346 2815 wn.o ORCHID CT
64625004003 2818 WTI.D ORCHID CT
64625004320 2819 Wll..D ORCHID CT
64625004304 2823 WILD ORCHID CT
64625004029 2824 wn.o ORCHID CT
64625004281 2827 WTI.D ORCHID CT
64625004045 2828 wn.o ORCHID CT
64625004265 2831 Will) ORCHID CT
6462500406] 2832 WILD ORCHID CT
64625004249 2835 Will) ORCHID CT
64625004087 2836 wn.o ORCHID CT
64625004223 2839 WILD ORCHID CT
64625004]00 2840 wn..n ORCHID CT
64625004207 2843 WILD ORCHID CT
64625004126 2844 wn..n ORCHID CT
64625004184 2847 wn.o ORCHID CT
64625004142 2848 WILD ORCHID CT
64625004168 2852 WILD ORCHID CT
64625000023 2864 WILD ORCHID CT
72590000328 7347 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000344 7348 MONTEVERDE WAY
72590000302 7351 MONTEVERDE WAY
~
Packet Page -81-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
~
OLDE CYPRESS DRI FOLIO NUMBERS
Folio # Street # Street Name
64625000188 7199 TREELINE DR
64625000382 7200 TREELINE DR
64626001021 7401 TREELINE DR
64625000421 7402 TREELINE DR
64626001047 7405 TREELINE DR
64625000447 7408 TREELINE DR
64626001063 7409 TREELINE DR
64626001089 7413 TREELINE DR
64625000463 7414 TREELINE DR
64626001102 7417 TREELINE DR
64625000489 7420 TREELINE DR
64625000502 7424 TREELINE DR
64625000528 7428 TREELINE DR
64625000829 7429 TREELINE DR
64625000544 7432 TREELINE DR
64625000803 7433 TREELINE DR
64625000560 7436 TREELINE DR
64625000780 7437 TREELINE DR
64625000586 7440 TREELINE DR
64625000764 7441 TREELINE DR
64625000609 7444 TREELINE DR
64625000748 7445 TREELINE DR
64625000625 7448 TREELINE DR
64625000722 7449 TREELINE DR
64625000641 7452 TREELINE DR
64625000706 7453 TREELINE DR
64625003046 7456 TREEUNE DR
64625003062 7460 TREELINE DR
64625003088 7464 TREELINE DR
64625003907 7465 TREELINE DR
64625003101 7468 TREELINE DR
64625003884 7469 TREELINE DR
64625003127 7472 TREELINE DR
64625003868 7475 TREELINE DR
64625003143 7476 TREELINE DR
64625003169 7480 TREELINE DR
64625003185 7484 TREELINE DR
64625003842 7485 TREELINE DR
64625003208 7488 TREELINE DR
64625003826 7491 TREELINE DR
64625003224 7492 TREELINE DR
64625003800 7495 TREELINE DR
64625003240 7496 TREELINE DR
64625003787 7499 TREELINE DR
64625003266 7500 TREEUNE DR
64625003761 7503 TREELINE DR
64625003282 7504 TREELINE DR
64625003745 7507 TREELINE DR
64625003305 7508 TREELINE DR
64625003729 7511 TREELINE DR
~
DOA-PL201o-1052 REV:3
OLDE CYPRESS DRI
DATE: 11/2/10
DUE: 11/24/10
~
Packet Page -82-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
INSTR 4476425 OR 4606 PG 1045 RECORDED 9/20/2010 11:09 AM PAGES 9
DWIGHT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
DOC@.70 $0.70 REC $78.00
CONS SO.OO
...-....
DOA-PL201o..10S2 REV:3
OLOE CYPRESS DRI
DATE: 11/2/10
DUE: 11/24/10
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Return recorded document to:
South Florida Water Management District
3301 Gun Club Road, MSC 4210
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
~
("Grantor")
is
THIS
is given
, 2010
this
I by
to the South Florida Water
"Grantor" shall include any an
subsequent owners of the "Prope em
include any successor or aSSignee of Grantee.
"). As used herein. the term
assigns of the Grantor, and all
efined) and the term "Grantee" shall
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS. the Grantor is the owner of certain lands situated in
ro \ \ \!.y County, Florida. and more specifically
described in Exhibit"N attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to construct
Vi-\-tt ~'Sc.o.f'lt\. ("Project") at a site in
Co \\\ey County, whIch is subject to the regulatory
jurisdiction of South Florida Water Management District ("District"); and
WHEREAS, District Permit No. -1-1- O~'4 b -1' ("Permit")
authorizes certain activities which affect waters in or of the State of Florida; and
....-....
~SJQt
Form 1190 (0112DD7)
Deed of Conservation Easement - Standard
Page 1 of8
Packet Page -83-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
OR 4606 PG 1046
----.
WHEREAS, this Penn It requires that the Grantor preserve, enhance, restore and/or
mitigate wetlands and/or uplands under the District's jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor, in consideration of the consent granted by the Permit, is
agreeable to granting and securing to the Grantee a perpetual Conservation Easement
as defined in Section 704.06, Florida Statutes, over the area desaibed on Exhibit "8"
(.Conservation Easementj.
NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of the issuance of the Permit to construct
and operate the permitted activity, and as an inducement to Grantee in issuing the
Permit, together with other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt
of which are hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby grants, creates, and establishes a
perpetual Conservation Easement for and In favor of the Grantee upon the property
described on Exhibit -B" which shall run with the land and be binding upon the Grantor,
and shall remain In full force and effect forever.
2. Puroose. I is
water areas in their natu ,
condition and to retain
wetland and/or upland a
enhanced or created pu
enhanced or created condition
~
on asement to retain land or
, agricultural or wooded
h, plants or wildlife. Those
Easement which' are to be
ined and maintained in the
To carry out this purpose, tfi
easement
a. To enter upon the Property at reasonable times with any necessary
equipment or vehicles to enforce the rights herein granted in a manner that wJ1l not
unreasonably interfere with the use and quiet enjoyment of the Property by Grantor at the
time of such entry; and
b. To enjoin any activity on or use of the Property that is inconsistent
with this Conservation Easement and to enforce the restoration of such areas or
features of the Conservation Easement that may be damaged by any inconsistent
activity or use.
3. Prohibited Uses. Except for restoration, creation, enhancement,
maintenance and monitoring activities, or surface water management improvements, or
other activities described herein that are permitted or required by the Permit, the
following activities are prohibited in or on the Conservation Easement:
r"'.
~~
Form 1190 (0112007)
Deed of Conservation Easement - Standard
Page20fB
Packet Page -84-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
OR 4606 PG 1047
~
a. Construction or placing of buildings, roads, signs, billboards or
other advertising, utilities, or other structures on or above the ground;
b. Dumping or placing of soil or other substance or material as landfill,
or dumping or placing of trash, waste, or unsightly or offensive materials;
c. Removal or destruction of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation, except
for the removal of exotic or nuisance vegetation in accordance with a District approved
maintenance plan;
d. Excavation, dredging, or removal of loam, peat, gravel, soil, rock, or
other material substance in such manner as to affect the surface;
e. Surface use except for purposes that penillt the land or water area to
remain in its natural or enhanced condition;
~
f. Activities de .
erosion control, soil conservati
limited to, ditching, diking an
flood control, water conservation,
t preservation including, but not
g.
t10ned retention of land or
water areas;
h.
the preservation of the
o ~ perties having historical,
00
es all rights as owner of the
Property that are not prohibited
riet rule, criteria, permit and the Intent
5. No Dedication. No right of access by the general public to any portion of
the Property Is conveyed by this Conservation Easement.
----
6. Grantee's Liabilitv. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or
liabilities related to the operation, upkeep or maintenance of the Property.
7. ProDertv Taxes. Grantor shall keep the payment of taxes and
assessments on the Easement Parcel current and shall not allow any lien on the
Easement Parcel superior to this Easement. In the event Grantor fails to extinguish or
obtain a subordination of such lien, in addition to any other remedy, the Grantee may,
but shall not be obligated to, elect to pay the lien on behalf of the Grantor and Grantor
shall reimburse Grantee for the amount paid by the Grantee, together with Grantee's
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, with interest at the maximum rate allowed by law,
no later than thirty days after such payment. In the event the Grantor does not so
reimburse the Grantee, the debt owed to Grantee shall constitute a lien against the
Easement Parcel which shall automatically relate back to the recording date of this
~!I"-
Fonn 1190 (0112007)
Deed of Conservation Easement - Standard
Page30fB
Packet Page -85-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
OR 4606 PG 1048
.~
Easement. Grantee may foreclose this lien on the Easement Parcel In the manner
provided for mortgages on real property.
8. Enforcement. Enforcement of the terms, provisions and restrictions of this
Conservation Easement shall be at the reasonable discretion of Grantee, and any
forbearance on behalf of Grantee to exercise Its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach hereof by Grantor, shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of Grantee's
rights hereunder.
9. Assianment. Grantee will hold this Conservation Easement exclusively for
conservation purposes. Grantee will not assign its rights and obligations under this
Conservation Easement except to another organization or entity qualified to hold such
interests under the applicable state laws.
~
Val or other communications
y given if sent by United
the appropriate party or
~ ement may be amended, altered,
n etween the parties hereto or their heirs,
shall be filed in the public records in
County.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto Grantee forever. The covenants, terms, conditions,
restrictions and purposes imposed with this Conservation Easement shall be binding upon
Grantor, and shall continue as a servitude running in perpetuity with the Property.
Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized of said
Property in fee simple; that the Conservation Easement is free and clear of all
encumbrances that are inconsistent with the terms of this Conservation Easement; and all
mortgages and liens on the Conservation Easement area, If any, have been subordinated
to this Conservation Easement; and that Grantor has good right and lawful authority to
convey this Conservation Easement; and that it hereby fully warrants and defends.the title
to the Conservation Easement hereby conveyed against the lawful claims of all persons
whomsoever.
Form 1190 (0112007)
Deed of Conservation Easement - Stanclan:l
...JIIQJIWL~
Page 4 ofB
~
Packet Page -86-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
OR 4606 PG 1049
..-...
IN
V~l'A VCM~ I lLC
WITNESS
WHEREOF,
(Grantor) has hereunto set Its authorized hand this
~ytel'\b~ ,20 to
V r: iA :P:rM (i. I l.LC
:;IDOOO J=;fv
Name: -13y-,'a.~ S+..~.d:
Title: M G..t'\ t:j e -(
)q1+J
day of
(SignalUre)
(Print)
COUNTY OF
On
By:
Name:
----
20
subscribed to the foregoin
(title), of l.t {..C- (corporation),
a Florida corporation, and acknowledged that he/she executed the same on behalf of
said corporation and the he/she was duly authorized to do so. .JieIShe Is pAn::nnally
kno~ tn ml2 or has produced a (state)
driver's license as identification.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA
(Print)
~Jal/d/Jl~
/ I
Name:
My Commission Expires:
----
Form 1190 (0112007)
Deed of Conservation Easement - Standard
~~
Page 5 of B
Packet Page -87-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
OR 4606 PG 1050
..-.....
RHODES tt RHODES LAND SURVEYING, lNQ
JOIrNsanTJUTOD1iB, P.B. M. T.l1OJUSB IUIOD1iB, p.s. M.
PDo..vE(BfJI)/lJS.81fJtJ F.4X(BIJ9)~I68
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Being a portion of Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, being more
particularly described as fonows:
BEGINNING at the northeast corner of the west IJz of the west Jf2 of the sonthwest 1/4 of the southeast
1/4 of Section 21. Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County. Florida; thence South 00057'12"
East, along the east line of said fraction and along the west line of Olde Cypress, Unit One, according to
the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 32, Pages 1 through 11 (inclusive) of the public records of said
Collier County, Florida, a distance of 1,006.32 feet to a point on the boundary cL those certain lands as
described and recorded in Official Records Book 2579, pages894 of the public records of said Collier
County; thence nm the fonowing Thirteen (13) courses along last said lands; Course NO.1: South
65023'20" West, 43-5'7 feet: Course NO.2: South 78026'13" West, 61.22 feet; Course No. ~: South
80004'25" West, 45-57 feet; Course No. 4: South 84027'31" West, 31.15 feet; Course No. 1i: South
80009'41' West, 30.89 feet; Course No. 6: 0~8'23" West, 2442 feet; Course No. 7: South
5402105" West, 36.02 feet; " West, 33.11 feet; Course No. Q: South
41'5145" West, 62.74 feet; est, 49.97 feet; Course No. 11: South
68022'05" West, 3747 feet: 39.61 feet; Course No. 1~: South
S6049'21'West,15-Sofeettoap . t eofuoofeetwidedramagecanal
as described in Deed Book 43, d Collier County, Florida; thence
South 89008'23" West, along 'd of 821.'78 feet; thence North
12039'35" East, a distance of 0 . curve; thence northeasterly,
108.22 feet along the arc of a . ~, having a radius of 295.00 feet,
through a central angle of 2100 . beam North 52026'33" East,
107.61 feet to a point of com , 131.08 feet along the arc of a
circular curve, concave north: feet, through a central angle of
30002'30" and being subtended 45" East, 129-59 feet to a point on
a non-tangential curve; thence n e arc of a circular curve, concave
southeasterly, having a radius of 970. e of 21042'51" and being subtended
by a chord which beam North 5605'1'16 North 8So 4'1'15" East, a distance of
62.16 feet; thence North 7101'1'44" East, a Of 142.80 feet; thence North 51'15'32" East, a
distance of 4944 feet to a point of curvature; thence northerly, 79.61 feet along the arc of a c:ircular
ClJl'\Ie, concave westerly. having a radius of 63-00 feet, through a central angle of '72023'58" and being
subtended by a chord which bears North 21003'33" East, 7442 feet; thence North 00036'32" West, a
distance of 15.03 feet; thence North 03053'23" East, a distance of 76.28 feet; thence North 31035'01"
East, a distance of 76.60 feet; thence North 5101722" East, a distance of 55-95 feet; thence North
42041'44" East, a distance of 60.14 feet; thence North 21003'52" East, a distance of 71.34 feet; thence
North 41026'05" East, a distance of 83.23 feet; thence North 41023'09" East, a distance of 31.19 feet;
thence North 5201'1'26'" East, a distance of 60.53 feet; thence North sBoso'st' East, a distance of 33-67
feet; thence North 00052'19" West, a distance of 227.83 feet to a point on the southerly line of aforesaid
Olde Cypress, Unit One; thence North 89008'01' East, along said southerly line. a distance of 211.31 feet
to the POINr OF BEGlNNING.
Containing 707,295 square feet or 16.237 acres, more or less.
Subject to easements, reservations and restrictions of record.
Bearings are based on the southerly line of Olde Cypress. Unit One as being North 8900'1'34" East (per
plat).
~
X:\CONST\ Vita Tuscana\201o-848-lLGL.doc
Page 1 of2
r---.
Packet Page -88-
OR 4606 PG 1051
----
..~ :
----
...
~
~I!l
&l
~
~-
~I
~~
f:f
"Ill
~o:
----
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
_::::!':!..~
--'........ ...
:);
m
ffi
'"
P;
t!~
00
n
~lii
b~~ ~
I ~
l!! ss;~
a:: Vlll"'~
)nh
hi
:!~
Cl III
0:
~
C
~s.
>:1lI
~
~a
s.
~~
:~
l:!
~
~
~ -
~ ;;
~~I
~t,.
~;t-.;
!l:'801ll1
-QI!!
N :l
!: i!:
t ~
III
~~
0"
I:~
!;j",
~~
zll!
~~
~
--J-~
~
~.
"'~
~~
~
~
s.
~2;
;~
III
Packet Page -89-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
OR 4606 PG lOSZ
~
1-----
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f:-.,
----,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
-----~--------~--~
I I
~ ~~ I I
~~~~~~ I I
lU~lli~"t>
: ;--~I~~ I ~ i
~ I ~ I
j i
I I I I
1 I I I
L-_______-1-_____-1--_____________~
~~
~~
i!;...,.
~'"
~~
~
---J-~
~
~.
~ ...~
.. ~~
i I
lIS
~
!
E
~
g
S!l!i
OD
~~
e'"
lJ
",iIO",
~cs~
~~...
"'~~
l:l~~
~~1;!
a:::s.....
').:
CD
.--....
S
loi
:r:
S
I<l
'"
I
I
r-~
I ~
I ~
I
,
"
I
I
I
I
-
-
----
Packet Page -90-
~~~
~~~~~
"'~~...~
~--lI::~ I I
--"'~~--+-----------~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
L_ -____ _____.--1-___________--'
~~~ OR 4606 PG 1053 ***
----
~
~
~.
~~
~~
~ ~
~
----J- ~ ~
~
r-----
I ~~~ 0-
II ...."-~:j? t6
~~H~_(J
"'~~l4i~
I ~--lI::~
I .IUIU
I ~~"l
I
I
I
~
-
lU
~ ~
I
I
H
I ~
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S
a!
~
~
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
I. . ". ~ s
..~ ,. ..... .
I.t.. /,. If,~..,,, "Ii.'
ts~k1'" ~. .', .......11.
~~ ~~lli .!rr!''''''.... '4()lt.Ocn '.
::1t:l's~::J :&../ ~.
"'~",i:S~ .: 1::: :10 3J.\~ .
~"=~~ -~" G 11::'
~6-Q:,"" ~ 15 ~ ~a;'o-.'"
::,li)~~~ ~~<:...l 8'"' z:
~ ~~ ... r~ r; "..,'/, 0
~~!o . ..:>~".."'I=I1.t~.t:
~!l.!!I ~ ~I ~'" .......z ~J:l.
~~ l!s~ ~ 1.\\ IIO'S~~';.
l!> ~ ,.. ~ . ~ \,.... . . - ..f.)'" .
~~~~ll: ., '" f3.
::::~l;;~ ~. Q .'
~~~~bi .!:! r:l
i:;~rt::,~ ~ ~
~liIclil!l. ~
~ ~~~~i ~
!l: ,,-"S.!l:: l!s~ . ;:i
\3 O...!il,.. !:Ill{
~ 5::.~ ::i~::~ ~
>.. ::~~l;;~1t ~
t;: lflllt:;;i:Si:::..:...
~ ~~~i!:~~ ~
a: ~~~~l!>a m
y~R CO~.t\i
Cpv :;-;~
""
.... ~
~"'~
,:21<)
~~;
~~~
IS ~'"
~li:;j
~l'J
~~:g
~5ili5
Cll~J,
~~~
llllll~
'"
-;:
m
l-
is
~
~~
s"
r;:l:i
li~
rJ
-------,
$
loi
<II
$
it:
<II
Packet Page -91-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
~~-~~-'l~ 1~:~2 FBQH-
~9mmtY
- - --
T"ll3 pseS/Si0 F-320
COLlJEft COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ADDRESSING DEPARTMENT
WWUV.COLLIeRMv.NET
r
If Utlt~ ~:J<....~
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVe (
NAPLES, FLORIDA 14104
(231) 252-NOO FAX (239) 252.&724
. ''':-.' . ...." "':..' \'. "!"'DDD':E'S's,.li~r"C'H'Ei~.'..'" ,~.. '. .,......., . ..'
::: :. ...., .','.:.' .' ;......:..J.. :...:..:::t.;:.;..~. ...~ "';"~~' ',:.t.~.~~'t..;:'i'~'::'.. ~;::::'."".~:', .....!:..::,';;., :'::~. '.
Please oompleie the following and fsx to the Addreul.n" Department lilt 2>>-252-6124 Dr submit in person tD the
AdaMssing Department at the 8bov1 ~~st be alaMd bY Addreulng 1WaOM8I Drtor to Dre-
8~DIicAtloft ~t1na. 8'----...11... 3 daft far '.
Not aI Items WlR '!'P1y to every pmJeat. Items In bold type ere required. FOUO NUMSI!RS MUST BE
PROVIDED. Ponns ofder than 5 months Will require IddltllWll revllw and IPPl'DYBl by the AddleNing
Oepannl8ht
PeTITION TYP; (1ft<Jio.,. * beImv, complete . -P8I8te ArJtJresBing CIJeokHst for e.ch Petititm type)
~ BL Cltluting Permit) B SDP (Site Development Plan)
BO (Boat Dook extensiOn) SDPA (SOP Amandment)
CarnlvallClrcus Permit ~ SDP' (Inaul:tstantlel Changlt to SOp)
eu (Condltlonsl Use) SIP (Site lmpravernent Plan)
o exp (excavation Permit) SIPI (lnsub8lantial Change 10 SIP)
B FP (Final Plat B SNR (snet Name Change) .
. UA (Lot Une Adjuatment) SHe (Street N8me Change - Unplltl8d)
B PNC (Project Name Ohange) 8 TDR rrransrer of DeveJ~ment Righls)
PPL (Plans & PllIt Review) VA (Variance)
8 PaP (PrelIminary Subdivision Plat) 0 VRP (Vegebdlan RemcwaI Permit)
puo Rezone D VRSFP (VlClel8lfon Removel 1& Site FIll Permit)
[J RZ (st81'1C18rd Rezone) rgJ OTHER DRI NDtiora af P-ed ChanD.
~
LEGAL DESCRlPTroN of cubject p~ or propertiel (r;opy oflen!llhY desl:I1pflon m;q be llltachect)
21 48 28 OlDE CYPRESS UNIT ONE ~ ~ q>c-c*,:::'N ~ "2. ~ -416 - 'Z.. C.
FOLIO (Property 10) NUIlIEIERfe) OfabOYe (lftach fD. or aaocIaf8 with, Ie. ~ "mOll' ttllfI one)
64825000188
STREET ADDRESS or ADC~ESSES (ea applicable, "lIreedy lWIgntd)
-
· LOCATION MAP muct be lIttllched showIng exact location raf projeotfalte in rellltlon b nearut public road right-
of-way
· SURVEY (copy - needed only for u"pI~ Pl'DPertie6)
PROPOSED PFtOJECT NAMIi (if appIiCsblt)
OLOE CVPReU
-PR.Qr:taseo SFREET-NAMES-(7f8PPlicabJe)
SITE Cr;vELOPMeNT PLAN NUMBER (ftNexJsfing ~ 01t~)
SOP _-_ orAR#PL.201o..S9j
DOA-Pl2010-10S2 REV:1
OLOE CYPRESS DR!
DATE: 6/11/10
Due: 7/2/10
~
;,
,;
Packet Page -92-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
w~-~~-'l~ l~:~l fHOn-
T-113 P809/010 F-320
----
eo., CoIaity
- -~~ --
COLUER COUNTY GOVl5RNMENT
ADDRDSINQ DePARTMENT
WWW.COLUE~.NET
2100 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES. FLORIDA 34t04
(231) IS2-240D FAX (239) 2S2~724
P~ject or development names proposed for, or alreldy appearing In. cxmdorninium d=ument!S (if appllcatian;
indicate whether propolld or exIIting)
EXISTING
PIe8Ie Check One: ~ Checklist Is to be Faxed bsck
o Persanelly PIcked Up
APPUCANT NAMe: CHRIS MITCHELL
PHONE:!105-7777 FAX ~Q5.7899
Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute PrDject and/or Str8et Name approval
and Is subject to further review by the Addressing Department.
----
POR STAFF USE ONLY
FLN Number (Prlntary) ~ L Q.Ho...c....h-2-d ~ t i 0 f...j u...~ b.Q.( S
Folia Number
Folio Number
FoOo Number
Approved by: ))... ~ ~
Updated ~
(Y"L~ a... ..-..
Date: 3-\~ -, D
.4
D8te:
IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE
UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED
,"
" ..
~
t I. t I
: " !:: ':,;/,;.':}'):
Packet Page -93-
(0 4Ce>Z.5 0000 G..-.5a
}:UrC,"Z.5 000\ 'Z...3
~~~ ~ 'Z. S 0 0 0 l ~ ~
(D 4-to !- S 0 00 Z-,S t::.
(p ~Ct.,--So on "'Z-~S
f.&, c..r ce, "Z,.. s, 0 0 0 "'3...0 '8
c.J, 4-CD c... ~ 000 :sz..'f-
~,+~"'Z..s. 0 00 ~4-0
(p(.\.L>~S DOO ~Co"
G:> c.+<.o '"Z.-5 (,) 0 0 3; 9
G~~~ooo 3<gz..
G, '-\ L:, "Z.. S 000 4- 0 S
C, c.+ c." ~,S () 0 \ q ~ "3
G, Ck lD 'Z.. ~.o 0 '3 c"'Z..o
& 4Ce>?..SOO ~oZ-%
- C, c...t Co "'l.-:- (p 0 0 00 "Z- "Z.-
-1 Z.S'1 00000 'Z. 7
-- ..,--z..~ ~ DO (.) L\-S<<8 ~
I~~q 000 L-\-~oCl
~~ 00 c) 4(" z.5
~ "Z.. ~ c) u. (",f:.4.. ,
,1,..5. 0. (.) 0
-
. ~4.C{"'4..0-b~O~G
.., u.~ -r1 0000 4- c..::,
-, ~Ot.,-, oooe G:>Z
'\ .....,., c (,) 00 ~ <s"
-, l..\- .
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
~
b'63Q I ~4- G, f 0 ~
G, ~ ~ '4-4-G:" Co ~
G,~ 'S~ , 44 c..., ~z..
G:,~ ~9 t 44 G, z..oS
(; c::a~~ \ Ur-4 (,,07... 7
Co <g~.'i \ 4 4- G, 04-3
C::,cg'3.9 \ U-4 Coo~<i
<o~:s~ \ 44 (005 .
.9-0 l~lD-z.. 0 0009
~
~
Packet Page -94-
r:;'\
.
.
.
74977000101--
74917000127 I-
74977000444-
74977000143 _ ~
74P71000169
74977000185 .
74977000208...
749770P0224...
745177000240 .
:r- 74977000266....
j- 74977000282'
74977000305'"
74977000521.-
7497700D347~
74977000363 ·
74977000389"
74977DOO4OZ ,
. 74977000428--
72590005747 ~
72590004667. ..
72S~57.21
72S9DOO468! ~
7259ooo570Soo
72590004705 ~
725!1OOO5682-
7Z5~7.22..
72590005666 .
72S9000474s..
72590005640 ,
725900D4764..
72551OOOS624.
72590004780-
72590005608 -
7259OOD4803.-
72590005585 _
72590004829 '"
72590005569 .
1259~ .
72590005543 ..
72590004861"
725POOO5527 ~
72590004887..
, 7,2590005501-
72590004900 ~
7259OOOS488
72590004926 . '"
72590005462. .
72590004942 I-
72590005446.:,
:1
o
o
o
r-
......
a--
~
l""-
72590004968.
7259OD05420
72590004984 .
72590DOS404--
725gQ()()SOD5..
72590005381.
7255lOOO5365 .
72590005349.
72590005525 '
7259000!022
72590005'07
72590005.284--
72590005268
72590005242 .
725900D5226
7259000S200 '1.0
72590005187 ·
7259000S16L'
7.2.590005145
72590005129 .
72590005103 "
72590005080 ..
7259000SQ64
72590005048
76713000703 . ~
7671S000923.
76713000729_
76713000907.. ..
76713000745-
757130008S4
76713000761~
76713000868
76713000787-
7671300084.2
767UOOO800 ..
76713OD0826
7671!001142
76713000062-
75713001126 .
76713000088.
76715000101 ~
76713001100
76713000127 ...
7671.3OOt081..
7671SOOD143...
76713001061.
76715000169-
76713001045.
76713000185 _ .
76713601029.. ..
7671~001003
. 767130005181 ~
767!1.9000208...
76713000955 _
7-671300lJ2.24..o
767!:300OH9l'"
7671;)000240...
7.671.3'000266...
76713000282'"
76.713000305...
16713oool5BO- ,
7671o!OCR)321'"
767150005641.-
76713000347-
767~'-
767130110363"-
767130003851.. "
76'U30'00622 ~
767130D0402..
76713000606.
7671JOOOoU8' -
7m30oo583 .
767~3000444~
767.tSOOOS67 .
7157.130(1)460
7-6113DOOS41-
767'13000486'
7671-3000525.
767.19000509 -
646260D1128 ",
64626001U4 ..
64625000845--
64626001160
64625000861 ~
.64625000887-:
72'590000043
6462S000goo,1-
64625OQl789. ~
64625001420 .
6!l625ooo926....
64625001446 ·
64625D00942.
64625000968..
64625001462 .
64GZSOOOSl84a.
6462.$00148&....
6462SOO1006.. ~
~250DI022..
Packet Page -95-
64625001501 .
6462S0010lf8 '
54W001527 _
6462S00~064--
64625001543...
6462.5001080'"
6oW5001569 .
64625001103'"
64625001585,
64QS001129..
64625001145:-
64625001608..
5462S001161'"
64&5001624.
6462S001187 ·
G462S001640 '"
646250012OD..
646Z5OD1666.... ,
64G25OOt226"
64625001682... .
64625001!42-
64625001705,
64625001268 ..
6462SOD1721 ~
64625001284'
64625001747..
64625001307....
64625001763.
64625000381
64626000048...
64625000365 .
64626000064,
64626000349 -
64626000080 .
64626000323
6462600010!...
646250003D7 ~
64625000129..1.-
64626000284-
, 64626000t45 '"
64626000268
646UOOO161..
6462GOOOW
64626000187,.
64626000226 "
64626000200-
64U9006124..
646250~
6462S006108 ""
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
,
64625006085_ ..
64G500S060 ~
64625006069
64G!OOS086'
64G500604J
64625005109.
6462500'60Zl
6462S00S~25-
64625006001.
64625005141..
6462S005989.
64625005167..
64625005965
64625oo51u..
64625005947..
64625005206-0
64625005921-- ~
64625005222..
6462500590$..
64625005248--
6462S005882
l54625OO5264.-
64625005866
64625005280.. -
6462S005840
""'64WOtIS503 -
646.2S00s824
64625005329-'
64625005808 .
6452500SS4s.
646250057ss..
6462S005769
6462S005743.
64625005351....
64525005727 ~
64625005701 .
64625005387....
64625005688
64625005(j~
64625005400'"
'6462SOD5646 ~
~:'
64QS00S620.
6462SOOS44.2 .
6~2SOO5604
646250054680-
64W005581
6462S0!l5484"
64625005507...
.1
I
. !
J
, !
.
I
"
>.- - -
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
64625005523 72590000205 64625003842 32382100447 32382101103
64625005549 72590000467 64625003208 32382100120 32382101129 .
64625005565 72590000182 64625003826 - 32382100405 32382101242
64625003923 72590000483 64625003224 32382100285 32382101381
-.
64625004401 72590000166 64625003800 32382100081 32382101268
64625003949 72590000140 64625003240 32382100023 32382101161
64625004388 72590000506 64625003787 32382100065 32382101200
64625003965 72590000124 64625003266 32382100243 32382101349
64625004362 72590000522 64625003761 32382100162 32382101365
64625003981 72590000108 64625003282 32382100308 32382101006
64625004346 72590000548 64625003745 32382100421 32382101608
64625004003 72590000085 64625003305 32382100104- 32382101828
64625004320 72590000564 64625003729 32382100887 32382101585
64625004304 72590000069 64625003321 32382100829 32382101462
64625004029 64626001021 64625003347 32382100560 32382101763
64625004281 64625000421 64625003703 32382100764 32382101501
64625004045 64626001047 64625003363 32382100942 32382101747
64625004265 64625000447 64625003680 32382100706 32382101543
64625004061 64626001063 64625003389 32382100625 32382101909
64625004249 64626001089 64625003664 32382100641 32382101488
64625004087 64625000463 64625003402 32382100803 32382101705
64625004223 64626001102 64625003648 32382100722 32382101569
64625004100 64625000489 64625003428 32382100780 32382101721
64625004207 64625000502 64625003622 32382100502 32382101844 .
64625004126 64625000528 64625003444 32382100845 32382101666
64625004184 64625000829 64625003606 32382100926 32382101527
- 64625004142 64625000544- 64625003460 32382100861 32382101789
64625004168 64625000803 64625003583 32382100667 32382101640
50032440002 64625000560 64625003486 32382100544 32382101886
50032400000 64625000780 64625003567 32382100528 32382101802
50032480004 64625000586 64625003509 32382100586 32382101925
50032520003 64625000764 64625003541 32382100683 32382101682
50032360001 64625000609 64625003525 32382100968 32382101860
50932320009 64625000748 68391446108 32382100609 32382101624
50032560005 64625000625 68391446205 32382100900 32382104281 :
50032280000 64625000722 68391446166 32382101284 32382104168
50032240008 64625000641 68391446182 32382101420 32382104320
72590000328 64625000706 32382100188 32382101307 32382104142
72590000344 64625003046 32382100382 32382101080 32382103868
72590000302 64625003062 32382100201 32382101187 32382104184
-.72590000360 '-.6~OO3088 . ~~821.()()269 32382100984 32382104265.
j
72590000289 64625003907 32382100463 32382101064 32382104045 I
72590000386 64625003101 32382100366 32382101022 32382104029
72590000263 64625003884 32382100227 32382101404- 32382103981
72590000409 64625003127 32382100340 32382101145 32382104003
72590000247 64625003868 32382100146 32382101226 32382103923
72590000425 64625003143 32382100324 32382101446 32382103949 .'
72590000221 64625003169 32382100049 32382101323 32382104100
72590000441 64625003185 32382100489 32382101048 32382104249
Packet Page -96- :
i
.
32382104207
32382103965
32382104126
32382104223
32382103907
32382104304
32382104061
32382104087
32382103884
32382102047
32382102283
32382101983
32382102144
32382102021
32382102348
32382102322
32382102089
32382102225
32382102186
32382102160
32382102063
32382102403
32382102241
32382102267
32382102102
32382102005
32382102364
32382102380
32382101941
32382102209
32382103787
32382103648
32382103826
32382103703
32382103509
32382103428
32382103460
32382102500
32382102746
32382102568
.- :32382102827
32382102623
32382102487
32382102429
32382102526
32382102542
32382102869
32382102445
32382102801
.
.
32382102885
32382102607
32382102788
32382102681
32382102704
32382102665
32382102843
32382102762
32382102584
32382102461
32382102649
32382102720
32382103208
32382103282
32382103004
32382103321
32382103266
32382103046
32382103020
32382102908
32382102924
32382103101
32382103062
32382103240
32382103305
32382103224
32382102940
32382103169
32382103185
32382102982
32382103363
32382103143
32382103127
32382103347
32382102966
32382103088
32382104346
32382104401.
32382104540
32382104728
323~104566
32382104689
32382104744
32382104663
32382104443
32382104362
32382104508
32382104786
32382104809
32382104647
32382104427
32382104760
32382104524-
32382104621
32382104469
32382104605
32382104702
32382104582
32382104388
32382104485
32382105183
32382105280
32382104867
32382104906
32382105028
32382105060
32382104980
32382104825
32382105125
32382105044-
32382105002
32382104883
32382105141
32382105086
32382105206
32382105109
32382104922
32382105248
32382104964
32382105222
32382104948
32382105264
323.82105167
32382104841
21990000144
21990000160
21990000186
21990000209
21990000225
21990000241
21990000267
21990000283 .
21-990001949
21990001965
21990001981
21990002003
21990002029
21990002045
Packet Page -97-
21990002061
21990002087
21990002100
21990002126
21990000021
21990000047
21990000063
21990000089
21990000102
21990000128
21990001787
21990001800
21990001826
21990001842
21990001868
21990001884
21990001907
21990001923
21990002142
21990002168
21990002184
21990002207
21990002223
21990002249
21990001622
21990001648
21990001664
21990001680
21990001703
21990001729
21990001745
21990001761
21990002265
21990002281
21990002304
21990002320
21990002346
21990002362
21990002388
21990002401
21990001460
21990001486
21990001509
21990001525
21990001541
21990001567
21990001583
21990001606
21990002427
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
21990002443
21990002469
21990002485
21990002508
21990002524
21990001347
21990001363
21990001389
21990001402
21990001428
21990001444-
21990001224
21990001240
21990001266
21990001282
21990001305
21990001321 .
21990002540
21990002566
21990002582
21990002605
21990002621
21990002647
21990001062
21990001088
21990001101
21990001127
21990001143
21990001169
21990001185
21990001208
21990000940
21990000966
21990000982
21990001004
21990001020
21990001046
21990002663
21990002689
21990002702
.21990002728
21990002744
21990002760
21990002786
21990002809
21990002825
21990002841
21990000788
21990000801
21990000827
21990000843
21990000869
21990000885
21990000908
21990000924-
21990000623
21990000649
21990000665
21990000681
21990000704
21990000720
21990000746
21990000762
21990002867
21990002883
21990002906
21990002922
21990002948
21990002964
21990002980
21990003002
21990003028
21990003044
21990000461
21990000487
21990000500
21990000526
2199000054-2
21990000568
21990000584-
21990000607
21990003060
21990003086
21990003109
21990003125
21990003141
21990003167
21990003183
21990003206
219geO(33222
21990003248
21990000306
21990000322
21990000348
21990000364-
21990000380
21990000403
21990000429
I 21990000445 I
21990003264
21990003280
21990003303
21990003629
21990003345
21990003361
21990003387
21990003400
21990003426
21990003442
21990003468
21990003484
21990003507
21990003523
21990003549
21990003565
21990003581
21990003604
21990003620
21990003646
21990003662
21990003688
21990003701
21990003727
21990003743
21990003769
21990003785
21990003808
21990003824
21990003840
21990003866
21990003882
21990003905
21990003921
21990003947
21990003963
21990003989
21990004001
21990004027
21990004043
21990004069
21990004085
21990004108
21990004124
21990004140
21990004166
21990004182
21990004205.
21990004221
21990004247
21990004263
21990004289
21990004302
21990004328
21990004344
21990004360
21990004386
21990004409
21990004425
21990004441
21990004467
21990004483
21990004506
21990004522
21990004548
21990004564
21990004580
21990004603
21990004629
21990004645
21990004661
21990004687
21990004700
21990004726
21990004742
21990004768
21990004784
21990004807
21990004823
21990004849
21990004865
21990004881
21990004904
-21990004920
21990004946
21990004962
21990004988
21990005000
21990005026
21990005042
21990005068
21990005084
Packet Page -98-
21990005107
21990005123
21990005149
21990005165
21990005181
21990005204
21990005220
21990005246
21990005262
21990005288
21990005301
21990005327
21990005343
21990005369
21990005385
21990005408
21990005424
21990005440
21990005466
21990005482
21990005505
21990005521
21990005547
21990005563
21990005589
21990005602
21990005628
21990005644 -
21990005660
21990005686
21990005709
21990005725
21990005741
21990005767
21990005783
21990005806
21990005822
21990005848
21990005864
21990005880
21990005903
21990005929
21990005945
21990005961
21990005987
21990006009
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
.
21990006025
21990006041
21990006067
21990006083
21990006106
21990006122
21990006148
21990006164
21990006180
21990006203
21990006229
21990006245
.
.
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
I
.I '.
,> CO.,; COiti1ty
- ~ -
~/~'
I
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104
(239) 252.2400 FAX (239) 643-6968
. :~-'."'~'-'. .....".-- ..,. -, ,...,..,.... '--'-'-~1iI"'-~"-~'-- '1i.'2"'":..,.... ~~~-'-' -"'. "U[~ . .-' '-"~-".' ", ""....;-. '-":-:', -.." .., ..:...~<c..,....-=..
:;;,...'....-,..' '-.,,,,,.. """'~h,- ,.' '-.- '""~".u:~a;~iP-M'SI'IrOr BlaoilQNAl'lfflPACT ....' '. ,..' " oJ.'., ." '..
~;);',;,~.J~;:,;"i1;~:,j~:;? ':C~'~~J!#ti~;~~~E~ . c,,, , ,. ;:\ :.;S;~.':, :j.'::i'.?ik
*"~" .\>"., -. ...." ! ;r.....:.~ ~App,l'oy.tll.p.lRJ}-'" _ '". . .~' ,_, ~~',"':>"', '...
~~:~~?r . ~~;itt.~~~i '\ ;~~_~ ij~~~,'A~~~~~~t~~A}~} ~.~i-': '. ::~:+.~,f.;~~f.f~
Date: ~ Time: K: 30
PROJECT NAME: -Dkl.e- C t~(PC:P
Applicant Name:
Owner Name:
firm:.:R 1 ch Y
D\?::t
PL#
Phone:
Phone:
Owner Address: City: Stale: _ ZIP:
If an amendment, State Development Order Number: ~ ft ~ '1 'f - 5
DRI name-.f21 dt... GJe(l~~ Local Resolution Number: qq -1-7~
Assigned PJanner~s.<z.~
,Meetiiig. A:11iRl.4~~:,' fcittachSig,n4n. S~t)
f Meeting Notes . .. t
~c1J. \ ~ Ia" (l (l (P,s - i:Re.- ~D
HI> pup ~ tf.b. ~t{ o.c..
~ =- \~.t. Qe-
~O Mt\<;~~ I r'\c-(ea~
~u J- " 5!f" J"" ~ F .
RPC- -tr-lpS l\'IUS~ ~ 1'- ~;ps
-~~6; ~:~~ -J't~ ~~~~;; I~~~ ~
DOA-PU010-10S2 REV:1
OlDE CYPRESS DRI
DATE: 6/11/10
Due: 7/2/10
) -1-
G:\Current\Pre-Application Fonns 2009\Pre-app Forms - July 2009\DRI - DOA Development Regional Impact
Pre-application july09.doc
Packet Page -99-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
eo18!rCOlinL}
- ~........- --
.
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (refer to application for additional requirements)
<'''''-~~''<'' ,,~l '7O'__iX".''-:~,",,'''''''. .. " '(fI,=GPMeNf'oFJi5GiPNAiL'fiVtPitT' "","'" .-.' ~., .~'.-.~" -:;:"' ." .~'>cr"'c"";~"'-'"~l';~Y\
;~~~&:.'~~?:lr~~2~~ct:~'~:::<>:.,~:.;~;~~?~;{~;\:,::~,;:~~~i#~~~~~~I~; . . '::.'. .-' ....;: ,". :'.~.~..- '~'~:':;.:.:.'::::.~~:;:\;~~!~
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMlmD WITH APPLICATION PACKET lN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W/COVER
SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION.
NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
v
V"'"
V'
.;
"-+oF
PilDA
07\.
b~ AOA t pI( ~u-R'Qet1ct.( ilspc'd)(S
c 0 o-r n Arc4 ~~ ...J
~
~
'Ra.o.Uc. t, ~ (V\
.. ..
("cu:tu\r(l~ ~-(' lOl'
C.O?H2. S na\-~. 1\~ \-he-t\ol CO?~.tl~ ~..\, ~
\.oCc:.RC
-2-
.
G:\Current\Pre-Application Forms 2009\Pre-app Forms. July 2009\DRI - DOA Development Regional Impact
Pre-application july09.doc
Packet Page -100-
.
.
.
. .
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
~
- -CO~LreT- COunty - -. ------- ....- ---
- ~~ --
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 252.2400 FAX (239) 643-6968
FEES:
Application Fee:
$10,000 DRI Review (in addition to cost of Rezone) pus $25.00 acre (or fradicn thereof).
$2,250.00 Comprehensive Plan Consistency Review [applies to DIU only)
$6,000 DRI/DOA Amendment Development Order plus $25.00 acre (or fraction thereof) the acreage charge does not
apply for amendments which only change the build-out date of the DO for a time period of less than five yeors.
o
o
o
[83
18I
18I
[83
o
o
$150.00 Fire Review Fee
($500.00) Pre-application aedlt (Applicalionli submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre-app meeting
shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre-applicalion meeting will be required.
$925.00 Legal Advertising Fee for CCPC meeting (to be reconciled upon receipt of Invoice from Naples News).
$500.00 Legal Advertising Fee for BCC meeting
$2,500.00 Environmental Impact Statement review fee
Property Owner Notification fees. Property Owner Notifications $J.50 Non-cerfifjed; $3.00 Cerfified return receipf mail
( to be paid after receipt of invoice from Dept. of Zoning & Development Review)
l!:9Psportation Fees, if required: [submit separate t:~portati~ Fe,s) _ f+- ~ W4\ v"~
a $500.00 Methodology Review Fee, f re uir ~ s,:,A
o $750.00 MiRer SNd) R.."I~w Fe"" If requlrea i:iff JP
o $1,500.00 ---.!.6Pjt>r iNti) R..yi",w F\;,e, If reqUITed 7:{fr'if
-3 -
G:\Current\Pre.Application Forms 2009\Pre-app Forms - July 2009\DRI . DOA Development Regional Impact
Pre-application july09.doc
Packet Page -101-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
. .
.
NOTES
~ rr/~ "PLe.VM /,r/{, - 9tlPicr A TA~L~
~cVsr~l'"v~ ('t?& Abjv.s.T rfb'JI 'S/ft"FT ;..0 UIJ,,-c::.
~A<::...H- ~~ff'IbtJT JI,)'frP-.,a:;, ~~ S.~{,.,J''''#6 l' ~
~$ A-$oc~7"~ wrnJ- !b1V"~s,.c)o, ~M HFR--b ~.
l,vcwof:. tJD "TO-L>k"Tt. r1eIl1f7ot2J"'" .'f{ep~7.
I
~\'}~Sl'\.\ ~ '. \-.\.1 d\. - l~ \JE\L) ?\?("3\~ ~~ 1.t\~~~
~~~~~~~~~
--K D. ~() I MAI(~
.
.;
Packet Page -102-
. ..
.
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
- - -.. ..~
-- - _00 ..-. -......a.:..___. .__~ _ .
.. . - - ..:o..;....::.--e..__ - -. . -. --
COLLIER COUNTY ZONING DEPARTMENT
REQUEST FOR MEETINGS
REASON F"OR MEETING (check one)
o Pre-Application Meeting
o Telephone Consultation for SDP, SIP Insubstantial Changes
o Telephone Consultation for ICP Insubstantial Change
o One-On-Dne Sufficiency Review Meeting
.indicates required field
YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION
NAME:'" CHRIS MITCHELL REPRESENTING:'" WALDROP ENGINEERING
PHONE: 239405-7777 EMAIL: CHRISM@WALDROPENGINEERING.COM
TYPE OF APPLICATION:'" DR!
P"RQPER:rY INFORMATION
FOLIO NUMBER:'" 64625000188
ZONING OR PUD NAME (you must supply original PUD name):'" OLDE CYPRESS DRI
STREET ADDRESS OR LOCATION:'"
SDP/SIP# (required for Insubstantial change): _
ellY: NAPLES ZIP: Fl
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED WDRK:*
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE - ADD VITA TUSCANA ACREAGE AND DENSITY INTO
THE OlOE CYPRESS DRI
Additional Information
For Pre-Application Meeting, please bring the following Items: .
. Signed and Verified Addressing checklist (allow 3 days for processing)
. $500 Pre-Application Meeting Fee
. $75 Fire Review Pre-App Fee
For ADDllcatlon Submittal Review:
. Submittal Checklist must be attached to the application package
. All items in the package must be submitted In the exact order of the checklist
. Cover page must be attached to each group of Items
We will contact you with the scheduled time and person you will be meeting with.
Packet Page -103-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
~ . ,
Z
---,,;..:.=..-_.~- - ..::-:...~-_..
3= 11.). .
11)
CD w:
"> - .;2;
CD -- --. d"
== B
- 4(
c
CD ...3
E ~
a. E
0
1) -.
w
>
CD -
Q C)
C
"0 >
C
~ 0
-l =
~ w
tJ) a:l
C :e
c :J
0 Z
N w
,~ q.. a'
0 0
, x
I, ~
.~
.- u
I. e
0
c """
;-, U) !;2
to)
U) ~
CD .
1 .. h- e>>
." >=
." D- III
, W ...
" <( 0. ~
1 z .- -.... -
D Z le
ltl
C'. :E O:i -D
I
~ W ~= III
'"
iu: :;:
J> - e
Q tl
~ >- 0
~ -c
~ cD
Z 0
S ~
G ij
u m
'6
c
j
C>
~
c
m
Z
I
Iii
w
:I:
U)
~ ~
w z
Z C>
Z w en
<( ... := "iii
m E
-l ..a <( III
D- E z E
Q j
u
:> 0
w Z 0
Z 'iii .
S2 m lii
e c
tI) 0 .1Il
tI) .c f2
< D- Ii:
Packet Page -104-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7:A.
AGENDA ITEM 9-A
.c
~\;~'-o~
cOi~.,. County
~.~~
.." "',- - ." .. ,.
.. .." _ ...:i....-- .'.~___.." "__ _. 'C" .. _'. _'.. ....
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DMSION, PLANNING AND REGULATION
HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 17,2011
SUBJECT:
PETITION PUDA-PL201O-388, OLDE CYPRESS PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
COMPANION ITEMS: DOA-PL201O-1052, OLDE CYPRESS DRI AND
PUDZ-PL1054, liD DEVELOPMENT RPUD
APPLICANT:
AGENT:
01de Cypress Development, Ltd.
2746 Professional Circle, Suite 1201
Naples, FL 34119
Waldrop Engineering, P.A.
Mr. Chris R. Mitchell, P .E.
28100 Bonita Grande Drive
Bonita Springs, FL 34135
Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A.
Mr. Richard D. Y ovanovich
4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an
amendment to the aIde Cypress PUD to reduce the project density from 1100 dwelling units to
942 dwelling units and remove the requirements of trails and a 3.9 acre park within the aIde
Cypress POO.
GEOGRAPIDC LOCATION:
The existing aIde Cypress POO and aIde Cypress DR! contain approximately 538.1 acres. The
proposed Development of Regional Impact (DR!) will contain approximately 602 acres with the
inclusion of the HD Development/Vita Tuscana POO and is located on the north side of
lmmokalee Road (CR 846), east of its intersection with OIde Cypress Boulevard. The property
lies within the Urban Estates Planning Community in Sections 21 and 22, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, in .Collier County. (See the location map and current POO Master Plan on
following page.)
aide Cypress PUD, PUDA-PL2010-388
February 4, 2011
Page 1 of 14
Packet Page -105-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
u
z
o
w-
!:::!;;:
mO
o
...J
u
.
a..
0::(
~
<
c' z
_' r;:
~ m
C>
z
I--N-~
I :;;e
I : I
I___J
z
o
N
L
H~
3
~
g
E
!i~
~~:
~!i
~
co
co
(')
.
0
~
~ 0
N
...J
a..
:J1W:lS OJ..LOH I ~ <( .
0
- ::J
a..
'!to
:0: :! Z
0
~ d . l-
E.. ~ a I-
~ w. w
~i!i -~~ a..
r ! - i5~
~ il
"""~0I3fTlD:) .5II"H::'
~ ~
~ iii_
WN a..
"Jo! 2 ~~
~~
z~ ~~ <(
j il
~
i- ~fl: ~~~ Z
~i\ :J ... ~~~ ~ is;!!::
r !: gw ~~~ 0
~
~ att't1l3"n08 N't:)01 -
I-
~ 0::(
E: 0 II ()
::;~~ ::~ G .. ~..
;'8
is ~- ~ 0
9
8
--1
>-
I-
Z
::J
o
()
~"N
~e
~ !!
~
:!
.. ;:
~ ~
\l1i?
gi ~e
II
~ ~ bZ ::;~
wQ ~~
-,tc ~8
00
ll:g
~
ii
~ E
!! :::
~
"
o
~ 2
!
w
W
..J
~e
~~ to
g
~
~
~D
!!
~
~~
~ i~
.
go:.':uV JSlB.lH
~~;
L~
~E
\
IQIYft ~
~
Packet Page -106-
.
Ol
'"
..
ii
J::
Ol
li
!il
~
~
z
R[
_~o ~
D .
~. t(
! ~
!l
..
"
~
!!
~
~
"
..
"
:i
Iii
0:
m
~
Q
ITf:l
I:Wl
tWill
~
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
I']
::; i
~
..
ii
J::
..
e
..
~
!il
::
!!;
...
5!
..
~
~
m
i
~-.I tc
~~~ ....
"'III:~O ~~~
~lo(t!~ :r::"'-
r::.w"':t QI:IS~
'llCt6Q~ c:....Q
u~=tu ~~~
~me~~ ~H~I
....... ~... 1u...~0I!
!f~~ci ;;:i~~
)(.,,~u~;EQ u
2~i~: ~~=:~
2:~"ll!la fge~
:~!Q: :a~8
~~t::~~ l!!~i:~
~~g~~ ~~~~
QO....s'" Ql&i....Q
..
~s
"
~..
!i1~
~~
~s~
!f5~
1::....
0''''
~~~
...."
II
II
"
"
..
..
~
~
f:-1
:' 'j
~:j
I
it
<:J
! III
I ~ :
I i I
. . . . , . . . . . . . . . \ I
III I
, . . . . , I" I
, . , . I ~ I
:1 r: :
, . i II
. ' , I r
, , ,
.', , -I
. . . , . , \ :
,
. . I :Iril
~.'
~~I
"- \~~I
"-
, ....
\
I I~;I
I
\
.........
... 1 :\ ~ :
..
" "'it 11
..
.. ..
.. ..
"
"'- - ~-
.. " 'I
.. " II II
...
"
"
:1 ~ l
III \
I"
/ , I
'\ I
I, I
3)(Y1 31l0HS!)NO"l i! ~ i
.
o
c CD
:::l '"
D.- C
C CD
III ui
.. en
en
ill
!h
...
iil
~d
z
<
..J
<0.
t-a:
_W
lIlt-
-Ul
:rei:
~==
t:l
::::l
0.
~"
k
,,0 '
gS .,
g~ --
".r. -
"..<5
~ !
,,~ ,
OIL
g~ "
:l~ ~
g~
x i
=ij
Z~
~m
om
~~
.o~
I~
~IWSuor ~q P0l10ld lWll:O~ - OlOl 'lO "'1" nl\lllbl :CP.L 6.-p'tlalN.a11lOOl'WOItH\rnci\cnd E-)(\MQ\0I0965\\966L\:"
Packet Page -107-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
.
The petitioner proposes to amend Ordinance Number 2000-37, the Olde Cypress PUD, to reduce
11 00 dwelling units to 942 dwelling units and remove the requirements of trails and a 3.9 acre park
within the Olde Cypress PUD.
The removal of the 158 dwelling units from the 01de Cypress PUD will allow the proposed 158
unit HD Development RPUD (Residential Planned Unit Development), to be added to the Olde
Cypress DR!. The property within lID Development RPUD will be added to the Olde Cypress
DR! (Development of Regional Impact). The intensity density in Olde Cypress DRI will remain at
1100 dwelling units and the intensity of the DR! will not increase.
During the original zoning application review and permitting, PUD Section 4.05.6 required a 3.9
acre park located within the PUD/DRI Boundary. According to the DRI and PUD Master Plans
that were submitted with the application, the 3.9 acre park was proposed to be in two parcels
located in the northeast comer of the Master Plan. The park location was approved in the original
aIde Cypress PUD Ordinance No. 86-75. The PUD was later revised in 1996 as a result of
environmental permitting with governmental agencies. During the 1996 PUD amendment, the
park use, nature trails, jogging trails, and bicycle trail uses along the eastern boundary of the
PUD/DRI were excluded and residential development, including the required park acreage, were
removed from the PUD and DRI Master Plans to reduce impacts to the environmentally sensitive
area. The area along the eastern boundary was revised in the master plan to be wetland/preserve.
However, the language in Section 4.05.6 of the PUD was never revised to remove the requirement
of the park. This application will revise Section 4.05.6 of the PUD to remove the park .
requirement. The application also revises Section 3.02 of the PUD to make it consistent with the
intent of the original revisions to the PUD.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND WNING:
North: Terafina PUD.
East: Agricultural (A) zoning
South: Imniokalee Road and then Estates (E) zomng, Agricultural (A) zomng, and H.D.
Development RPUD.
West: Olde Cypress Boulevard then Longshore Lake PUD.
aide Cypress PUD, PUDA-PL2010-388
February 4, 2011
.
Page40f 14
Packet Page -108-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
-.......-......~~,-----~~-'---~....,.--
AERIAL PHOTO
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GIVlP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District,
Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map in the Growth Management Plan. The
existing RPUD, approved in 2000 (Ordinance No. 2000-37) included a provision for a park area
on approximately 3.9 acres. This area is to be removed from park uses and returned to residential
uses,
This amendment will not affect the total number of approved acres for commercial land uses
(12.5), of residential units (1,100), or of density (2.09 dulac). The table below illustrates the
acreage figures, dwelling unit counts and residential densities involved in each part of the project:
Ttl ACs
Ttl DUs
Ttl Com'l ACs non-Com'l AC Gross Res'l
Density
Existing DRI
538.1
1,100
12.5
525.6
2.09 DUlAC
aide Cypress PUD, PUDA-PL2010-388
February 4,2011
Page 5 of 14
Packet Page -109-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Proposed DRI
602.0
1,100
12.5
590.9
1.86 DUlAC
.
Olde Cypress PUD
Vita Tuscana PUD
538.1
65.3
942
158
12.5
0.0
525.6
65.3
1.79 DUlAC
2.41 DUlAC
The acreage increase is reflected in the Olde Cypress DR!, not in the Olde Cypress PUD.
Although no. additional residential units are proposed for the larger DR!, the total dwelling unit
count in the Olde Cypress PUD is reduced. This smaller number should appear in Olde Cypress
PUD documents.
An approximately four. acre park area and its connecting nature trails are requested for
removal, while the more than 176 acres of passive recreational areas, and bicycle paths and
sidewalks remain part of the development. No issues present themselves with Objective 7 or its
subsequent Policies.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Environmental staff has evaluated the
proposed changes to the PUD documents. The petition is consistent with the applicable provisions
of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP.
GMP Conclusion: Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the
proposed rezone consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE).
ANALYSIS:
.
Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation. of this land use petition and the criteria upon which a
favorable determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Sections 10.02.13
and 1O.02.13.B.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code and required Staff evaluation and
coinment. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) uses these same criteria as the basis
for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the
criteria to support their action on the rezoning request.
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition to address any
environmental concerns. The proposed changes do not affect any of the environmental
requirements of the GMP or LDC. A hearing was not required before the Environmental Advisory
Commission (EAC) per Collier County Code of Ordinances Part One, Chapter 2, Article Vill.
Division 23. - Environmental Advisory Council.
Transportation Review: Transportation Department Staff has reviewed this petition and the has
determined that the proposed amendment will not have any transportation impact.
Utility Review: The Utilities Department Staff has reviewed the petition and has no objection.
The project is subject to the conditions associated with a Water and Sewer Availability Letter from
the Collier County Utilities Division. The project is subject to the conditions associated with a
Solid Waste Availability Letter from the Collier County Solid Waste Department.
Olde Cypress PUD, PUDA-PL2010-388
February 4, 2011
.
Page 6 of 14
Packet Page -110-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
.
Parks and Recreation Review: The Parks and Recreation Department Staff has reviewed the
petition. There are several things to consider regarding this parle The commitment language is
very vague. Originally, the park was shown on the Master Plan as two separate areas, one of
which did not appear to have access-it was isolated in a project comer surrounded by preserve
areas.
Zoning and Land Develooment Reviel-t,: Staff has reviewed the proposed change and has no
objection. The proposed reduction from tbe maximum number of dwelling units by 158 dwelling
units will allow the HD Development to be added to the Olde Cypress DRI so as not to increase
the intensity of the DRI.
While the 3.9 acre park was a commitment made by the original applicant when the property was
first rezoned to a PUD, there is currently no code provision or regulation that would require a park
at this location. However, several residents within Olde Cypress have indicated that they would
like to have the park provided within the Olde Cypress community.
There are several things to consider regarding this park. The commitment language is very vague.
Originally, thepark was shown on the Master Plan of Ordinance Number 86-75 as two separate
areas, one of which did not appear to have access-it was isolated in a project corner surrounded
by'preserve areas, as shown in the illustration below (highlighted for clarity):
.
i-.-------------------------------------- --------.-----.-.----1~ill--l
i Y~'" \\, .~ .' 22
, ~,1 \'\ ;.:ie';;"o:.. _ _ _ __ #' ~ -...~ Uit.
i ~;;,\ ~~~6ti ~~!t fW~ARl<;.....
i ."~\. "'~'" ~~l \~^2l..c.
! ,i~~3" \~""s:> ~ ~~
. I." \ \~' i
i i~ ~ \ti
i,' ' ~\ \", ~
I \ '.~l
i {~nr ~ \f!F nL ~i&'
I "lC'" jlj'l::"i\ \ '..
, t i/Ia, P, lll:l; Ml.1CiA. 1
] I. 'i~- \l.~:G.J... s/:.. \i1f ,.:V.J
'$ 'j.1r4e_ ~\ ~ 1:..5"; ~n
\" t.'i'ttU, $\ \. ." 98 D.i\.I. ~;.+,
""~ - ~\ ~ ~~~Sl~
'\.~~ ,~!~" \otJj~/[J~
'-~?~ \ ....~..... l .
't-. ---~, \ __~" f
\'\. ....,. --;.......~. 4. ~ 1
~~'.. .. .. ... -"4. . ' ,
~c, '. ~'\. "\ .
,~ \ \~\ "~;leo..
"'t~~""--.-~..-~1&."'. /" "'~
~"":.-~ '( ~.~~
-., ", .H'ioo
'- '''~\.''~
"'.. "'. 1 PJ\?!':.
~~ ~:( 1.7 k!
"\" ,..._ ~ -c
y. .
PRESEiR'ilHlON /i::\\ ~;
Ur,:..f~" ~:
r. \ \ '
! \.CcUO~ \ I, '
~.~. '~~.... ~.",. IZ .fiJLi,. \ \
ia....~~~~\o.____________._._____________.___~~_=-~____._). .______
.
Olde Cypress PUD, PUDA-PL2010-388
February 4, 2011
Page 7 of 14
Packet Page -111-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
The commitment does not state when the park is to be built, who is to maintain the park, or what
amenities it is to contain. Must there be two parks in the increments shown, or is there discretion
as to how the 3.9-acre park commitment is to be fulfilled? Is it to be publicly (county) maintained
or was it the intent for the developer or subsequent homeowners' associations to maintain it?
.
Collier County adopted a Park Impact in Ordinance number 88-96, which became effective on
December 22, 1988. This ordinance addresses the needs for regional and community parks. The
county has not adopted any regulations that require developers to provide a neighborhood park.
Regional and community parks are sited and controlled by the county; the County does not
generally get involved in the siting or design of neighborhood parks, nor does the county maintain
them. Whether a park is designated a regional or a community park is determined by the draw of
the attraction. A park can be smaller, but have an attraction that draws persons from a larger area,
thus it can be a regional park. This 3.9-acre park would most likely not contain any attractor
element such that it would make it function as a community or regional park.
Currently Olde Cypress has developed as a golf course community with a golf driving range,
tennis courts, a swimming pool, and fitness facilities. Therefore, the community appears to offer
recreational opportunities as currently developed. However, whether the existing facilities meet
the needs of the community is not for staff to ascertain. At the Neighborhood Information Meeting
(NIM) held for the companion PUD amendments, there was no clear consensus from the attendees
as to whether or not the park use should be eliminated. There was opposition voiced to the park's
removal, while other attendees voiced support for the park's removal; other attendees did not offer
an opinion. Since only approximately 100 persons attended the NIM:, not all property owners
attended. Staff has received and continues to receive correspondence, some of which is supportive .
of the park's removal and some of which is opposed to the park's removal. (Copies of
correspondence received as of February 3, 2011 have been provided in the CCPC packets.) It
appears that the park issue may be something best resolved by the property owners within Olde
Cypress.
If the commitment for the 3.9-acre park is removed from the PUD, the development
(HomeownerlProperty Owners' Associations or the Developer) could still provide neighborhood
parkes), as that term is defined in the LDC since a park is also an allowable principal use within the
Olde Cypress PUD document, Ordinance Number 00-37 Section 7.04.~.4.
In the alternative, should the CCPC and the BCC detennine that the park commitment should
remain, staff recommends that clarification be provided to indicate that the park is indeed a
neighborhood park, where the park is to be located; when it is to completed; what facilities it is to
provide; who it is to serve-the public or only residents of this project (and all residents or just
those within the gated community if that is where the park is located); who is to construct it; and
who is to maintain it. Although not normally necessary for a neighborhood park, these
clarifications are necessary if the commitment stays in the PUD, so staff has something measurable
to ensure PUD commitments have been met.
REZONE FINDINGS:
LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners.. . shall show
aide Cypress PUD, PUDA-PL2010-388
February 4, 2011
.
Page 8 of 14
Packet Page -112-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
.
that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the
following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires
the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the
additional criteria as also noted below: Rezone [mdings are designated as RZ and PUD findings
are designated as PUD. (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in non-bold font):
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future
land use map and the elements of the GMP.
The Comprehensive Planning Department has indicated that the proposed PUD amendment is
consistent with all applicable elements of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP).
2. The existing land use pattern.
This amendment will not affect the existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern will
remain the same.
3. The possible creation of an isolated dlistrict unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
Not applicable. The districts are existing and established.
4. Whether e1l.isting district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the
property proposed for change. .
. Not applicable. The districts are existing and established.
5. Whether changed or changing condJitions make the passage of the proposed amendment
necessary.
As previously described, this amendment will reduce the project density by 158 units from 1100
dwelling units to 942 dwelling units. The amendment is also necessary to eliminate the
inconsistency between the PUD Master Plan and the PUD document.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The amendment will reduce the project density from 1100 dwelling units to 942 dwelling units and
remove the requirements of trails and a 3.9 acre park within the Olde Cypress PUD. Staff is of the
opinion that the proposed change will not adversely impact the living conditions in the
neighborhood. However, several residents have expressed a desire to have the park provided
within the Olde Cypress community.
7. 'Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or
create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak
volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases
of the development, or otherwise affect public safety.
The proposed amendment will not adversely impact traffic circulation.
.
aide Cypress PUD, PUDA-PL2010-388
February 4, 2011
Page 9 of 14
Packet Page -113-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
.
The proposed amendment will not affect drainage.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
Not applicable. No changes to the development standards are proposed. When meeting the
standards, light and air will not be reduced to adjacent properties.
10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent
area.
Staff is of the opinion this PUD amendment will not adversely impact property values.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
The adjacent properties as well as existing properties will continue to be developed in accordance
with the existing regulations.
12. Whether the proposed change win constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
The proposed amendment to remove the required 3.9 acre park may be seen by some as a grant of .
special privilege to the developer. However, consistency with the FLUE is determined to be a
public welfare relationship because actions consistent with FLUE are in the public interest. This
PUDA has been found consistent with the FLUE.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning.
The applicant alleges that the PUD has been developed and there is no space left to build a 3.9 acre
park. Furthermore, the petitioner proposes to eliminate 158 dwelling units from the Olde Cypress
PUD to allow the lID Development PUD to be added to the Olde Cypress DR! without increasing
the intensity of the DR!. (See Companion items DOA-PL201O-1052, Olde Cypress DR! and
PUDZ-PL1054, HD Development RPUD.)
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county.
Considering the recreational opportunities available to the residents, 169 acre golf course and
country club, a golf driving range, a fitness center, a community swimming pool, and 4 tennis
courts provide ample recreational opportunities, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD
amendment is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood.
aide Cypress PUD, PUDA-PL2010-388
February 4, 2011
.
Page 10 of 14
Packet Page -114-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this
is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a PUD amendment. The
petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does
not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would
be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require site alteration and will undergo
evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the building
permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as dermed and
implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance.
The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate
Public Facilities for and the project. It must be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives
of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff
that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that
staff has concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall
deem important in the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing.
PUD FINDINGS:
LDC Subsection 1O.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning
Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following
criteria:"
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer,
water, and other utilities.
As previously stated, the subject PUD is nearly developed. The reduction of residential dwelling
units should not have a negative impact upon any physical characteristics of the land, the
surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities within the Olde
Cypress PUD. Furthermore, this project, if developed, will be required to comply with all county
regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities pursuant to Section 6.02.00
Adequate Public Facilities of the LDC.
aIde Cypress PUD, PUDA-PL2010-388
February 4, 2011
Page 11 of 14
Packet Page -115-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, .
contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they
may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and
maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public
expense.
Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control. The
PUD document and the general LDC development regulations make appropriate provisions for the
continuing operation and maintenance of common areas.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and
policies of the GMP.
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives
and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis,
staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP.
4. The internal and e~1:ernal compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
requirements.
The currently approved development, landscaping and buffering standards were determined to be
compatible with the adjacent uses and with the use mixture within the project itself when the PUD
was approved. Staff believes that this amendment will not change the project's internal or external .
compatibility.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The existing open space set aside for this project exceeds the minimum requirement of the LDC.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
This PUD is over 25 years old and is mostly developed. The project development must be in
compliance with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development
approvals are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
This PUD is nearly built out and cannot accommodate expansion.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in
the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting
public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
Olde Cypress PUD, PUDA-PL2010-388
February 4,2011
.
Page 12 of 14
Packet Page -116-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
As mentioned earlier, this PUD is existing and the reduction of residential units will conform with
existing PUD regulations.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION :MEETING (NIM):
The applicant duly noticed and held the required meeting on October 18, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. at the
OIde Cypress Clubhouse, 7165 Treeline Drive, Naples, Florida. Approximately 100 people and
the applicant, agent and County Staff attended the meeting. No commitments were made at this
meeting. For further information, please refer to Attachment C: NIM Minutes.
To date, approximately four letters of objection have been received. One letter of support has been
received from the Olde Cypress Master Property Association.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDA-2009-742, revised on
February 1,2011. -STW
RECOMI\1ENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning
Commission forward Petition PUDA-PL2010.388 to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval of this amendment.
However, should the CCPC decide to recommend that the 3.9-acre park commitment be retained, the
following issues need to be addressed:
1. When the park is to be built--commenced and completed; and
2. Whether it is to be a public or private park; and
3. Whether it is to be an active or a passive park; and
4. What facilities will be provided;
5. Who is to maintain the park; and
6. Where will the park be provided on site; and
7. Must there be two parks in the increments shown, or is there discretion as to how the 3.9-
acre park commitment is to be fulfilled; and
8. If the increment issue is discretionary, who is to decide and when is the decision made.
Olde Cypress PUD, PUDA-PL2010-388
February 4, 2011
Page 13 of 14
Packet Page -117-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
PREPARED BY:
.
tiW/VL4Jl 01 AN\J \J;(J"
NANCY Gp1')IDUAj:H, AICP, PRINClP AL PLANNER
DEPARTN@,NT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DMSION
t Thvl. (2& '2{)l/l
DATE) .
REVIEWED BY:
/
/.
.-----., J;( ;<2." "'/'
/ ) --' '.'
/ ld.NJ~ "Y/l
RA YMelND V. BELLOWS, toNiNG MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
!~ 3/-- if
DATE
o 2...- oj - 2..eii
DATE
. IJAM D. LO~NZ JR., 'P.E., DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
.
APPROVED BY:
2 -- 7 ~ I{
DATE
~:\CAAJ p~-
MARK ,. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
Tentatively scheduled for the March 22, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
3-ll,-1f
DATE
Attachments:
Attachment A: Original Master Plan
Attachment B: Ordinance
Attachment C: NIM Minutes
Olde Cypress PUD, PUDA-PL2010-388
January 26, 2011
.
Page 14 of 14
Packet Page -118-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
THE OLDE CYPRESS (formally Woodlands) DRI
DRI #03-8485-53
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE
BackQJ"ound
The DR! is located east of Interstate 75, and north of Immokalee Road (CR 846), in northern
Collier County. Attachment I shows the project location. The Collier County Board of County ,
Commissioners on November 6, 1986 approved the Woodlands Development of Regional
Impact (DRI). The development order was appealed by both the Southwest Florida Regional
Planning Council (SWFRPC) and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). During
1987, the Board of County Commissioners approved two amendments to the D.O., in order to
address the two agencies' appeal issues. The project is currently approved for 1,100 residential
units and 165,000 square feet of retail and office space, all on approximately 500 acres. The
development is approved for five phases, ending in 2015. According to the 2010 Annual
Monitoring Report to date, 360 single-family & 396 multi-family units have been constructed,
the golf course is complete and the 165,000 SF of commercial is built out.
Previous Chang:es
There have been six previous changes to The Olde Cypress/Woodlands DR!.
On April 28, 1987, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No.
87 -96, which amended the development order's transportation conditions, based on the appeal of
the development order by the SWFRPC (see above).
On September 15,.1987 Resolution (87-207) was adopted, amending section a(4), finding of fact,
to state a maximum square footage of permitted commercial retail development and to increase
the total acreage of preservation areas and to set forth a revised land use schedule that did not
increase the total amount of acreage or dwelling units previously approved.
The two (2) development order amendments described above were adopted by Collier County to
resolve appeals of the of the original Woodland's DR! development order to the Florida Land and
Water Adjudicatory Commission take by the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. The Woodland's DR! development order became
effective on November 7, 1990, the date on which the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory
Commission issued its fmal order of dismissal of the appeal.
On November 1, 1994, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution
No. 94-774, which extended the project's commencement and buildout/D.O. termination dates by
four years and eleven months, to the currently approved commencement date of October 7, 2000,
and the buildoutltermination date of October 7, 2015.
On October 22, 1996, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution
96-482, which reduced the approved number of residential units from 1,460 to 1,100, and
reduced commercial use from 200,000 square feet to 165,000 square feet and miscellaneous
Packet Page -119-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
changes to the plan resulting from permitting requirements of the South Florida Water .
Management. Also, the amendment removed a reserved road right-of-way from the east
boundary of the DR!. The applicant was allowed to adjust the project's approved uses to
incorporate the former right-of-way acreage. Miscellaneous changes were also made to
drainage/water quality, transportation, vegetation and wildlife, wetlands, consistency with the
comprehensive plan and fire by the deletion thereof.
On May 18, 1999, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved changes to the
Planned Unit Development Document for The Woodlands, to incorporate revisions to the
project's development standards, and to allow mini-storage as a use within the commercial area.
The development order was not amended.
In December 1999, Resolution (99-472) 28.69 acres was added to the eastern edge of aIde
Cypress in Section 22. Lands to be added included a 2.1 acre archaeological preserve area.
Standards were also incorporated in the development order to provide protection for
archaeological resources. The gross density was also reduced from 2.2 to 2.1 dwelling units per
acre. Minor adjustments in land use tabulations, along with other miscellaneous changes were
made to the development order to accommodate the notice of change.
On May 23, 2000, Resolution (2000-155) was adopted to add 9.3 acres to accommodate the
addition of the golf course driving range. The request also included a modification of the golf
course/open space acreage from 161.7 to 168.3 acres, including lakes. The residential acreage
was modified from 152.5 acres to 155.2 acres. No changes to the number of dwelling units,
commercial floor area, phasing schedule, commencement date, or build-out date was requested. .
Attachment II shows the existing Master Development Plan for the aIde Cypress DR!.
Proposed Changes
On June 28, 2010 a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) was submitted to aggregate into the
aIde Cypress DR! up to 125 single-family residential units and 33 multi-family units, and
associated accessory uses, within the Vita Tuscana RPUD boundary. The developer proposes to
add 63.88 acres to the existing DRI with no change in the total 1,100 number of approved units.
The aggregation will not add density or units to the DR!. The water and sewer for this project
will be provided by Collier County Public Utilities through existing infrastructure serving aIde
Cypress and/or Immokalee Road. No changes are proposed to the phasing, commencement, or
build-out dates. The additional acreage is planned for residential development. Attachment III
shows the Proposed Master Development Plan Map with the additional land area and
development plan.
Regional Staff Analvsis
The proposed changes are presumed to be a substantial deviation under Sub-chapter 380.06(19),
Florida Statutes. This presumption relates to the addition of land area to the DR!. The addition
of land area to an approved DR! is covered under Subparagraph 380.06(19)(e)3., Florida
Statutes, which reads as follows:
.
Packet Page -120-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
"Except for the change authorized by sub-paragraph 2.f., any addition of land not
previously reviewed or any change not specified in paragraph (b) or paragraph ( c) shall
be presumed to create a substantial deviation. This presumption may be rebutted by clear
and convincing evidence. "
The NOPC application attempted to rebut the presumption of a substantial deviation by
providing a trip generation analysis, aerial vegetation map, some conservation easement
information and requested Big Cypress Fox Squirrel information.
Character. Mawitude. Location
The Character of the DR!, as a residential development with some commercial uses, will not
change. The magnitude and location of the DRI will change somewhat due to the additional
acreage.
Regional Goals. Resources Or Facilities
In reviewing the potential impacts of the proposed changes, Regional staff looked at two possible
regional impacts from the changes. These were Transportation, and Vegetation & Wildlife. Also,
a local issue dealing with a 3.9 acres park should be addressed by the county.
Transportation Impacts
A new trip generation calculation was provided, which indicated that a 10.4 percent increase in
traffic may occur. This increase is proposed because the amount of single family units increased
by 125 units compared to increasing the multi family by 33 units. There is no increase in the total
approved 1,100 units. The 10.4 percent increase is less than the automatic substantial deviation
trigger in Chapter 380.06(19)(b)15 stating:
"A 15 percent increase in the number of external vehicle trips generated by the
development above that which was projected during the original development of regional
impact review."
Having rebutted trip increases proposed by the changes, no additional transportation impacts
were identified for the proposed changes.
Vegetation & Wildlife
The additional land area to be added was partly cleared (see Attachment IV) already and has
received an Environmental Resource Permit, which set aside a Deed of Conservation Easement
for 16.24 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. The remaining acreage (47.64) ofthe total 63.9 acres
to be added will be developed as residential. A review of the NOPC indicates that copies of the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) approved Big Cypress fox squirrel
management plan and overall preserve management plan including a method of clearly
identifyirig the preserve boundary must be incorporated into the development order amendment.
Packet Page -121-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Assuming these conditions are included within the development order amendment language the
proposed changes will not have significant vegetation and wildlife impacts.
.
Local 3.9 acre Park Issue
A 3.9 acre park was part of the original DRI, PUD applications and Master Development Plan
Map. Even specific language in the county's PUD exists to the affect of providing a 3.9 acre
park. The local park issue should be addressed in this development order amendment to clear up
the issue as to whether there will be a 3.9 acre park as required and shown on the original master
development plan. We believe the condition is still a requirement of the development even if it
was removed from the original master development plan during the 1996 amendment.
Multiiurisdictional Issues
No rnultijurisdictional issues will result from the proposed changes.
Need For Reassessment of The DRI
There does not appear to be a need to reassess the DRI as a result ofthe proposed changes.
Acceptance of Proposed D.O. Language
Regional staff recommends acceptance of the proposed development order amendment language
with the exception of the following conditions. .
Copies of the FWC approved Big Cypress fox squirrel management plan and an overall
preserve management plan including a method of clearly identifying the preserve
boundary must be incorporated into the development order amendment.
The local park issue should be addressed in the development order amendment to clear up
the issue as to whether there wiJl be a 3.9 acre park as required and shoWn on the original
master development plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1.
If the two conditions are
incorporated in the proposed
development order language above
staff will notify Collier County, the
Florida Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) and the applicant that
the proposed changes do not appear
to create additional regional impacts
and that Council participation at the
local public hearing is not necessary,
unless requested by the County for
technical assistance purposes.
.
Packet Page -122-
.
2.
.
.
Packet Page -123-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Request that Collier County provide
a copy of any development order
amendment related to the proposed
changes to the SWFRPC in order to
ensure that the amendment is
consistent with the Notice of
Proposed Change.
,
c.
RESOLUTION NO. 96 - 482
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
DEVELOPMENT ORDER NO. 96 - 2
A RESOLOTION AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER 86-J., AS PREVIOUSLY
AMENDED, FOR THE WOODLANDS DEVELoPMEN'l' OF REGIONAL IMPACT (n DRI II) :
BY PROVIDING FOR: AMENDMENTS TO FINDINGS OF FACT SECTION 1
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1, DRAIltm.GE/WATER QUALITY; AMENDMENTS TO
SECTION 4, HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLoGICAL; AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 5,
TRANSPORTATION; AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 6, VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE;
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 7, WETLANDS; AMENDMENTS TO SECTION a,
CONSISTENCY WITH THE LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDMENTs TO
SECTION 10, FIRE, BY THE DELETION THEREOF; EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY
ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TRANSMITTAL TO DCA AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
.
WHEREAS, on August a, 1996, the Developer, Immokalee Road
Partnership, filed an application for proposed changes to The
Woodlands DRI Development Order, as amended, and to modify the
'. ~::
...."
,
approved Woodlands Master Plan, (Map H), which, as approved, is
attached hereto as Exhibit .wAn; and
WHEREAs, Immokalee Road Partnership and Greg Cabiness have
obtained all necessary approvals and conditional approvals from the
various Collier County agencies, departments, and boards required
as a condition to Planned Unit Development (POO) zoning and DRI
approval; and
WHEREAs, the Board of County Commissioners as the governing
body of the unincorporated area of Collier County having I" .
jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 380.06 is authorized and empowered
to consider Applications for Development Approval (ADA) for
Developments of Regional Impact; and
WHEREAs, the l?ublic notice requirements of Chapter 380.06 and
the Collier County Land Development Code have been satisfied; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning'Commission has.reviewed
and considered the report and recommendation of the Southwest
Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) and held..it public
hearing on the ADA and. on the Application for Public Hearing for
POD Zoning on October 3, 1996; and
WlmREAS, The Woodlands ADA is 'also p,art of an overall rezoning
application by the developer; and the issuance of a development
order pursuant to Chapter 380',0'6, Florida Statutes, does not
constitute a waiver of any powers or rights regarding the issuance
of other development permits by the County or State; and
, ,
: Os
:--.:.;
-~"o ".
. "
.0.0
-:.-.'
....t
.,
: ;.:
, -
'.~.' ,
1 -
.
Words :Lmderlined are lldditionsl words SEWell. t.H9I!!Jk are deletions.
Packet Page -124-
1
.~
I
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
WBEREAs, the Board of County Commissioners previous~y approved
and issued Resolutions 87-96, 87-207 and 94-774, which amended The
WOodlands DRI Development Order (86-1), as stated herein below; -and
WHEREAS, on
"!r~.::':.!..~.;!'>/?:3~>~"",'V,,, /;, X
, 1996, the Board of County
Commissioners, at an open public hearing held in accordance with
Section 380.06, Florida Statutes (1995) considered the proposed
Changes to 'l'he Woodlands DRI, inclUding the Master Plan attached
hereto as Exhibit "A", submitted by the Immokalee Road Partnership;
the report and reoommendations of the Southwest Florida Regional
Planning Council, the certified record of the documentary and oral
evidence presented to the Collier County Planning Commission; the
report and recommendations of the Collier County Planning
Commission; and the comments upon the record before this Board of
County Commissioners at said meeting, the Board hereby makes the
fOllowing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and issues this
amended Development Order, inClUding those changes proposed by the
Developer, as follows:
.
A. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The ori9'inal applicant in 1986 submitted to the County an
ADA and sufficiency responses known as ~eomposite Exhibit
A, afifi which ar~ by reference made a part hereof, to the
extent that they are not inconsistent with the terms and
conditions of this Order. as amendes}.
The oriainal ADA and th~ application for nronosed chanaes
If,
2.
to The Woodlands Deve10nment Order and Master Plan aZ'~ 4&
in accordance with Section 380.06~, Florida Statutes.
.:~
3. 'l'he real property which is the subject of the ADA and o~
the nl:'Onosed chanaes to The Woodland/i. is l,,:gally
described as set forth in Exhibit B ~! the Pl~Baed BBi~
De>",'eleJllRleB.~ };1ee\llleat fa.!" 'i!ha UeeaaaBd~ att~ched hereto
'.-
f;
?l
'-:'1.
. .'.
, "
";""\
: '..~
,
. .;
j..:
i
4.
~d by reference made a part hereof.
'l'he applicant proposes the development of ~""he Woodlands
i'lannei elatE :e&"J'eleplllBE, pursuant to the AQA. and thfC
terms and conditions of this Develonment Order OrElinaaea
, ..
: o.
.
- 2 -
Nords underlined are additional words fltJ!'ltBIE ~.u~!'ft are deletions.
Packet Page -125-
&.""
(
~. I
..-
. ;
. .~
-." .,.
. .
-:: ~ :
...... ~
. ':..~
'.:'d
.: .;
",_.:
;.~~;:~
:""::,~
:''I"..~ ~
~~I....:.
,.':..
':'~::~
~, as the same may be amended.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
The development
consists of 500.1.1. acres which includes a maximum of
'.5. QQ2 2.0. 0.. square feet of CClIIIIIercial retail on . .
maximum of ~ * acres, &S 18 hele !Jelf S'&1a!'ee sn
tlPIl.!'SJS:mal;ely 111 ae.!'es, residential development of .L..1M
~ dwelli~g- units on approximately .uLQ ~ acres,
6ftii approximately llU. *B- acres of preservation area.
.and anDroximatelv 157. B acres of lakes. onen &Dace. ~
an la-hole aolf course.
(7.S aeJ!les af wl!ieh will
~tiftet;ia!l. far \.at;et: Il\aflage!lel'll; aeteft~ia1'i pltPpsse:. The
general plan of development is depicted on Exhibit ~
attached hereto and -DH" sf said 9M4:Bsl'lee Be; 'i'S,
inc.Orporated herein by reference, although the acreages
referenced therein and stated herein may vary somewhat to
accommodate site conditions, topography and environmental
permitting requirements.
S. A comprehensi~e review of the impact generated by the
development has been conducted by the appropriate County
departments and ag-encies and by the SWFRPC.
.
6.
The Development is consistent with the report and
recommendations of the SWFRPc submitted pursuant to
Subsection 380.06(11), Florida Statutes.
The development is consistent with the land developm~t
regulations of Collier County.
The development will not unreasonably interfere wi th the
achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land
Development Plan applioable to the area.
The development is not in an area designated an Are~ of
Critical State ConceZll pursuant to the provisions of
Section 380.05, Florida 8tatute~! as amended.
B. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
~
7.
a.
9.
NOW, THERB:FORE~ BE: IT RBSOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County; Plorida, in public' meeting, duly
constituted and assembled October 22, 1996, that the Development of
.3-
.
Words nnderUned are additionlll Words e~:FIl~1 ~ell!rh are delet1ans.
Packet Page -126-
~'-I
I
.
.
.
1 Regional Impact Application for Development: Approval as 4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
pursuant to the Notice of Proposed Change submitted by the
Immokalee Road Partnership is hereby ordered approved subject to
the fOllOWing conditions in response to the Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council's reco~endations and the commitments
specified in the ADA and NOPC which are hereby' adopted as
conditions of approval of this Development Order, ,eo long as they
are consistent with the terms and conditions of this Development
Order, as amended:
1. DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY: The applicant has !J~~eBea
reoel ve~ a conoentuat. surface water management
Dermi t from the South Florida Wa~er Manaaement
Distriot. at.tached nereto as Exhibit "CII. system
t:hat is seasepl:;lial is 1"latl!iI!'e at: ishis H.llle. A
snteial selllpsaeBt _ ef EMs seo;."el9f5lllem: uill se :Ln
the dcEe~ftaEieft af the diBeaa~ elevutisas fs~
taB eaBt~el st~et!~as ass ehe ~~ese sleli~h
"
e~ssiftg esa7ey&Bees.
~e aMIlia_a; p~~eses to
ill\ll~e',"e 8fia pessisl:r !!'estsre te seme seg;l!'ee, the
~Mste!!'!e" hyd~e,pe!!'!ea sf this site
aEiser year/3
sf BeiH! a~."el!'sely iBflliEaees. BY maR's astivit!ea.
HSB!tedftg aetb~Ues al!'e still sa !J6iBg uitoM.a ~hc
s!teJ asly llae!!. these tests all'e eSlII!Jletes ecm the
pl!'epal!' s~ruet~es (aRa ele7st!sfts) se im~lemeatca
iate the fleal /31:1:!!'fsee 1maer 1llH.~emet1t! e.esi!f!l.
~el!'eESl!'e, mere de~ailea iafs~tie1"l will 1"lees to
se p!"s'.~ides tM~k the develepmeftt .!'c'.~e" preeees
te asS\H:e that t.he eeasepas &:T:e sdfterea as emS. ~8&~
Euili:l:UeRaI BEi'.1eee !t'eg'isaal !~ast 'rill aet eeS1:lr-.
P1:lrtHel!' iftfe~tiea is fteeesssr-y' is sl!'se!!' ts
~]!'evide a ~ll a&al}~!s sf i~aets.
Conditions~
"a. The surfaoe water management system. shall
implement the design standards and water
- 4 -
Words wderlin~ are additions/ words .E_!Il1 We81l!k are deletions.
Packet Page -127-
I
1
b.
quality ubest management practices" c 4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
in the application for Development Approval,
response to Question 22 Drainage.
An ongoing monitoring maintenance and sampling
program shall be designed by the Petitioner
subj eel: to review and approval' by NaEural-
ReselHrees lfeagemel'lE BeJla~tl!l.est! (lmlIB}..tml
.
DevelqDment Services Dena~ment IDSQl aud the
~r
Florida Department of Environmental RClfUlat.:Lea
Protection to determine concentrations of
potential pollutants in the parcel's lakes,
preserves, and groundwater. The details of
the monitoring program shall be mutually
agreed upon between the Petitioner, the HRM9
Develqoment Services Denartmen~, and the
Florida Department of Environmental RelfUlat:!eB
protectioq at a date prior to the commencement
of site development. Details of the
monitoring program are hereby incorporated by
reference into this Development Order. The
monitoring program shall include:
1. Surface water in lakes, cypress
preserves, and other retention areas;
2. Groundwater monitoring of selected
locations;
3 . Lake sediment monitoring;
4. A sampling frequency adequate to allow
assessment of Pollution;
5. If any violation of the State water
quality standcttds are attributable to the
development, the causation will be
modified or stopped (if deemed necessary
to ~ the Develooment Servicell
Deoarl:ment) and 'remedial action taken
.
- 5 -
Words !.1l1derline.ll are additiDnll, words tI tNell ~Hell!h are deletions.
.
Packet Page -128-
.
.
.
'"
.,
and,
4/26/2011 Item 7.A,
Ii _ __
the
upon
request
of
DeveloDment Services Ilecartment., more
intensive monitoring will OOcur. Lastly,
if during this. monitoring program a
wellfield protection ordinance is adopted
by Collier County, ~he Woodlands shall
be subject to the more stringent of the
two programs.
Storage of any substance identified in the EPA
Toxic Substances Control Account List (Chapter
40, CPR 261, also adopted by the State as FAC
17-30) must be in the faoility and the
location subject to the approval of NRHB t1m
D~velQDment Services Decartmen~ and Water
Management Department upon oonsideration of
the recommendations of the Water Quality and
Pollution Control Department Director.
Storage of such materials in aboveground and
underground tanks shall conform to the minimum
requirements provided in P.A.C. 17-61. A
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
Plan for all above storage and underground
tanks shall be apprOved by the. Water
Management Director and NRM9 the DeveloDment.
Services Deoartment Directot; considering
recommendations from the Environmental Science
and Pollution Control Department Director. In
addition, all golf course maintenance related
chemicals (i.e., pesticides, insecticides,
herbicides) shall be stored in an on-site
facility that is located and/or constructed to
prohibit accidental contamination to the
proposed proj eot wellfield in the northeast
portion of the site and any potential future
c.
.6-
Worda lmderl:bte,d are additions, worcis tK:!'Ilall e~all. are deletions.
Packet Page -129-
'.. 'I
regional wellfield within the
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Cor__
d.
aquifer system.
The applicant shall coordinate with the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
and Collier County in the off-site storage of
any haZardous waste, as defined in the Collier
County Hazardous Waste Assessment, that may be
generated by any businell;B located in the
, Commercial portion of The Woodlands DRI site.
This may be accomplished through the use of
restrictive covenants or some other type of
deed stipulation deemed appropriate by Florida
.
Department
of
Environmental
Regeladsn
ProtectiQn.
e. The Development Order shall prOVide that prior
to project construction, the developer will
provide
the
information
and
off-site
~
mitiaation specified within the South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD) ~~aet
~BeSSme!lt i!'!!!,e:!!"t te "ile BPmm, GWPRrs Ma
.
eell1e~ See!;;)" fer !!'e-rielr ana tilat a
CSBsephal Surface Water Management permit .t.Q.
SFWMD and Collier Count~ saall se est!ail'lsli
fPem tfie SP;~m. C~l~ie:r SelftftlY'!1 l'eYieu sl9.a11
ea esssaetaa aeee:r&!:eg sa tke pi!'a~...isieftS e::
QapEel' 389. 9~ C19J , Fle:dsa StatllEea i::
=e~esEea By Fla~ida SepaFEmeee ef ee~S!EY
Mfabs (l;lSl'.', StRl'G staff, a~li allP:E'epaatc
€e'llaty BeflH'tlftents.
f. This nroiect Bhall cOllIDlv with Collie:!::
Countv's Wellfield Protection Ordinance. as
the same may be aCDlicable. Saeala Sallie::
CelinE}' aeeise tha~ a Beu Elsety lliae el'
regianal 11e.llfJf.ela is te se leeatea u:ltkis EAI!:
. 7 -
.
Words 1U1der1in~ are addit:icns/ words 8t!ft!Jl (;U81l!h are deletions.
Packet Page -130-
.
."
.
.
."',
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
<:eral Reef .1J.l!UifeF system, the!'. the WE.-__-,.ae
~ejesta 8aal1 se s~jeet be lafta ase ge~~els,
!'elf seUftfe !!'esta!!':i.eUeBf!l a&a er~UBaneeG
Hlllellleftt!ea sy SelUer Ele\tftEY fer taae ~ea
,.;s.de !!~eeeeU.eB. ef Eats wellUdd.
g.
'!'he applicant shall coordinate with the owners
of the southern adjacent outparcels and the
South Florida Water Management District to
ensure the integrity of the preserved cypress
flowway.
All subsequent surface water
management permits for these two outparcels
shall reflect this coordinated effort.
h. ilehUea a:lse eaisage !!lans shall be
SHSllliEEe:a 68 the SeHfity ~iaeer fer ~~.ieWT
Ne eeaSE!l'U.eUes. lile!!'lllha ahall ),8 ;LaSHed lHllesB-
ana
lUlUl
a!llilil!'s'.'6l
sf
Eae
!lF9psse:d
eenetrHetaiea :La aeee:!'B~Bee wi~h taRe seemiEtca
!lIana is ~&ftt:ed by 1:he Water Uea!Jellle!le.
~d.~8e~' Beard and Eke SeUftEY S>s.eer.
.construotion Plans have been reviewed ang
aI)croved bv the South Florida Water Manaaement
Distriot for the water manaaement svstem 011
site. All construction shall conform to th~
a:DC~ved 'Dlans. as the same mav be ame~deq
from time to time...
1.
Construction
of
all
water
management
facilities shall be subject to compliance with
the appropriate provisions of the Col:l.ier
County Subdivision Regulations.
j. An Excavation Permit will be required for the
proposed lakes in accordance with ~~ll!c~
Ce1:Ulty SFeUaBnee He. se 21S, as aMe!ided By
G:!'dis.enee 83 J, aRa as May se _eBsed ill. l:hc
ftltare. Division 3.5 of the Collier County
- 8 -
Words wderlineg are adcUtionaJ words IIIE~eII; Iliaoellp are deletions.
Packet Page -131-
'''1
Land Develcmment Code;
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
k. Sl!eali 8!1. "l:llUlII&ea legal 8ask HI' eftUE~." fs!.'
the ~eli St:ll!'fae~ Walse= !lanageRle!l.t Syseem 8e
~e~iFei 8)' say etael!' l!'egi8ft81 e~ staEe
ag~ey , iske B&".~~lSJler uU1 se ~eBpl!lBs:Ysle :sr
~l!'e.~~! all EaB ReeesB~ 5el!lHmeaEs ES
esaael!sl\ a JlB!!'pe.eual ~anJ B!s1sd.8E ~8r
~I!fe~~ Bf ~Ae syseeRl, eli 8:!l. e.e~e': eapitaal
fed fs!!' !M.uialadmiMsE!!'aU.Bft &Rd epe!!'ati~
e5f!1eBses, all EB Efte saEisfsstisa af the
.
~
CSt:lBt:y Eftgiaeer eEl Set:lfH:y Atte!!'sey.
~~ Construction activities on this project shall
be coordinated with construction contracts to
implement improvements to the Cocohatchee
Canal (CR 846 Borrow Canal) by the developer
in accordance with the recommendation of the
2981 Gee and Jenson Hydrologic Report NO.
2420, prepared for the Big Cypress Basin
Board. Said c~l illlprovements shall be
limited to the canal reach along section 21,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East and two (2)
designated farm crossings in Section 20 unless
previously completed by other parties.
fth-.L., When required by the County, the developer
agrees to contribute his fair share on a pro-
rata tributary area/run-off volume bas~s to
implement the canal improvements to serVe the
remainder of the Cocohatchee Canal watershed.
2. ENERGY: The proposed project would be an all
electric development and would increase the energy
demands of the Region. The applicant has committed
in the ADA to provide a variety of energy
conservation measures to reduce the impact of that
increased energy demand.
.
- 9 -
.
Words underlinl!ld lire additiCDIII words I!IE!!'IUM ~ are deletions.
Packet Page -132-
Provision of a bicycle-pedestrian system to be
placed along arterial and collector roads
within the project.. This system is to be
consistent with applicable county
requirements.
b. Provision of bicycle racks or storage
facilities in recreational~ conmiercial anc:l
multi-family residential areas.
c. Cooperation in the locating of bus stops,
shelters, and other passenger and system
accommodations for a transit system to serve
the project area.
d. Use of energy-efficient features in window
design (e.g., tinting and exterior shading).
Use of operable windows and. ceiling fans.
Installation of energy-efficient appliances
and equipment.
Prohibition of deed restrictions or covenants
that would prevent or W1necessarily hamper
energy conservation efforts (e.g., building
orientation and solar water heating systems).
Reduced coverage by asphalt, concrete, rock,
and similar substances in streets, parking
lots, and other areas to reduce local air
temperatures and.reflected light and heat.
i. Installation of energy-efficient lighting for
streets, parking areas, and other interior and
exterior public areas.
j. Use of water closets with a maximum flush of
3.5 gallons and shower heads and faucets with
a maximum flow rate of 3.0 gallons per minute
(at 60 pounds of pressure per Square inch) as
specified in the Water Cbnservation Act,
~,
.
e.
f.
~
g.
.
h.
.
Conditions:
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
a.
- 10 -
Kords 1.UIderlineci are additions I words et;!!UsJr l:MSll!& are deletions.
Packet Page -133-
. "'
~,
Chapter 553.14, Florida Statutes.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
k.
Selection of native plants, trees, and other
vegetation and landscape design features that
reduce re~1rements for water, fertilizer,
maintenan~e,.~d other needs.
Planting of native shade - trees' to provide
reasonable shade for all recreation areas,
streets and parking areas.
m. . Placement of trees to provide needed shade in
the warmer months while not overly reducing
the benefits' of sunlight in the cooler months.
n. Planting of native shade trees for each
residential unit if native shade trees do not
.
1.
exist for each residential unit.
o. Orientation of structures, as Possible, to
reduce solar heat gain by walls and to utilize
the natural cooling effects of the wind.
p. Provision for structural shading (e. g. ,
trellises, awnings, and roof overhangs)
wherever practical when natural shading cannot
be used effectively.
q. Inclusion of porCh/patio areas in residential
units.
r. Consideration by the project architectural
review collWllittee (8) of energy conservatioD
Measures (both those noted here and others) to
assist builders and tenants in their efforts
to achieve greater energy efficiency in the
development.
3. FLOODPLAIN/HCRRlCANE 'EVACUATION: The Woodlands DRI
location has a natural elevation of twelve to
fourteen feet above mean. sea level and is well
beyond the expected flooding areas of hurricanes in
categories one through three. However ~ the proj ect
.
- 11 -
Worda underlined lU'e additiOl1llI words eenek 1;M!"1I5B. are deletions.
.
Packet Page -134-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
area is on a major evacuation route for the county
and one mile east of an 1-75 interchange offering
excellent access to and from major evacuation
routes. The potential for on-site public/common
areas to be used as public hurricane shelters would
provide a use of regional benefit.
Condition:
a. The applicant shall meet with Collier County
Disaster Preparedness Officials to identify
those public areas that may be used for
shelters in the commercial portions and/or
golf course clubhouse of the project as storm
shelter and/or staging areas.
4.
HISTOR.lCAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL :
No historical or
archaeological sites are. known to exist on ~e
WOodlands DRI site,
however,
a regionally
significant burial site is located immediately east
of the site"", aBa ese prejeet area has 1!le".'"E!r seea
s\tJ9jee~eB te a eysl:emaUe Ilrafess!S:Ral s~..ey.
Sasea ell. Balsa f~eRl'eR'r.l!!'eall\efl.tally s!lII:I.la~ Heas ia
~
Callier Clee.ty, it is l!]eely Ehae sites ,fill :Be
fatlna \N.l:kiR the pI's:; eeE. The BeflaEtllel'1l: af Bi!.ake,
9i viele!!. sf 1k:!reh4. i."8S, Hiseszy eB ReeeMIl
Manage_at - enprsssea sWIer eeaeerfts. A survsl!:
of the site. reviewed by the Florida Denartment o~
State.
Division
of
Ristorical
Resources.
encountered no cultural resources on site. The
only
notentlal
which
area
may
contain
'archaeoloaical resources is. a small area of cvnres~
located within the - wetland nreservation area.
- These resource's. may .oacur . within an area of deeR ._
muck de'OoeH.. ' No' imcaets are 1:)rotlosed' for this
.GiL.
Conditions:
Words underlined an additiona; words sbuslE liet!ail!Jk are deletions.
- 12 -
Packet Page -135-
I.",
~
a.
A eystcmatie prefeseisBal
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
8a~ey sh~.~
saRies eat wieMa all &Fea19 iaeB~ifies as
liJEely te eSBta!li hieteFieal,'arehaeelsg:ieal
siEes p:r;.el!" Ee sell1ftleneemeM ef eeftSEJ!'ilet!SB.
.
Ce!1lies af tke ear\"ej' shall 19s seM te the
State :DivisisB sf MeMves, EftS Gellier GeHIlty
5mB:> azul stWRl'C. Beth Ehe sHlWey !lle1!hea a!ia
the ~epel!"~ shall be :revi~rea ana ~~~7ea BY
the StaEe Dh"'isiaa af Mefti~.'es ana Se1lier
OSWi1:o~{
NaEl1ral
RCSSllrecs
Uasagclfteat
D~a~EmeftE, alia this shall Be seae p=ieF to
any 1 ana eleaJ:ing SF greund li:iatl:1!1!:'BiBlJ
ast!vitiee.
'nie pe:!'semiel
e~
ag:esey
perfeZ'ftlialJ the e~'ey shall Be aJJ!l~e.."es BY the
State :91...181el\ e:: MeMo.,ss aHa Ese lJe.tl1Z'al
ResSlHrees
lIaRagelftBBt
DSl'arElflsst.
All
~eeemmeliaaEiens ~. Ehe ass'~ effieee shall Be
iaee~eRtea
iate
a
J:)evelB!llftent
Qracr
MeE!.Smsat fellelring the !1l~eeeaH~eB estal9lished
ia ChapEer 389.9t, F. G.
lit
.
.s.... If during the course of site clearing,
excavation,
or
other
constructional
activities, an archaeological or historical
site,
artifact,
or other
indicator
is
discovered, all development at that location
shall be immediately stopped and the State
Division of Archives and Nael2'al Resel:1!1!'ses
Ifana!eflleat Develonment Services Department
notified. Development will be suspended for a
sufficient length of time to enable the
Nataral
Resea:rccs
1Ia.."1el!JelfleBt Develo'Cment
Services Department or a .designated consultant
to assess the find and determine the proper
.course
of
action
in
regard
to
its
- 13 -
Words underlined are ildditions, words stl!'UelE \;ftI!BII!1l are deletioDs.
.
Packet Page -136-
~'-l
I
salvageability.
The Nat:l:llfa:' Res 4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
.
Management Develonment Service~ Department
will respond to any such notification in a
timely and efficient manner so as to provide
only
a
minimal
interruption
to
any
constructional activities.
Evaluation of a historical/archaeologiCal site
shall include but not be limited to its
determination as a site of regional or local
significance,
impact
minimization
by
incorporating the site into preservation or
green space areas, or other mitigation
actions.
b. The State Department of Archives and the
County *RMB Develonment Services Denartment
shall be provided access to the project for
monitoring purposes any time during the life
of the project.
5. TRANSPORTATION
.
a.
GENERAL :
The Woodlands DRI has direct access to Immokalee
Ir
Road (0. 846) ~ ana l.":i.ll aao.'e ai~est. assess te Eae
~~e~eBea a~e~ial reaa eft the east.e~ seanaaZ}' e~
the WeeBaaaas cenneetiftg Sarrell ReBa ee OR adS.
(1) The Anplicant. its Successors or assions
shall he fully reanonsible for site-
related
roadwav
and
intersection
inmrovements
reauired
within
The
Woodlands DRI, The Atlnlicant shall ~
xeauired to Dav its nrooortionate share
of the cost for any intersection
.
imDrovements ~{iqcludina. but not limitel1
.to.. sianali~fltJ-on. turn lanes. anq
additional stde street or driveway
- J.4 -
.
Words l111derlined are additions, words ~: tS9a9k are deletions.
Packet Page -137-
l.'-I
!
\ .
".,
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
throuah lanes) found to be neceS&arv ~
Collier County for the Dro~ect'B access
intersections onto Immokalee Road.
ill
For
purposes
of
this
section,
.
IIsignificant impact- is def:!.ned as when
the
project
traffic
on
any road
segment/ intersection equals or exceeds st
fer id'u: I.e-~:el sf Se!!'Viee "an ::SlF saia
rsaal#6y se!JllleM/ifttseZ'Beet:!e!!. SR an atmHal
tr:e3;age saily ee!!.l!i;i.EieR. of LOS D. Deak-
hour.
oeak-eeaeon canacitv of the
roadway/intersection.
-fZl1- .ill.
The
Woodlands
development
is
predicted to have a "significant
impact" on the following roadway
~I
segments:
Lee County:
Bonita Beach/Ca~cll.Road;
- I-75 to CR 887
Collier County:
.
CR 951.
- Immokalee Road to Bast Cellie!!. Gate
BeHle.~ra Vanderbilt Beach Roaq
- Vanderbilt Beach Road to Pine niEi!"e Read
Golden Gate Boulevard
Immokalee Road:
Ceealette Reaa te ~.S. 4~
Goodlette Road to Airport Road
- Airport Road to Livingston Road
.extension
Livingston Road extension to I-75
- I-75 to Oaks Boulevard
- Oaks Boulevard to Woodlands main access
road entrance
- Woodlands main access road and CR-951
~..w.
Tbe following intersections are
J.5
Words underlined ll~ additions r words stwllll t!S~&Q"k are deletions.
.
Packet Page -138-
.
.
.
"'.,
-f4+ ill
~-f
~ill
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
predicted to be "signifi(.~II...y
impacted II by l:4:-he woodlands proj ect :
Immokalee Road at Airport Road
1mmokalee Road at Livingston Road
extension
Immokalee Road at 1-75
Immokalee Road at Oaks Boulevard
Immokalee Road at Logan Boulevard
extension
Immokalee Road at P~[laBas SeatR aeeess
i!'eM Pro; ect Entrance
Immokalee Road at CR 951
CR 951 'at West Caldea SaEe Beal~~ard
Vanderbil t Beach Road
Immokalee Road at Goodlette Road
Ai~erE Reali at ~~aerBilt Beaeh Read
AiJ!'lle~t Reali at Pille Riage Read
~iac Rilige Reali at sa 9~1
The Woodlands actual impact on the
road segments and intersections
speci.fied in (.a J.) and (a-~) hereof
and the servi.ce level of each of the
above referenced road segme.nes and
intersections shall be empirically
determined by the County using the
monitoring reports required by
CONDITION -{# 5 .b. (s) .
The County has adopted a Road Impact
Fee Ordinance, Ol!"E1:!.!l.BBae Ne. as ss
and th~ developer, or its SUccessors
in interest, shall pay the lrimpact
fees 11 specified by said ordinance
for
a.ll
development
in !-the
Woodlands.
These impact fees,
together with that portion of
gasoline taxes and ad valorem taxes
Words'lmderlined are additions; words stl!U.eIl; I:Mea!fh are deletions.
- 16 -
Packet Page -139-
~1 4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
generated from the project aL~ ~~~
inhabitants and programmed for road
improvements, tS!JeEae:: 'liE!! t;hc
.
dedieal:!eR sf .right sf w~. BIlee!:fieEi
as OONaITION (2) and oomnliance with
the
oonditions
oontained
in
Paraa-rach S.b., shall mitigate the
transportation impacts reasonably
attributable to :r~he Woodlands
~J.2l
development.
An analysis of the County's proposed
schedule for improvements to the
roadway segments and interseotions
significantly impacted by 1:.e.he
Woodlands indioates that the local
government will be able to provide
the transportation facilities at the
",
approved
level
of
service
Rconsistently" with the development
schedule for The Woodlands as set
.
forth in the POD document, with the
potential exceptions of that section
of County Road 846 from I-75 to CR
951.........:!1m aHa that section of Bonita
Beach/CaErell Road located in Lee
County has alreadv been iTllDroved by
Lee Countv to four lanes divided.
(i) By adopting this development
order Collier County is making
no
commitment
to
improve
Carrell Road or any other road
in
Lee
County,
however,
CONDITION
(4)
shall
be
applicable.
- 17 -.
WoJ:ds undl'!rlined are additions; words sl:lNe]l ~e~h are deletions.
.
Packet Page -140-
"',
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
(H) By adopting this Devel"'.t'..........
Order, Collier County has
.
determined
th!1it
if
the
with
developer
complies
CONDITION ~~, it will have
made adequate provision for its
impaots on the roadway segment
of CR. 846 between I-75 and CR.
951..
~lll
Collier County, has estimated the
time frame in which each of the road
~I
segments/intersections significantly
. impacted by this development shall
need improvement to maintain the
requisite level of service adopted
by the County I as the same may be
amended from time to time, and has
ascertained that it can provide the
transportation facilities consistent
with the development schedule of The
Woodlands,~hBowever, the County
makes no guarantee to the developer
.
that
said
roadway
segments/
intersections shall not fall below
the requisite level of service in
spite of this commitment of the
County to provide said facilities
consistent with the Development
Schedule.
~m..
By aocepting this Development Order I
developer understands and agrees
that, al though the proposed schedule
of the County for improving the
roadway
segments/intersections
- 18 -
.
Words underlined are additions/ words st!l!'Hell t:e!lllga are deletions.
Packet Page -141-
.
~,
significantly
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
impacted b~ 4ne
Woodlands would :l.ndicate that it
,will have the ability to keep the
necessary
transportation
.
improvements at the'requisite.level
of service consistent with the
development schedule of The
Woodlands, the County is not
gUaranteeing the same to the
developer and developer understands
and agrees the County shall not be
liable
to
developer
for
its
inability to have said facilities
available consistent with the
development schedu1e of The
Woodlands .
b. CONDITIONS:
~r
-fit- !!1I.e ~plieMl.t shall semit B:B ansaal
meai~eziBg repert te the Sallier Se~~ty
Img:!.aeeriBg BE!Ila:rtlft~, E!!'Jllier SeUftty
.
MPO I FOOT, ana the Seal:aueat FIeriaa
negieaal Plamriag Catuleil for re'"T:.e\T. The
fi~= meaiterieg r~e~t
shall
Be
saemattea at the time af the iasHaBee af
the fi!!'a~ ElerEifieat:e af OseapaBey =e=
fie'\, el~lBc!l.t at The Ueaalanas , R~ertB
ahal: se SHBHlitstea flfH1\1ally thereafter
UBE:.I ~ilaeat af ~Se prejee~. The
reperts, at a Hdnilfttilll, shall seMa!.!'!.
t.raffic aaets t~Ee!l. at the asaess peil'tts .
te the site eEl tllft1iB!J 1II0".i'eme:ats ta eaeh
of she iaterscetaaas listeEl ia a(2)
eave.
(2) The ae'.-eleller shall aeEtieKe right af uay
- 1.9 -
Words underlined are additions; words S~Nl!IlE ~HS\l!,k are deletions.
.
Packet Page -142-
i
"".,
.
~,
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
ale~ the seaterB selHlEia1'Y af tftS 191'e:1 eet
te se R~ilised as ~a~t ef tse SSHHEY'S
fatt:13!'e arterial Be~we1E'lE system. The
Ei~lepe~ saal1 lieEiieste 6Bat:1gfl. id~ sf
way sa ekat 1:ae Gleaety uHI aEY."e 129 feet
sf !!'!.!JRe sf '#flY f:!'elll Cle~y Raad e U; ts
tae BertRem prej eet sS'l:H!l.aary, E~Ei:a.g
!nte eeftSideJ!'atiea 1:al! en:l.skiB!J J 9 feet
easelllsaE ell the \test herlie~ sf Seetiell ::l:a
fer ~rs]amate:ly tae first eRe half Illile
ell the sSaERerly pe~isB af See1:ieR 22.
(3) 1..1tRe\i~
illlpaSE
fee
pl'l}'l!te!ftt.s
are
gcaerally reseZ\'ea fer selleetiea at tae
time sf Bt:1ildieg pe~it. Ei~~l~er shall
IlElj' i~aet fees fs!!' eke 1'esiaeatial ~EB
Ilrejeetea 1;8 he eeaSEFlieteei uithiR I:.ke:
HCJEE tea }'ear perted (claia!' the I?UD
phasiflg pllUl.) if tlle fSlle"iB!, aeelira.
(i)
tllat parties ef SR Ba~ BctweeB I 7~
aBa em 9~1 eneeeas 1.e....el af Elerviee:
nc"
sa
erveZ'age
sBflUal
Se:.ly
ceaEii.ti8a, lHld
(ii) The weadlanEis tra=fie, at that tillie,
eeftB~itliteB st ar mere sf the
traffie ea saia rsaauay segmeaf:1, lHld
Ciii) t;.ke SSlUlty is preJ;larca 1;e eater iftoto
a eeBt~et fer fe~ laaia~ sf saia
rsaEluay segHIeat.
(1) (i) If Levell ef Se!"riee "e" sa an
a7era~e an&l:lal daily eeBa!tieB fe~
aBY
z-egieaal
reaEl\Tay
Begme~/iate~seetieB
iEicBtified
hcreiB is eneeeEled aaEl prej eet
traffic
eaiEl
ell.
rea Ell:a)l'
20 -
Words underlined are additions; words st!flleft 1!e:e~A are deletiOns.
Packet Page -143-
i
~,
-Sf
Bagmcftt/i~erseetieR
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
e~als
er
euseeas st af ~Ae 1.evel sf Sen-lee
he" servise
ve~"tlftle
(l:lEilisin!J
.
gefteralises.
s e!!'\l'iee
-.-e11i!lles as
eseelisaea hy mOT), afta
(a) 'l::ae
reaeuay
ill\}9:re,;cmeRl:
p.eeeesary t:e rO~l:lni te Le".-el a::
Se:::-.-iee
"e"
er
llettcJ!'
eeBsitiea, is Bet pre!Jl!'amIllea ea
t:he apJIlieahle noo Sl!' QalH.er
Cel:laty
five
yea:r
t;:!'affic
imp:r: Si,-emeR t:
plaa
"ita
ideB~ifiea faBliiBgl er
(11) if sueR ~=egl!'ammed i~l!'eVemeBt
is deleted f~em saia f!7e year
t~a::fie i~l!'eveme~ pl8ft; er
(e) if fb'e }"ears pase uieasll-t t:hc
Bta:rt af eeaetFaetiea sf saia
.ilft!lFe"."ellleftE I el!'
(a) the le-.-el e:: se:A-iec sa a:RY
.
s a i a
reaa\lay
segtfteBt./iRterecetieR
eJEE!eedB
le-.-e1 af sen-lee ":e" ea aft
anRl:lal aV~~ge daily esnEiitiaB
pl!'!er te the eenstl!'laet.iaB e::
the !,Fegl!'aftlllleel ~re-.o:eR\eBt I
theft a s1:15staBtia:!. ae'.~atie:a
e!<lall be
aeemed te
have
eesl:lued.
Tae ae-.""eleper may sOfltY1:le
ae-.-el epllleat
D1:1betaetial
EHiriBg said
deviat!eB DRI
reo-rl eu
lIBEl I
aft
amentir::el
deo-.1eloJilmeat el!'aer is issued,
- 2~ -
Words underlined are additioDB; words SE!!'l:I.~l tkJ!~ll are deletions.
.
Packet Page -144-
j
~" ,
~re'.riEiee. that
the alliCf 4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
a~~e1s~m~ srae~ is !ss~ea
.
,d thin aut
(,) maMhs ef the
ElaEe sf
Bel:iee
t.B=E
a
D1Hls1saBt!al
ae".-iatisB
Bas
eSe:l:l!!'rea. Fel:ae~ aevelepmeftt
'Iill
se
s~hsriS!eli
afta
asaaH,ieBea
BY
tae
=iBa~
amenaed. ae>;."elSl)meat: eracr.
(ill If Le-..el sf Elerviee de" sa aft
a~~rage ansaal aaily eaad.itien far
aay
regisrla:!..
rsaauay
segmeBt/iatc!!"seetieR
iEleRtifiea
heJ!'eiB - is eneeeaea ana ~rej eet
traf:fie
sa
saia
reaauay
aegmeRt./iMElrBeetisR
el!lia1s
or
~teeedB ~9\ e= t.he Level sf Eler<-iee
"e" va lame (l!!:.ilieiag genei!'alieea
~
Ben iee ".-slame as eataJ:llishea bJT
.
FOOT) 1 aea
(a) the realiway
i flip re-.-elllent
neeeBSSZ)" te J!"etUfii toe le-.'a1 af
servies a SE' eett.er eSBaitisa
":'s Ret ~re~!Hftfftea eE. tRe
~~1ie~le UPO er Callier
C01::lftt:r t.hree yeM tJ!'sffie
imllze-.-emeat
plaa
"ita
iaeatifiea feaaiB!l .s~
(13) if Baek plE's!rsmRlea illl!'i!'e-J'elllents
delet.ea fram said three yeti'
traffie 1~ra7emcBt !lIaR, or
(e) if tm-ee years pa9s ll'itheut the
start af eeftBt~etieB sf said.
imprevellleatl sr
- 22 -
.
Words underlined are additions; words stEllelt ~ell.gk are dsletions.
Packet Page -145--
j
I",
,
<}l
.l
(d)
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
the
le".re: ef
se:rviec ea
--...~
S aid
J!ead\tl!l.}'
acgmeat/iBterBee~ieB ~[cecdB
.
Le~~l sf Gerv!se "~n SA an
anaaa: ave~age daily eeadit!ea
priez te tae eeastzuetieB ef
the pregr~ed !~~e~eme~}
thea a BHBs1!an40ial ac\-iatisB
shall
he
deellled
te
ha-"e
eeeUl'~ea.
The ae"...el~~ may eeMi:aHe
aeveleplfteftE
tiuriB~ said
de":ia1de!l. SRI
sHBstantial
re>:ielt
liMil
afl.
EHlIe!u!.ell
de?.relepllleRt erae!!" is issued,
Jilze....itied taat
Eae
aftIended
sev~lepmeat erser is issued
withia s.il[ (E>) llleat.fte ef Ehe
sate
ef
aetice
eMI;.
a
allbataBtia:
.
sevial;.is!l.
haa
occurred. Farther de.:elS!l1M:ftt
ldll
he
autherized
aBd
coaaitieBea
BY
EBe
tiBal
EtlfteBSea Eie"l'e:~llleat eraer.
ill Based on the transDortation assessment of
sianificant n:ro; ect imcacts. construction
of
the
transcortation
following
imcrovements or acceotable substitutes or
alternatives shall be needed coincident
with. develooment or" The WoocUands DR!.
if adoDted level of service conditions
are to be maintained. throuah Droiect
buildout
sianificantlv
imoacted
on
.reaional road seamentB and intersections:
- 23 -
.
Words undl'!rlin.ed are additions I words S"1!'Il9 tMell!ll are deletions.
Packet Page -146-
.
.
.
.
"'"
Immokalee Roqg
C.R. 95~ to Airnort Rocag
Airoort Road to Goodlette_
Frank RoE\.Q
The Woodlands to 1-7~
.c.R.. 95:1..
Immokalee Road to ~lden
.Gate Boulevar_
.Immokalee Road to BoniQ
Beach Ro~
Livinaston Roac;i
Immokalee Road to V~der-
hilt Beach Roa_
Bonita Beach Roag
1-75 to C.R. 887
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Four Lanell!
Four Lane~
Six Laneli
Four Lan~
Two Lane~
.1or alter-
natiW'! im-
Drovementl
'l'wo Lanes
Four or S~
~
161 The aODlicant shall mitiaate its imnacts
.on the recrional and local roadway
sectionA identified herein as followB~
'31
ill The Anolicant shall make the site
related imnrovemeIits Bnecified in
1til. The
shall
I.'luboaraaraoh 5. a. (1) hereof.
ADolicant
nav
itlil
Dronortionate share of intereectioA
imDrovements at: its access Doints ~
lmmokalee Road as sDecified in
suboaraaraoh 5.a.(~) hereof.
(iii) The ADDlicant shall he sUbiect to
imcact fees..
all lawfully adooted transDortatioI!
l1xl..The Anolicant shall he suhiect t:2,
the Concurrency Manacrement System Qf
ill The
recrional
the CountV' as set forth hereiIt:..
roadway seaments aty;!
intersections on which this Dro;ect will
have sicrnificant imDacte are . WhOll:
.24 -
Words underlin.sm, are additions; IIords St:wel~ NRell!J& are deletions.
Packet Page -147-
j
"'"
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
within the ;urisdiction of Collier County
for
nUrnoses of CODCl1rT'encv manaaement..
POuntv 4as ms~. the d'O~sion to Dl~
and manaae the imDacts of this D 1
.
.The
for
t:hrouah its duly adonted comnrehen,siv~
Dlan. The County has considered t:h~
reaional roadwa,v seam~mts and reaionaJ,
roadwav
intersections set
forth
iU
Sul:lDaraar~nh 5. a. (3) and (4) hereof. ang
has determined to recmire the nrn;ect t:
be sub; ect to and t:o eomel v with the
Concurrencv Manaaement Svstem (CMS) 0:'
Collier County as adoDted in its Growth
Manaaement Plan and imclemented hv the
Adeauate Public
Facilities Or~4n~c~_
No. 93 -82. a cqnv o~
eAPF) Ordinance
."
which is attached hereto .as Exhihit "0".
After
due
consideration
t~.
of
alternatives. the Countv has detemined
.
that
to
reauire
comDliance
witb
~oncurrencv as mandated hv the eMS. tn
add! tion
to
the
other
mitiaations
reauired in this Section 5 hereof. is the
aDnrqoriate
!<sv to S""""""",,st. thO
this croiect and to assurf!
imoacts of
.that
transPortation
facilities
ar~
the
Drovided
concurrentlv
with
traneoortation imnacts of this oro;ect.....
m The Adeauate Public Facilities Ordinance
JAPF) reauires the Commul'1.itv DevelqDment;
and Environmental Services Administrato~
to Comnlete
an
Annual
Uodate
anq
.Invent:orv Reoort (A;PTR) bv Auaust 1st of
each Year on roads and nublie facilitie~
- .25 -
.
Words underlined are additiClll.SI worcls Sls_ell ~all~are deletions.
Packet Page -148-
.
.
.
j
".,
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
based on the adonted level of service.
The aDDlicant shall nrovide within
fifteen (~5) days of nublication each
year a cOPV of said AUIR on the reaional
facilities set forth in suboaraaraoh
.S.a. (3~. and 5.a. (4) to the Southwest
Florida Reaional Plannina Counsel and the
Florida Department of Communi tv Affairs
(oCAI....
~ The Board of County Commissioners is
reauired hv the APF to est:ahlish Areas of
Sianificant Influence (ASI) around any
:road seament or intersection which is
operatincr at an unaccentahle level o{
service (LOS) or is nroiected to onerat~
at an unaccented LOS and is not sCheduleQ
for
imnrovement
in
the
(CIE)
Can!tal
1r
lmorovement
Element
of
t~
Comoreheneive Plan in a manner and time
which would provide facilities concurrent
with the imoacts of develooment nursuant
to the APF .
Pro;ects within th~
boundaries of an AS1 are. witb a few
exceotions
not
relevant
hereto.
prohibited
from
ohtainina
furtheJ;:
Certificates of Public Facilitv Adeaua~
that Would allow imoacts to exceed th~
remainina caoacitv. if any. of these road
seaments or additional imoacts to th~
deficient
or
notentiallv
deficien,t
facility.
The apnlicant shall notify
SWFRPC and DCA within five (5) workinsr
davs after receiot of notice of a oubli~
hearina to determine the boundaries of
- 26 -
Words underline~ are additions; words stlnlelE ~!Kl!Jh are deletions.
Packet Page -149-
i
"'1
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
any ASI that includes any tranSDortatiolt
facilities listed in this SectionL
ill If any of the road saaments identified in
.
this Section 5 become deficient. the
County shall est:ablish an Area of
Sianificant Influence (ASI) around such
seament 'Dursuant to or! teria set forth in
the APF...
ill In addition to the nrovisions of the
Collier County APF Ordinance:
ill The Woodlands DRI is sub'lect to the
SDecified
recmirements
of
the
Adeauate Public Facilities Ordinance
No. 93-B2 as that Ordinance existed
on the effective date hereof. ~
amendment to t:he transnortatio~
Dortions of that: Ordinance ~y
1r
Collier County shall
not be
effective or anolied
to the
.
WOodlands DR! unless and until this
Develonment Order is amended to
incornorate and render anolicabl~
suoh chanaes or amen,dments to the
APF Ordinance..
Jill In the event that Collier County
desianates an ASI ~round a deficient
road seament that is nredicted to be
substantiallY
imoacted
QV
Th~
Woodlands Proiect. and the AS! doe~
not include the Woodlands DRI. then
the apolicant shall be reauired to
file a Notioe of Chanae of thi~
Development Order with Collier
County.
the
Southwest
Florid~
27 -
.
Words underHned are a.dditions; words 8~!!'Iiel~ \;M8\l!f& are deletions.
Packet Page -150-
i
~"'.,
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
pursuant to Suhsection 380.06(~9)~
· P1ririds at.~ut.s.
11lli .The annlicant shall file a Notice of
.chanae within s!xtv (60) days froTl!
~he date the County creates an ASI
Denartment of Communitv Affairsr..
Reaional Plannina Council. and the
.for such a deficient road seament
that: excludes the Woodlands DRI.
The acnlicanr shall file with t~
analvsis
Notice of Chancre. a current traff1c
and other
informatiQn
attemotina t.o establish that the DR.!.
is not havina a substantial imoact
other ;ustification of the Countv/~
Uoon the n~inent road seament. o~
~,
exclusion of the DRI from the AS1_
If an ASI is established for a~
.
Section 5 of this Develooment OrdeJ;:
deficient road searnent listed :f,.~
that does not include the Woodlands
DlU. the DR1 shall not anol, v for ot:
.of Public Facilities AdeauaC!V untill
be issued any further Certificate~
made hv Collier County. if neither
(l) the Notice of Chancre deCision iea
DCA nor S~PC oarticinates in the
pUblic hearina on this Notice of
Change
nursuant.
to
Subsection
380.06(19) (f). Florida Statutes ang
the chanae is adonted bv Colli~
Countv. as nronosed: or (2) until.
any anneal of such decision to tqe
Florida Land and Water Ad;udicato~
.
- 28 -
Words underlin;d are additions; words etohBI~ t_augh are deletioZl8.
Packet Page -151-
~I
;
""1
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Commission is resolved....
11x1.. For ournoses of this Develooment
Order. the DR! shall he deemed to
.
have a sianificant imcact unon a
deficient road seament
if its
traffic imnacts exceed five nercent
{S") of
LOS D. oeak hour-oeak
season. cqnacitv of the road~.
.M The
County
shall
nrovide
the
requisite nubile notice and hold a
oublic hearina on the Notice of
Chanae as exneditiouslv as nossible.
Followina a nubIic hearina. Collier
Count v
shall
amend
the
DRI
Develonment Order to- record its
det:erInination whether or not the DRt
is havincr a Substantial imcact ueon
the
deficient
road
searnent or
otherwise shOuld not
be included
.
within an ASI for the deficient road
seament .
In makincr this deter-
mination. the County shall includ~
the imDacts resultina from all
development to occur nllrauant to the
Certificates of Public Facilitv
Adeouacv oreviousl v issued to the
DRI.
The
amendment
to
this
DeveloDment Order is annealabl~
pursuant to Subsection 380.06 C191
and
Section
380.07.
Florida
Statutes.
.b!:ll If
neither
DCA
nor
SWFRPC
Dartici:nate in the nuhlic hearincr on
the Notice of Chanae oursuant tQ
- 29 -
.
Words underU.I1~d are additions I words BEl."lleir t!e811!JB are deletioDB.
Packet Page -152-
.
.
.
j
'''1
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Subsection 380.06(l9} (f). Florida
Statutes and the chancre is adooted
bv Collier County as nronosed. the
DRI mav be issued Certificates of
Public Facilitv Adeauacv following
the
County'S
Develooment
Order
decision.
If either DCA or SWFRPC
Darticioates in the nublic hearinv.
the annlicant shall not annl v for or
he issued Certificates of PuhliQ
Facilitv Adeauacv until the deadline
for anv anneal of the Collier County
decision has exoired oursuant tQ
Section 380.07. Florida Statutes anQ
no anneal has heen filed.
ill Collier County and the aonlicant mc\y
.consider
other ootions
to
nrovide
'!r
adeauate
needed
comm1tment:s
for
imorovements to.transoortation facilitie~
eet forth in Paraar~t)h S .h. (2) nrovideq
that said ootions meet the following
criteria:
ill the transoortation imoacts to the
roads and intersections outlined
herein shall he addressed consistent
with SWFRPC oolicies and said
ootions or mitiaative measures shall
be adonted in accordance wit4
Sections 163.3220-163.3243. Florida
Statutes. which authorize local
qovernment develonment aareements or
as authorized !:Iv Rule 9J -2; 025S .
Florida
Administrative
Code.
ITransnortation Policy Rule)
30
Words l.lD.derlined are additions I woras stoWell tM8tl!JA are delet:ions.
Packet Page -153-
~l
i
"",
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
l1ll Anv such ontion would he imnlementeQ
only after a Notice of Chancre
nrocedure as outlined above.
.
~ The aoolicant. its SUccessors or assione
shall submit an annual traffic monitoring-
reoort
to
the
followincr entities:
Collier Countv. Plorida Deoartment of
Transnortation (FOOT). Florida Denartment
of Communit:v Affairs (FDCAJ. and the
Southwest
Florida Reaional
Planning
Council (SWFRPC).
The first traffic
monitorincr ranort will he submitted one
vear after the date of the issuance of
the
first
huildina
oermit
for
a
residential huildincr within the Woodlands
DR! . Reoorts must he submitted annually
thereafter until huildout of the oro;ect...
The annual traffic monitorina renort will
contain the followina information:
.
ill AM and PM oeak hour turnincr movement
counts at all site access "DOints
onto Immokalee Road and a comnarison
of the Proiect's measured trip
aeneration to the Pr04ect's trip
aeneration assumed in the or1a1na1
DRI anal vsis .
1.UJ.. A summarV' of the stat:us of road
imorovements assumed to he committeq
in the ADA. includincr the followincr:
- 3J. -
.
Words underlined are additions; words sl!ll!'U.el~ tft!sS1I!J8 are deletions.
Packet Page -154-
.
.
.
i
"'"
BQ&1
Eine Rida!"! Road
Airnort-Pullina Ro~g
Golden Gate Boule'Vard
C.R. 951
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Seamel1t
Tvoe qf
Imorovemen,t
I-75 to C.R. 951
&
4
1~
Golden Gate Blvd. tQ
C.R. 846
1-75 to C.R. 95~
lan~
2
lan~
la~
Golden Gate Parkway tQ
East Golden Gat.e.
Boulevarq
4
Livinaston Road (North) .c.R. 846 to Lee CountJ!:
~
Immokalee Ro~
Goodlette Ro~.Q.
Sant:a Barhara BO~l:v~rd
ILoaan Boul v: r
rJr
~lUl.
4 - l~
U.S. 41 to r-7~
.Eine Ridae Road tQ
C.R. 8i6
4 - lane
~ - lane
Green Canal to Pine
Ridae Roaq
4 - lane
The above-traffic monitorina reno~
in combination with the Annu~l
tTDdate and InventorV' Renort (AUIRl
referenced in Condition 5.B. (4) L.
above. renresents the annual tz-affi~
monitorina reauirements for the
Woodland's DRI.
The developer shall provide a fair
share
contribution
toward
the
capital costs of a traffic signal at
any proj ect entrance on Immokalee
~ when deemed warranted by the
County Engineer.
shall be owned,
The signalm
operated and
maintained by Collier County.
{€} If faa~ lani~ af SR 81~ in freB~ af ~hc
prejee~ has Bet eemmeBeea ~risr to
aS7elepmeBE sf eamme~eial sr reeiaeBtial
tiaits l.~EhiB the p~jeet. the ae7elaper
saall !lre..~aa an eae~Sel:lRa lcf~ tl:l:rn:
etera~e l=ae afta weBEsa~a aeeelcraE~oft
- 32 -
Worde underlineci are additions I words "Z'lteIE Wwau!Jh are deletions.
Packet Page -155-
j
"'.,
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
iQfte aE eaah ~rej~et ene~B~ Befere any
Certifieates af Oe~aeey ~e issasa fo~
.
t:ae 1:mil:s whieh l:ea!a Be using Eaat
~~ejeet eftEraaee.
-fT+.11ll The developer shall provide arterial
level street lighting at each project
entrance. The operating and maintenance
costs of these units shall be assumed by
Collier County.
~~ The applicant assigned a significant
number of Woodlands trips to the proposed
Parklands South Access Road from the
Parklands boundary southward, in Phase IV
(ending 2004) of the Woodlands. &
located to the east
.lmmokalee Road. This
"r
consistent with the
Parklands South Access Road. is now being
renlaced bv an extension of C. R. 951
and north of
relocation is
Countv's 2020
Financiallv Feasihle Plan. A sixty foo~
.
orovided on the west bounQarv of The
(60') mad riaht-of-wav is now heing
north nrooertv line.
Woodlands from Immokalee Road to t:h~
for the Parklands South Access Road.
These substitute
JJJtl The applicant also assigned a significant
number of WOodlands trips to the pl!'e,pesal
nroooseQ
Livingston Road
Extensio~
between Il1llIlokalee Road and Vanderbilt
Beach Road during Phase V (ending 2007) .
If -t:ltese .t!U& road Begment~ ia not
constructed hy the specified Phase, the
project shall undergo a determination as
to whether a substantial deviation has.
- 33 -
.
Words JJ.nderlined are additionsl words el::nelE t;8I'BQ!J& are deletions.
Packet Page -156-
.
.
.
j
",
~,
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
occurred.
An amended development order
shall be rendered after any substantial
deviation determination, whether found to
be a substantial deviation or not.
6. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE: The applicant has identified
the potential for certain species to exist in
preservation areas on the site. The primary issue of
regional concern is proj ect impacts to 15 species of
birds, 2 species of reptiles and .2 species of mammals
which are endangered, threatened, or are species of
special concern that may grow, feed, nest and breed on
The Woodlands site.
Conditions:
a. The applicant commits to deed restrictions, upland
buffer areas, and cypress preservation areas to
protect the endangered, threatened or special
concern species.
A survey for any eagle and woodstork nesting
b.
activities shall he conducted prior to commencement
of development. Copies shall be sent to Collier
County HaM9 Develonment Services Deoartment, the
SWFR,pc and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission.
c. All exotic plants, as defined in the Collier County
Code, shall be removed during each phase of
construction from development areas, open space
areas, and preserve areas.
Following site
development a maintenance program shall be
implemented to prevent reinvasion of the site by
such exotic species.. This plan, which will
describe
control
techniques
and
inspection
intervals, shall he fi.led with and approved by the
Nats~al Resel:l:!'ees l!aBa~ell\cm:. Develooment Service..!!
Department.
- 34
Words underlf:ne~ are additions; Words st;!'Ilel~ ~Sll!ft are deletions.
Packet Page -157-
~r
j
"'"
4/26/2011 Item 7 .A.
d.
Once specific site clearing plans are submitted,
boundaries of areas proposed for development: shall
be set and flagged in the field hy the petitioner,
subj ect . to approval by ma.m .the DeveloDment
Services Deoartment. Boundaries of areas proposed
for preservation shall he set and flagged in the
field by the petitioner, Subject to approval by
.
NRMB
.the
Develooment:
8@rv.i aeB
D~"a:rtmen~ .
Precautions by work crew supervisors working close
to planned preserve areas shall be encouraged in
order to minimize wildlife and preservation areas
disturbances.
e. The petitioner has received nermits from the n.s.....
Armv Corns of Enaineers and the South Florida Water
Manaaement District which nermits were aiven an:t-e~
~onsideration of the comments of the shall saeisfy
ell staEe (Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
COmmission~ and felie!!'il.l ~ United States Fish
and Wildlife Service) Bt~HlaEieftB eeaee~iBg
.
~~eEeeEea plant aHa &ft!mal ~eeiesr
f. A site clearing plan shall he submitted to the
NaElt~al Rese~aeB llaftsgeRIeB.E BepfU'Ement- Develooment
Services Deo~ment for review and approval prior
to any substantial work on the sit:e. This plan may
be submitted in phases to coincide with the
deve~opment schedule. The site clearing plan shall
clearly depict how the final site layout
incorporates retained native vegetation to the
maximum extent Possible and how roads, bUildings,
lakes, parking lots, and other facilities have been
oriented to accommodate this goal.
g. Native species shall be utilized, where available
to the maximum extent Possible in the site
landscaping design. A landscaping plan will be.
- 35 - .
Worda llnder1b!ed are additi~; words s1!J!'IIslE 1!9811!Jft are deletions.
Packet Page -158-
i
""1
.
1t
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
submitted to the Natli!l!"al ROBBlH"eea Uaftage____
De~aFt~eBt ana the CemmliHity D~ele~meftt Bi7isisn
Develonment Services Denartment for ~ ita
review and approval. This plan will depict the
incorporation of native species and their mix with
other species, if any.
The goal of site
landscaping shall be the re-creation of native
vegetation and habitat characteristics lost on the
site during construction or due to past activities.
7. WETLANDS: The Woodlands site contains a total of 358
acres of wetlands which accounts for 72% of the t:otal
site. Most of the cypress and a major portion of the
transitional wetlands are part of a major slough system
which traverses the eastern portion of the site. As a
result of plimped. discharges. associated with the
agricultural operations 10cated both west and north of
the project site, along with drainage improvements such
as the canal located immediately south of the project
site adjacent to Immokalee (CR 846) Road, the overall
site has experienced an altered hydroperiod. presently
the exotic melaleuca is diffused throughout the site, but
no specific locations or acreages of impacted areas have
yet been delineated.
The applicant est~~es that li~ tB ~19.~ ae!l!"CB er
33\ sf the commits that wetlands will he impacted by
roads, golf cart crossings, lakes and golf course onlv to
imolement the annroved Master Plan. attached hereto as
Exhihit "An. and only as authorized bv the nermit issued
bv the South Florida Water Manaaement District. attached
hereto and marked Exhihit neb. As mitigation for wetland
impacts, the applicant has committed to a series of
mitigation measures such as wetland and upland huffer
zone preserve areas, upland preserve areas, lake littoral
and limnetic zone creation, exotic invaded wetland
- 36 -
Words underlined are additions; words 8~E\lel~ te_!fa are deletions.
Packet Page -159-
j
~'1 4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
restoration and hydroperiod restoration. and off-sJ.ce
miticration. as more sDecificallv stated in Exhibit "CII.
Conditio~
.
&... "The applicant commits to wetland preservation,
wetland mitigation and water management design
presented within the ABA aed saffieieftey aee9meBts
\ilMeR M'e iRea~ar~t.ed Exhibit RCn and as deoicted
in Exhibit "All as conditions of approval.
s. r~iaF ~e ERe im~lemeatatiaR af caek ~hase af Ehe
de:o..ela~ftleBE, me_e deEailed iMe:!'l!latieft shall Be
s'\H3mi.t:ted
1ae
the
Ple!!'!dB
Departlllent
af
Eft7irsBmeftEal RegHlatiaR,
SFWHD,
Dt<7PRl'C,
a.."ia
C3ellier GetiftEy ImMD far ~evieu, uhieh pra"o-iaes the
::elleuiag iMsJ!'Illatis!.'l.
~ . Ecolsgieal health e!BBditien aaS . funeE!sa af
eaeh wetlafta toe Be illl~ael!!ed.
.2 . 1l.. mere ~reeise :.EicfttifieatiaR sf \fRiah wetlema
~
a-reas ~::!.11 Be aest~eyea, Based SE. the alge.."e
Bun-ey aaa the aPIllicHieB af the ~~spaseEi
~:etlemEi :resa1:l::E'ee mlHlagelfte!l.t guiaeliftes.
.
:3 . Ristarie 'lake::- levels t.B Be mai:ataiBeEi witbiB
~letlaftEi ~:E'esen.es tB sen'e as a liesi!fR ema.
!l!'e"J'ie\il guise.
4. . flora aetailea iafonnatiaa S!l. he'll the waEer
!lla:ft8gement. systetft uill maiBt:a:i:a hiaterie \fate::
le'".'els
uitki!l.
eaah
uetlans
pZ'esen-c.
(I.'laaeme!tt anti aesige af t.he alijlista:l9le
strliatlires, e~liBer awales ana. eH1"JeFEs.)
S. .r.. lIIaiftt.eftaftee plim laB 1Ilaift1aaiB 1ahe a".""Crall
eeelagieal iategFity sf wetlana ~Fese~e
areaa.
I).
An a9fitlal :r~e!!"t
fJ!'om 1a-fie IIelfteeWRer' B
1J.eeeeiatieft las re!!Ularly mO!l.iter ~~liemee
with aeeEi restrietiefts
fer . reeiaemtial
- 37 -
Words underlined are additions; words 8~Bk t:MelS!ft are deletions.
.
Packet Page -160-
.
.
.
j
"',
l'
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
sethaelES ana ]lE'esctvatiea.
e. TRC Gellie%" SS1:I!ity rw.T1.ew shall ]ae eS!laHetca
aess:!'Sl B!f Ise SaBstaat:!l.al ae-."!at!sa. tie1;e~Ra1;.i6!l
~rsV~sieR9 sf eha~E~E' 38S.e~, Fler!aa BtatHtes.
8. CONSISTENCY WITH THE LOCAL COMPREHENsIVE PLAN: The
Suhj ect property is designated as Urban on the Future
Land Use Map and meeEs tae aeeeasa~' rat~ ~Si!lES fer
the ~rs~eseEl Eleftsity sf ::3. 51:::! lUlits per ~ElSS aer-c.
satisfies the reQUirements of POlicv 5.1 of the Collier
County Growth Manaaement: Plan Future Land Use Element. In
addition, the project meets the criteria for the proposed
land usee. Therefore, the development complies with the
Comprehensive Plan.
g. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: In "The Woodlandsll ADA, numerous
commitments were made hy the applicant: to mitigate
proj ect impacts. Many, but not all of these commitments
are listed in this Development Order.
Additionally, the ADA provided a Phasing Schedule
that provided the timing hasis for this review. If this
phaSing schedule is significantly altered by the
applicant then many of the hasic assumptions of this
approval could be substantially changed, potentially
raising additional Regional issues and/or impacts.
Conditions:
a. All commitment and impact mitigating actions
provided by the applicant within the Application
for Development Approval
(and supplementary
documents) that are not in conflict with specific
conditions for project approval outlined above are
Officially adopted as conditione for approval.
b. The developer shall submit an annual report on the
development of regional impact to Collier County,
the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council,
the Department of Community Affairs and all
- 38 -
Kords underlined are additions, words eEl'I:l~~ ~BlI!Jll are deletions.
Packet Page -161-
r
"',
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
c.
affected permit agencies as required in Subsection
380.06(18), Florida Statutes.
The development Phasing Schedule presented within
the ADA, and as adj usted to date of development
.
order
approval
ana/or permit
approval
is
incorporated as a condition of approval. If
Development
Order
conaitions
and
Applicant
Commitments incorporated within the Development
Oraer to mitigate regional impacts, are not carried
out as indicated to the extent or in accord with
the timing schedules specified within the
Development Order ana this phasing schedule, then
this shall be deemed to he a substantial deviation
for the. affected regional issue.
ie. FIRE.
a. l?Jr.:.e:r toe I;he !SSHaRee ef BIly B1:tilli!B!f lle~Es, a
fire statleR ee~-iRg Ehis p~ejeet must se ~erat!Bg
~t
'~khiR five (S) miles ef the pEejeet.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, that:
~. All cOll1lllitments and impact mitigating actions provided by
the applicant in the Application for Development Appr~val
with supptemental documents and the Application for
Public Hearing for rezoning with Supplemental documents
that are not in conflict with conditions or stipulations
specifically enumerated above are hereby adopted to this
Development Order by reference.
2. The Community Development Administrator shall be the
local official responsihle for assuring compliance with
the Development: Order.
3. This Development Order shall remain in effect until
.
October 7, 2015, the estimated duration of the project.
However, in the event that significant physical
development has not commenced within Collier County by
- 39-
..
Words underlined are additional words B~~ell ~8'li!Ja are deletiCDs.
Packet Page -162-
j
~1
.
"t
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
October 7, 2000, development approval will terminate QU~
this development order shall no longer be effective. For
purposes of this requirement "significant physical
development" does not include roads, drainage or
landscaping but does incJ.ude construction of buildings
for installation of utilities and facilities such as
sewer and water lines. This time period may he extended
hy the Board of County Commissioners upon request by the
Developer in the event that uncontrollable circumstances
delay the commencement of development.
4. The applicant or their successor(s) in title to the
subject property shall submit a report annually,
commencing one year from the effective date of this
development order, to the Board of County Commissioners
of .Collier County, the Southwest Florida RegiGnal
Planning Council, and the Department- of Community
Affairs.
This report will contain the information
required in Section 9B-16.25, Florida Administrative
Code.
Failure to submit the annual report shall be
s.
governed by Subsection 380.06(16), Florida Statutes.
Subsequent requests for development permits shall not
require further review pursuant to Section 380.06,
Florida Statutes, unless it. is found by. the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, after due nOtice
and hearing, that one or more of the following is
present;
a. A substantial deviation as defined in Suhsection
380.06 (19), Florida Statutes (1996), from the terms
or conditions of this development order, or other
changes to the approved development plans which
create a reasonable likelihood of adverse regional
impacts. or other regional impacts which were not
evaluated in. the review by the Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council; or
- 40 -
Worde underlined are additions I words s1;neJI t~~ are deletions.
Packet Page -163-
r
""
~
6.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
An expiration of the period of effectiveness
this development order as provided herein.
Upon a finding that either of the above is present, the
Board of County Connnissioners of Collier County may order
a termination of all development activity until such time
as a new DRI Application for Development Approval has
been submitted, reviewed and approved in accordance with
Section 380.06, Florida Statutes.
The approval granted by this Development Order is
limited. Such approval shall not be construed to obviate
the duty of the applicant to comply with all other
applicable local, state or federal permitting procedures.
The definitions contained in Chapter 380.06, Florida
Statutes, shall control the interpretation and
construction of-any terms of this ~evelopment Order.
This Order shall be binding upon the Developer, assignees
or successors in interest.
b.
.
7.
8.
9 . It is understood that any reference herein to any
governmental agency shall be construed to mean any future
instrumentality which may he created or designated or
successor in interest to, or which otherwise possesses
any of the powers and duties of any referenced
governmental agency in existence on the effective date of
this Order.
10. In the event that any portion or section of this Order is
determined to be invalid, illegal, or unconstitutional by
a court or agency of competent juriSdiction, such
decision shall in no manner effect the remaining portions
of this Order which shall remain in fu1l force and
effect.
.
11. This reseleisa amended Develonment Order shall become
effective as provided by law.
1.2. . Certified copies of this Order are to be sent immediately
to the Department of Community Affairs, and the Southwest
- 41 -
Words underlined are additions I words B~_el[ ~\lgft are deletions.
.
Packet Page -164-
.
.
.
j
"".,
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Florida Regional Planning Council.
1.h
Excent as amended herebv. DeveloDment Order B6-~. as
amended. shall remain in full force and effect. hindina
in accordance with its terms on all Darties thereto.
DULY PASSED AND ADOP'l'ED THIS ~ day of O~f~l...j
, 199"-.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the
minutes of this Board.
commissioner
Matthews
offered the foregoing
Resolution and moved for its adoption, seconded hy Commissioner
Bancock
and upon roll call, the vote was:
AYES:
NAYS:
. ABSENT AND NOT VOTING:
Commissioner MatthewB~ Commissioner Bancock~ Commissioner
~onstantine~ Commissioner MaclKie and Commissioner Norris
ABSTENTION:
::, ')r~~.DO~~,,:~his . ~2...
l!~l.~~'~L::~'~ ~ ot I:. ::~ :t.~..J t\.. .
..... .~~EtBt.: ""i 1 '.'
.'~tif.;:;f~~t\~~1;~;
A';'{i~~~::B~Ji;i
.: APPROVED As:.T9 FORM
AND .LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
.~. .' ,
(7~~.J
day of
, 1996.
Board of County Commissioners
Collier County, Florida
~~
-;m, ;jA~ ~ d)? Ilru.Lud
MarJ ie M. Student
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATI'ORNEY
:3 OllOClDLMiI)\DO. c:LJI:
October 10. 199G
- 42 -
Words underlined are additions; words 1!It!!Pll1!l11 1:eeH!8 are deletions.
Packet Page -165-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
DeselemKay
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Strain Mark
Saturday. March 12, 2011 6:25 PM
DeselemKay
FW: Olde Cypress
.
Please forward as you have the others.
thanks
Mark
From: Anne Kandilis [ashecee@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March le, 2ell 8:12 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: aIde Cypress
Dear Mark: We are residents of aIde Cypress and would like you to know that we are in favor
of the PUD changes and support what Stock Development is trying to do for aIde Cypress.
There is a small group of individuals that are fighting the changes but we want you to know
that they do not represent us, as residents of aIde Cypress. Thank you for considering our
view.
Sincerely,
Anne & Charles Kandilis
3e88 Strada Bella Court
Naples, FL 34119
.
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail
address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this
entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
.
1
Packet Page -166-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
email from Mark Strain from McKenna 3-2-11.txt
From: StrainMark
Sent: wednesday, March 02, 2011 1:20 PM
To: DeselemKay
subject: FW: olde cypress
Another your files.
Mark
From: Larry MCKinney [lrmck@msn.com]
Sent: wednesday, March 02, 2011 12:36 PM
To: strainMark; MurrayRobert; HomiakKaren; ReedcaronDonna; schifferBrad;
AhernMelissa; Jodiebert@comcast.net; pmidney@collier.org; bmk@bmkre.com
subject: olde cypress
To the members of the collier county planning commission
Ladies and Gentlemen;
My wife and I purchased a lot in olde cypress in september 2000 and moved in
to the home we had built in september 2001. Our primary reasons for choosing
this development were the quality of the golf course design and proposed
practice area, the relative low density of the physical layout, and the
quality of the model homes that were to be representative of the community. We
have enjoyed all of these amenities, as well as activities at the club for
nearly ten years.
It is now apparent that there are a minority of residents in our community
that have indicated that we deserve a "park and nature trails" and that they
have represented limited concerns regarding any infringement on the golf
course or the golf practice range. Our current golf members have paid a
significant amount to play and enjoy our golf facilities as they are today and
I encourage that this be an important factor in your consideration. I am
opposed to any such requirement and support stock Development's proposal to
delete the "park and nature trails" language from the documents. By the lack
of interest shown in the most recent community poll, an overwhelming majority
of olde cypress residents have bought homes here without any expectation or
consideration or interest in having a park, but reside here to enjoy the
beautiful clubhouse, the safety of the community and the other amenities we
have.
As it was disclosed in your February 17 meeting, an established park in olde
Cypress must accommodate the residents from both of the multi-family complexes
located. in our PUD, named Amberton and Fairway preserve. My understanding of
that situation means that depending on where the "park" would be located, all
of the residents of these two complexes that do not reside in our gated
community would have access to a designated park located inside our gate. I am
sug~esting that this alone would change the entire concept and quality of
livlng in olde cypress, devalue our homes and our club and, therefore, should
not be considered or encouraged by your commission.
The other subject I will discuss is about your February 17 conversation
regarding construction traffic concerns for the new "Vita" property. As I was
one of the early residents in olde Cypress, I have seen and heard evidence of
400 homes being constructed during my tenure. please understand that all of
this traffic came through our current main gate area and traveled to ALL
sections of our development. Although there may have been some occasions where
residents had to wait for a truck to move, I never remember being delayed
entering or leaving the property. In your meeting, there were suggestions that
the construction traffic for the new section be diverted before the gatehouse
across a section of the practice range. I am suggesting you consider that if
400 homes can be built going through our main (and only) gate area, the new
page 1
Packet Page -167-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
email from Mark Strain from McKenna 3-2-11.txt
section can be developed and 120 homes built using 50 yards of the Treeline
Drive entrance road inside our gate. This traffic pattern would not infringe
on any current Olde Cypress homes, nor the golf course facilities.
Thank you for your consideration.
Larry R. MCKinney
7536 Treeline Drive
Naples, FL 34119
lrmck@msn.com<mailto:lrmck@msn.com>
.
under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want
your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by
telephone or in writing.
.
Page 2
.
Packet Page -168-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
.
Mark Strain
Collier County Planning Commission
E-mail MarkStrain@colliergov.net
Re: Olde Cypress Zoning Change application
Dear Mr. Strain:
I am a resident of aide Cypress and understand your commission is in the process of reviewing the issue
of a park in our development. The issue being there was a park on the original PUD and it was never
incorporated in the development. Stock Development has purchased the remaining available land and
wants to build additional homes on said property. They Stock want the park removed from the PUD and.
the issue settled.
I do not think a park is a necessity in our community; we have a very limited number of families with
children living in aide Cypress. As I understand it, jf a park were required we would have to allow access
into to aide Cypress to other communities with the addition of walking paths or some form of other
entry other than our entry gate. I believe by allowing other entrance into our community we make it
impossible to manage who enters unless we add additional guards at any added entry points. I do not
believe there are many home owners that would be in favor opening our community by allowing access.
I am not a resident who gets involved in all of the drama in our community, but I feel this issue on the
park requires my opinion be known.
. A park is not required in Olde Cypress.
Regards,
Dean Blaser
.
Packet Page -169-
4126/2011 Item 7.A.
From: StrainMark
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 7:37 PM
To: Dese 1 emKay
subject: AN: olde cypress zoning Change
Here is another.
email from Hiotis 2-21-11.txt
.
Mark
From: chris Hiotis [hiotiselgreco@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 9:06 PM
To: StrainMark
subject: olde cypress zoning change
Mr. strain:
My wife and I have been residents of Olde Cypress for approximately five
years. We both feel that, under the present circumstances, both the park and
the walking trails will not benefit residents of olde Cypress. We, as well as
most of our fellow residents and friends at OC, urge you to allow the changes
as requested by the stock Development Group.
Christ and Marilyn Hiotis
2819 wild orchid Ct.
Naples, Fl. 34119
under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want
your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by
telephone or in writing.
.
Page 1
.
Packet Page -170-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
email from Steve Smith 2-22-11.txt
From: StrainMark
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 7:42 PM
To: DeselemKay
subject: FW: olde cypress PUD changes currently before the collier county
plan':lin!;J
CommlSSlon
Another for distribution.
Mark
From: Steve smith [ssmith@lesmith.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 5:02 PM
To: StrainMark
Cc: Damian & cheryl Thomas (damian.thoma@gmail.com)
subject: olde Cypress PUD changes currently before the collier county Planning
commission
Mr. Strain: My name is Steve smith. I have lived at 3072 Strada Bella in
olde Cypress since 2005. I am aware of both emails by Mr. slaught and Mr.
Duncan. I want to assure you that I concur with Mr. Duncan's comments 100%.
I was never told that a park or walking trails would be made available when we
purchased our property in olde cypress back in 2004. I am totally against
these two items and would ask the planning commission to allow the PUD changes
for Vita Tuscana. stock Development has been a very good owner for The club @
olde cypress and has followed through with commitments made in the past. I
see no reason to think that he would not continue his business integrity now.
The financial viability of Olde Cypress relies on increasing the number of our
dues paying golf members. Vita Tuscana is the last chance we have to add
significant membership numbers on property adjacent to olde cypress and set
the stage for a continuing successful golf club. Mr. slaught and a small
number of others are pursuing, in my opinion, another agenda. That would be
to force Mr. stock to offer other types of compensation in lieu of the park
and walking trails. Mr. stock has already offered substantial improvements
and upgrades to olde cypress. These will, of course, help him to sell homes
in Vita Tuscana, but it will also have a lasting benefit for current residents
of olde cypress. I am totally in favor of changing the PUD and allowing
stock Development to develop vita Tuscana. Thank you for your time and
consideration. Steve Smith
under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want
your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by
telephone or in writing.
page 1
Packet Page -171-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
From: StrainMark
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 7:40 PM
To: DeselemKay
subject: FW: The Park and olde Cypress
Another for distribution.
email from Catalano 2-21-11.txt
.
Mark
From: catalanosusan@aol.com [catalanosusan@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:50 PM
To: StrainMark
subject: The Park and olde cypress
Mr. Strain,
We would like to add our 2 cents to the ongoing debate about a potential park
in olde cypress. We are AGAINST such park and are pleased with the plans the
Stock corporation has for improving our community with the additions to the
workout center, etc. We are embarrassed by the haranguing of our neighbors and
would like to see this issue put to rest once and for all.
Thank you,
John and Susan Catalano
2790 olde Cypress Drive
Naples FL 34119
239-592-1700
under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want
your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by
telephone or in writing.
.
Page 1
.
Packet Page -172-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
email from Dennis Deluca to Mark Strain 2-21-11.txt
From: StrainMark
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 2:09 PM
To: dennispdeluca@aol.com
Cc: DeselemKay
subject: FW: FW: letter to M. Strain re olde cypress PUD
Attachments: Mark Strain OCMPOA 2-28.doc
Thank you and by copy of this email to staff I ask that they also distribute
this email to the other members of the CCPC.
Mark
From: dennispdeluca [dennispdeluca@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 11:33 AM
TO: StrainMark
Cc: aadeluca@comcast.net; ssmith@lesmith.com; Cosmo Trapani;
ssmith@lesmith.com; venhg@embarqmail.com; Damianthoma@gmail.com
subject: Fwd: FW: letter to M. Strain re olde Cypress PUD
Mr. strain,
I am a resident of olde Cypress living at 2847 Lone pine Lane. I am in receipt
of Mr. slaught's and Mr. Duncan's letters to you. I am in full agreement with
Mr. Duncan and do not agree with Mr. slaught at all. I purchased my home in
February of 2001 and I can assure you that throughout that time Mr. stock has
been a fair and generous owner of this development. I am vehemently opposed to
the construction of a park.
Dennis P Deluca
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Steve Smith" <ssmith@lesmith.com>
subject: FW: Letter to M. strain re olde Cypress PUD
Date: February 20, 2011 1:07:38 PM EST
To: "murfmurphy@verizon.net" <murfmurphy@verizon.net>, "Cosmo and Irene
Trapani (c. trapani@comcast. net)" <co trapani@comcast.net>, "Howard and Gai 1
venger" <venhg@embarqmail.com>, "c2a2ls@naples.net" <c2a2ls@naples.net>
;,"publisheroh@insight.rr.com" <publisheroh@insight.rr.com>, "Damian & cheryl
Thomas cdamian.thoma@gmail.com)" <damian.thoma@gmail.com>, "Gordon and
Jennifer Johnson (johnsonj@mtco.com)" <johnsonj@mtco.com>, "steve Smith"
<ssmith@lesmith.com>, "Nick Boccella" <boccnick@yahoo.com>, "jim taylor,"
<btaylore@swbell.net>, "Jim Hamilton" <cahami6@aol.com>, "dennis komatz,"
<cdkomatz@comcast.net>, "dennis deluca," <dennispdeluca@aol.com>, "jack
duncan," <duncanjt@yahoo.com>, "chris hiotis," <hiotiselgreco@gmail.com> ,
"j ake 1 amotta," <j ake l141@yahoo. com>, "j oe raffae 1 e, "
<joeraffaele@plantationproducts.com>, "mark adams," <mark.adams.d@gmail.com>,
"Ralph Edwards" <ralph_edwards@comcast.net>, "Burgo, Ray" <slburgo@yahoo.com>,
"tom sukay," <tomsukay@comcast.net>
Cc: "Halpern, Bob" <bobhalpern@comcast.net>, "James walpole"
<jwwalpole@comcast.net>
Attachments: 1 Attachment, 27.0 KB
Gentlemen, sorry for not including the attachment containing Jack's email on
my first email. Here it is! Steve
From: John Duncan [duncanj68@gmail.com]
Sent: saturday, February 19, 2011 10:03 AM
To: Markstrain@colliergov.net
cc: Damian Thomas; to Paul schultz; sdamanagement@comcast.net; Tom Tatro;
Steve smith; lLiz Hines; Scott Hunter; halpern.bob@gmail.com;
venhg@embarqmail.co m; dickkernan@aol.com; Ken Lanigan; paffel, Kelly; Cos and
Irene Trapani; Robert Cosgrove; JOE RAFFAELE; JOE BARRY; Jack;
jackpalmer@comcast.net; Jeff Folkman; rlrotunda@comcast.net;
erisa41@hotmail.com; diana.reuling@gmail.com; Jake LaMotta; Andy D'JamOOs;
ckansy@gulfshoremortgage.com; henryf@acidevelopment.biz; gstwoelk@aol.com;
John & patty Malaspina; pignataror; boydteam@comcast.net; griders@comcast.net;
page 1
Packet Page -173-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
email from Dennis Deluca to Mark Strain 2-21-11.txt
chuckslaght@comcast.net
subject: letter to M. strain re olde cypress PUD
please see attached letter to M. Strain
.
under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want
your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by
telephone or in writing.
.
page 2
.
Packet Page -174-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Sukay&. A "~
~ .;;J.~. ~ r-: ~~j~' ~ n fO ~
. i 1\,.....'...') \..,n""", ~ '-Il M ~, ""'"
. , ~ 1 _ ~" .
..... ~-'...,....~I""'&', -.tl.......~...,. ./~'" __~.._>#.........._,. [..0:-., .....,.._ ....._...~);,., ,~
" .- .f<_l . -,'. ~ _~ __- p-' t." _ - I,' ~.,,,, f ;i ~ '1 _... .
fJ~ .u"...i v'.O' hJd }~"l U t<.:_ '.............~~<:....! H',.".., Oi ~fa~ '1..' "'.....1..;" ~If.-l
- ".
Mark Strain
Collier County Planning Commission
E-mail MarkStrainuv.colliergov.net
February 21,2011
Re: OIde Cypress Zoning Change application
Dear Mr. Strain:
Although not copied on the original distribution, I have received copies of letters prepared by
Mr. Duncan and Mr. Slaught. Although I clearly agree with the content of Mr. Duncan's letter, I
thought I would offer a different perspective. Mr. Slaught represents my interests in my
neighborhood association and I've know Mr. Duncan for many years.
.
I purchased my home in Olde Cypress in October 2007. During our search for a home, we spent
time with a realtor looking at many neighborhoods in North Naples. During our search, the
realtor did not mention that a park was part of the long term plans at Olde Cypress. As a result,
it did not factor into our final decision to buy a home at Olde Cypress. If we had known about
the park, it would not have altered our purchase price in any manner.
Weare full time residents. During the last three years, we have become very comfortable with
the community. We have become friends with many other couples. We had never heard about a
park or anyone's interest in having one added to the community. Last fall, we attended a
meeting with Brian Stock regarding Vita Tuscano, the expanded health center and other plans for
the community. Prior to that meeting, we became aware of the need to change the POO to
remove a park from the plan. We also became aware that this was an emotional issue that
seemed more tied to leveraging the park against Brian Stock than to the interest in a park.
We were pleasantly surprised at the Stock meeting that the community seemed very civil and
that the support for the park seemed to be isolated to the members of our neighborhood board.
The recent poll was filled with many flaws. I can't be sure that any side didn't influence the
results. However, only 207 of the 419 residents responded. The results were split in favor of
those who wanted the park and those who supported the change in the PUD. Common sense
would seem to indicate that anyone who was against the change in the PUD would be more
likely to vote than someone who supported the change or those who had no strong opinion. As a
result, I contend that the poll results actually do reflect that the Olde Cypress community does
strongly support the change to the PUD.
Tom Sukay
.
Packet Page -175-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
From: StrainMark
Sent: sunday, February
To: Ralph Edwards
Cc: DeselemKay
subject: RE: olde
email from Ralph Edwards 2-18-11.txt
20, 2011 9:57 AM
.
cypress
Thank you for your comments and by copy of this to staff I will forward this
on to the others on the commission.
Mark
From: Ralph Edwards [ralph_edwards@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 4:12 PM
To: StrainMark .
subject: olde cypress
Dear Mr. Strain
I attended the meeting Thursday regarding the issues surrounding olde cypress
and the new development, vita Tuscana. To say I learned a great deal about
the function of your group of commissioners would be an understatement. I
also learned a great deal about our residents. I have been a resident of olde
cypress since 2000. My only concerns have been early with the problems
surrounding the Hardy family and now with the irrational attitude of some of
our residents. A minority of our residents have an anger issue which I am
embarrassed to see. Mr. stock and his group have been reasonable and
appreciated by my wife and I especially in this real estate/golf market. I
can't imagine how we could be better served as citizens of collier county with
another developer. Rumors and innuendo aside, no park is wanted or needed by
the residents especially if it is in close proximity to the golf course. If
that were to occur, our values will be adversely affected. I'm sure the
threat of litigation by one of our neighbors will not have any influence on
votes!
.
please allow the stock group an opportunity to complete our development in a
manner that will be profitable for him and in a manner that will enhance our
community without damaging our fine golf course.
sincerely,
Ralph H. Edwards, CIC
7484 Treeline Dr.
Naples, Fl.
Sent from my ipad
under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want
your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by
telephone or in writing.
Page 1
.
Packet Page -176-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
DeselemKay
From:
. Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
StrainMark
Sunday, February 20, 2011 9:59 AM
duncanj68@gmail.com
DeselemKay
FW: Letter to M. Strain re Olde Cypress PUD
Mark Strain OCMPOA 2-28.doc
Thank you and by copy of this to staff I will ask that this be forwarded to the other
Commission members.
Mark
From: John Duncan [duncanj68@gmail.com]
Sent: SaturdaYJ February 19J 2e11 1e:e3 AM
To: StrainMark
Cc: Damian Thomas; to Paul Schultz; sdamanagement~comcast.netj Tom Tatro; Steve & Cathy
Smith; lLiz Hinesj Scott Hunter; halDern.bob@gmail.com; venhg@embaramail.com;
dickkernan~aol.comj Ken Lanigan; PaffelJ Kelly; Cos and Irene Trapani; Robert Cosgrove; JOE
RAFFAELE; JOE BARRY; Jack; iackDalmer@comcast.net; Jeff Folkman; rlrotunda@comcast.netj
erisa41@hotmail.com; diana.reuling@gmail.com; Jake LaMotta; Andy D'Jamoos;
ckansy~gulfshoremortgage.comj henryf@acideveloDment.bizj gstwoelk@aol.com; John & Patty
Malaspina; pignataror; boydteam@comcast.net; griders@comcast.net; chuckslaght@comcast.net
Subject: Letter to M. Strain re Olde Cypress PUD
Please see attached letter to M. Strain
.under Florida LawJ e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail
address released in response to a public records requestJ do not send electronic mail to this
entity. InsteadJ contact this office by telephone or in writing.
.
2
Packet Page -177-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
From: StrainMark
sent: sunday, February 20, 2011 10:00 AM
To: Jill & Steve Ducatman
cc: Dese 1 emKay
subject: RE: I am a resident in olde
email message from Ducatman 2-20-11.txt
.
cypress
Thank you and by copy of this to staff I will ask that your comments be
distributed to the other commissioners.
Mark
From: Jill & Steve Ducatman [jsducatman@mac.com]
Sent: sunday, February 20, 2011 8:05 AM
TO: StrainMark
subject: I am a resident in olde cypress
My husband and I have lived in olde cypress since 2004. We have more respect
for Brian stock than we do for the irrational neighbors we have who seem to
think Mr. Stock and his company owe them something. stock Development has
been more than reasonable in his work developing our community. We neither
want, nor do we need, any recompense for a clerical error. Nor do we want a
park. It is a very vocal minority of residents who continue to insist on
compensation for a park. We are embarassed by that vocal minority.
I am sorry that I missed the meeting of the CCPC. please understand that the
vast majority of the residents are equally embarassed by the vocal few who
have become obsessed over this issue and are demanding that approval not be
granted to stock Development over this idea that the company owes us
something. The majority of us respect the work stock Development has done,
and want them to continue developing our community.
Jill Ducatman
3137 Terramar Drive
Olde cypress
.
under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want
your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by
telephone or in writing.
page 1
.
Packet Page -178-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
.
Mark Strain
Collier County Planning Commission
E-mail MarkStrain@colliergov.net
Re: Olde Cypress Zoning Change application
Letter from C. Slaught to Mark Strain 2/17/11
Dear Mr. Strain:
I am a resident of Olde Cypress and am in possession of a copy of Mr. Slaught's above
referenced letter to you of2/17/11. Several of his comments do not reflect my
understanding of the role of the Master Association vs. that of the neighborhood
association representatives. Nor do his comments represent my experience with the
OCMPOA and its leadership.
The Olde Cypress Master is made op of several ELECTED individuals who have very
specific responsibilities dealing with those issues relevant to the community as a whole,
including representing the total community interests to the developer, county agencies
etc. For the record, they do not collect golf dues but rather collect fees associated with
the maintenance of property under their control such as the roadways, common areas, and
security .
.
As a result of the way OC was originally developed, there are several neighborhoods
each with their own interest and responsibilities. These may include water rights for
irrigation, owner landscaping and maintenance, pond maintenance etc. Each has an
elected neighborhood association and these neighborhood associations collect fees from
their respective residents to cover costs specific to their neighborhood and collect the
OCMPOA fees as a convenience for the master. Each neighborhood also names an
individual (neighborhood representative) to liaise with the Master Board to insure
neighborhood interests are properly represented.
Relevant to the issue of the desirability of a park, each neighborhood representative was
asked to poll his residents on this question, and provide that information to the OCMPOA
to be in turn provided to your office prior to the hearing. In my neighborhood (Da Vinci)
this was done without lobbying on the part of the individual doing the polling. However,
given the significant disparity in results between neighborhoods, it calls into question
whether this was done in this manner in all neighborhoods, or whether the well known
personal opinion of some of the neighborhood reps was in play either with selective
polling, or lobbying.
I will not opine on the park issue other to say that! think. it to be a "red herring" with the
real issue being that some of the early residents were promised a park by the developer
and given that it is impractical now to implement, want something in return for their
acquiescence. My bet is that nobody really wants a park per se.
.
Packet Page -179-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
My purpose here is just to correct Mr. Slaught's letter to you, and to give one residents
approval of the activity of our Master Board. Mr. Slaught does not represent me or for
that matter" We all" in his opinion that the OCMPOA "frequently inflates", and
"oversteps" their roles or responsibilities. This is further evidenced by the large majority
vote received by the board in the most recent elections.
.
Very Truly Yours
Jack Duncan
.
.
Packet Page -180-
.
.
.
-~....,
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Good Morningl Afternoon Commissioners, My name is Charles Slaght and I reside at
2918 Lone Pine Lane, Naples, Florida, 34119
I am going to read my statement as this is limited to a 5 minute presentation a written
copy of this presentation will be provided..
r am goingto reach way back and frame the picture briefly... we've all heard,
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness which was originally:penned as Life,
Liberty, and Property"
With this said I lead into my presentation with: If someone takes my property rights from
me, someday that someone or others may take your.property!
Property Rights are extended to owners when they purchase lots within a development.
Yes there are deed restrictions and conveyances which litriit or prescribe ,certain. activities
within community and are regulated by by-laws and HOA Boards. Homes are built on
specific purchased lots hut amenities many times are located elsewhere in a community
but you have certain rights conveyed like access to these amenities especially if-they are
used to entice you to buy their lots and build in their community. We bought our property
outright, then just a vacant lot, in the OC development as we were enchanted by the many
advertised amenities, this then made us partial owners in current and future amenities,
and decided to build our dream home in Olde Cypress (yes we do pay dues to use and
upkeep these amenities).
Let me digress, a representative of Stock Development, Chris St Cyr, presented all the
Olde Cypress amenities and helped us tour the community handing us off to a builders
representative and at no time were we told that the promised park, nature trails, or
boardwalk would not be provided due to build..;out or by a developer's failure to plan for
these amenities (on this. tour two possible sites for a park were presented: end of Lone
Pine lane and Wild Orchid). Printed sales materials and'the.onIine website for OIde
Cypress also stated that there would be parks, nature trails, etc. within the.community.
There are a number of documents that were passed into existence by different legal
county and state entities (CCPC, BCC they may have had different names but these
.agencies function to protect the state, the county, the .developer,and the eventual owner).
These are legal documents with specific requirements as dictated by the State of Florida
and Collier County (DRI/PUDIDO) which were signed and agreed to by all parties before
any clearing or construction ever began.
Developers submit documents (DRI's, PUD's and DO's) and want approval to .develop
and of course they want to make money doing this as a part of their American dream to
make a reasonable profit on their monetary risk. County and state agencies ensure the
documents are legal, are reviewed by the County Attorney, cover various legal
requirements, protect the citizens from harm, these documents represent a .written picture
of whatthe developer wants to build, and axe only passed once all legal criteria has been
Packet Page -181-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
satisfied. With this due diligence, due regard, and due care how can a developer later
rescind this agreement; I am a bit mystified (as wording within the PUD/DRIlDO states
this is even legally binding on successors)?
.
I have submitted many emails and letters with a vast number of issues to the cepe and
the BCC and I trust you have read them an however let me provide some history and
distill some of the information please bear with. me. Mention was made in these
documents as:
· Original documents were filed as "The Woodlands" development and were filed
by the Immokalee Road Partnership, Inc. (the principle parties)
· Providing bicycle-pedestrian system along all roads within the project [also]
provision for bike racks or storage facilitieS in.recreationa:l.areas DO 86-1
. Providing parks, nature trails and Boardwalk, bicycle paths, passive recreational
uses of wetlands, and other facilities for recreation to be maintained by the HOA
was submitted in Ordinance 86-75
. Interestingly providing a polling place and adequate hurricane sheltering were
also stipulated in Ordinance 86-75
. Exhibit <<R" of Ordinance 86-75 shows position of parks in northeast comer
. Resolution 87.:96 modifies transporta:tionissues
. Resolution 87-207 references acreages therein and increases preserve area (91-
149 acres) no modification to the rest of Ordinance 86-75
. Resolution 94-774 and DO.# 94-4 <'no changes to master plan" and new
commencement date of October 7, 2000
.
ACollier County Code Enforcement claim (CESD20100020925) was filed against the
developer on or about November 18, 2010. It was not until the da:te thattheCCPC
hearing was announced via mail did I find out that my claim was closed (no letter, no
communication, nothing). I was sent an email by County Staff dated January 3rd from :Mr.
Richard y ovanovic~ Esq. where he had replied and stated that the OC PUD was not
being closed out and therefore the Notice of Violation must be rescinded and also later
stated that "The Master Association is supporting the proposed amendmenf' (I continue
to ask for documentation of this Master POA action and signed: conveyance and to date
none has been supplied therefore you should request such signed documentation which
may also be an illegal uttering or conveyance by ail mentioned parties). HI can not file a
claim for a Code Enforcement Violation then how can the developer ask for an
amendment dropping the park, nature trails, and bike paths: I'm puzzled?
In your packet you have numerous other email communications which.I.havesent to each
of you and I ask that you review these in your mind as there are many conoerns that I and
others have regarding the purposed amendments and filings that affect the OIde Cypress
PUDIDRI/DO. I am also concerned with the 33 multiple family units requested in the
third action before you as this is surely does not fit our community PUDas Single family
units and is not desired by the community.
.
Packet Page -182-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
.
While it may appear that the solution regarding a 3.9 acre (or whatever size is required)
park may seem insurmountable there are surely solutions which would be amenable to
the developer, the community, and the County (small pocket parks). The Nature
TraHs/Boardwalks and bike paths are a more difficult barrier to broach but .by our
working hand in hand there could be a solution found here as well. Bike racks are easily
placed at the fitness center and clubhouse and possible park sites so this isa simple
solution. Where there is a will there surely must be a way if the developer, the
community, and County agencies all work together to :find amiable solutions that create a
win-win scenario providing these amenities for everyone.
I am. a disabled veteran, lhave served and sacrificed offering my life and my physical
wellbeing for each of you to have the rights I spoke of in the beginning (Life, Liberty,
and the Pursuit of Happiness - Property). I am not here for accolades or honor but I am
here to see justice prevail! While others within our community may want to give up their
rights to real property I do not, and the dissention otone in this case has to be upheld for
all. I ask that you protect me and others who need your support, disallow the
petition Jor amendment of the OC DRIlPUDfDO, and that y-ou chal!ge the developer
to work with the community-and the County to meetalll~gal requirements of these
foundational.documents and any others that have jurisdiction. Thankyou!
.
.
Packet Page -183-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
February 11th, 2011
Kay Deselem, please let this document serve as an official Olde Cypress Community response to your
phone call on Friday, February 4th 2011. During our conversation you shared that your Superior Nick
Casalanguida had specifically requested that I poll the Olde Cypress community to determine if, based
on the pending PUD amendment before the commission (PUDA-PL2010-388), do the residents want a
Dark or not. I shared with you at that time that the documents of the Olde Cypress community do not
recognize voting on issues by individual homes (one house, one vote) except in the case of voting for
Directors of the Master Board. In other than voting for Directors for the Master Board, Neighborhood
Representatives represent the position of individual associations. Therefore a "Doli" was conducted by
email and was not intended to be a "vote" as the Olde Cypress Master Association documents require
any neighborhood vote to be cast by the Neighborhood Representative during a duly noticed meeting
for that purpose. Since the Master Association cannot audit the results of such a poll we cannot attest
to the accuracy or completeness of the results reported by each Neighborhood Representative. Nor, do
the results of the poll measure the homeowner's understanding of what elements constitute a "Park" -
bare land vs. improvements.
On Monday February 7th 2011, I received an emaiJ memo from you with a follow on emaiJ from Nick
Casalanguida as follows;
flKay, please explain to Damian that it was my request to get a clear community desire and that simply
asking yes or no on the park does not define the issue. I would suggest that they hold an internal HOA
meeting and vet the subject and then report back their findings. This should include each sub HOA".
This was not done as the polling process had already begun and frankly speaking, holding an HOA
meeting to discuss this issue, in my view, was ill advised at this time.
The results of the em ail poll taken: only 207 ofthe 419 residents (49%) participated. The results are as
follows; 50.7% want a park, 45.4% do not want a park. 3.9% responded to a question that was not
asked.
Kay, based on Nick's February 7th email memo, I am not sure the approach taken satisfies his intended
purpose and therefore appear meaningless and of little value.
Respectfully,
Damian A. Thomas
On behalf of the Olde Cypress BOD
Packet Page -184-
.
.
.
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gary R Lusher [garyrlusher@gmail.com]
Thursday, February 10, 20111:30 PM
'Damian Thomas'
Poll of Terra mar at Olde Cypress Homeowners Regarding the Pending Olde
Cypress PUD Amendment
Good Afternoon Damian:
As requested I conducted a "poll" of homeowners in Terramar at Olde Cypress regarding whether or not
they "support" or "oppose" Stock Development being released from the requirements of a "park" as
described in the original Olde Cypress PUD. The poll was conducted by email and was not intended to
be a "vote" as the Olde Cypress Master Association documents require any neighborhood vote to be
cast by the Neighborhood Representative during a duly noticed meeting for that purpose.
The results of the poll are as follows:
Total Homeowners: 55
Total Homeowners responding: 22
Total Homeowners responding "Support" 9
Total Homeowners responding "Oppose" 12
Respectfully,
Gary Lusher
President and Neighborhood Representative
Terramar at Olde Cypress
Packet Page -185-
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Wcs5353@aol.com
Thursday, February 10, 2011 6:20 PM
aadeluca@comcast.net; glusher@comcast.net; SSmith@lesmith:com;
dickkernan@aol.com; wcs5353@aol.com;
jam es.costello@morganstanley.com; sjensen l@comcast.net;
EvetsElec@aol.com; rlrotunda@comcast.net; tatrotm@hotmail.com;
jmfolkman@gmail.com; pjkien@aol.com;
sdam a nagement@comcast.net; m u rphybrianj@yahoo.com;
DeselemKay; CasalanguidaNick
Park or No Park
Egret Cove polling result were as follows;
10 for Park
12 of 16 homes responded as follows:
2 For No Park
4 no response
Bill Snyder, ECHOA
Packet Page -186-
.
.
.
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
From:
Sent:
To:
Dr. Albert Deluca [aadeluca@comcast.net]
Thursday, February 10,2011 7:40 PM
'Damian Thomas'; 'Gary lusher'; 'Steve & Cathy Smith';
dickkernan@aol.com; wcs5353@aol.com; 'James Costello'; 'Susan
Jensen'; EvetsElec@aol.com; 'Brian Murphy'
r1rotunda@comcast.net; 'Tom Tatro'; 'Jeff Folkman'; 'Paul Schultz';
sdamanagement@comcast.net; DeselemKay; CasalanguidaNick
RE: aide Cypress Homeowner Association Poll
Cc:
Subject:
Damian,
As directed in your emails of Feb 4 and Feb. 5. 2011, the residents of the aide Cypress Homeowners
Association were polled individually byemail. The 185 residents were asked for their input on whether
or not Stock should be released from the requirement which now stands in the DRI and PUD for park
(green) space within the aide Cypress Community. This is only a poll, not a vote ofthe Neighborhood.
The results are as follows:
In favor of keeping requirement of park space............. .................................................43
Replied with need of compensation if there is to be removal of park requirement..........8
To release Stock from obligation for park space............................................................20
Non respo nse................................................................. .......... ........ ...114
Neighborhood tota I count................... .......... ......... ...... .... ...................185
Of the non responses there were at least 4 who subm itted questions and concerns, but voiced no
opinion either way and therefore could not be counted.
Adrienne
OCHOA
Packet Page -187-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Cc:
Brian J. Murphy [murphybrianj@yahoo.com]
Thursday, February 10, 20115:06 PM
'Damian Thomas'; aadeluca@comcast.net; 'Gary Lusher'; 'Steve &
Cathy Smith'; dickkernan@aol.com; wcs5353@aol.com; 'James
Costello'; 'Susan Jensen'; EvetsElec@aol.com
rlrotunda@comcast.net; 'Tom Tatro'; 'Jeff Folkman'; 'Paul Schultz';
sd a management@comcast.net; mu rphybrianj@yahoo.com;
DeselemKay; CasalanguidaNick
Santa Rosa HOA Poll Results RE: Stock Development PUD
Amendment
.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Santa Rosa Homeowners Association Residents have been polled individually by email on Kay
Deselem's, Collier County Growth Management Division, question as conveyed by Damian Thomas'
February 4 email. Formal documentation has been received from all eligible Santa Rosa(SR) respondents
(24 of 26 property owners) and are the basis for counting the results.
On the Question quoted of Kay Deselem on behalf of Collier County Growth Management Division: "Do
the residents of aide Cypress want a park or not?", Santa Rosa's polling results are as follows:
YES: 23 No:! Total Replies: 24 No Reply to the Polling Request: 2 Total Residents in Santa
Rosa Community are 26. Therefore 95.8% of Replies are In Favor; 88.5% of SR answered In Favor.
Foryour information (and perhaps future use), ifthe current PUD requirement of this provision prevails
in the upcoming decisions by the County's Planning Commission and the County Commissioners: That
decision by the County being to continue with the PUD language requiring that Stock Development
provide a park and trails. Santa Rosa Homeowners Association Residents were further polled on a
second Question. It was asked at the direction of the Officers of the Board of Directors of our SR HOA.
The second Question asked if Stock Development could not, for any reason and/or for whatever reason,
meet a County upheld reQuirement for a park and trails, should aide Cypress Community receive some
eQuitable or eQuivalent offset's); compensation of some kind; tangible "considerations", services or the
like from Stock Development in settlement for this requirement?
.
On this second Question, which again is intended and offered to convey the opinions and sentiments of
Santa Rosa's residents, the results are: Yes: 23 No: Q 24 Residents replied to this.
On behalf of the Santa Rosa residents and the HaA, we look forward to receiving the totaled up results
for aide Cypress Community when they are sent to Collier County officials and agencies.
Respectfully,
Brian J Murphy
Neighborhood Representative
7372 Monteverde Way
From: Damian Thomas rmailto:damianthoma(Cilgmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 04,2011 5:58 PM
To: aadeluca(Cilcomcast.net; Gary Lusher; Steve & Cathy Smith; Brian J. Murphy; dickkernan(ci)aol.com;
wcs5353(Cilaol.com
.
Packet Page -188-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Cc: rlrotunda(a)comcast.net; Tom Tatro; Jeff Folkman; Paul Schultz; sdamanagement@comcast.net;
KavDeselem(a)collierQov.net .
Subject: Stock Development PUD Amendment
Fellow Residents of Olde Cypress, this afternoon I received a phone call from Kay Deselem,
Principal Planner for Collier County Growth Management Division of Planning & Regulation
Land Development Services. Consistent with the requested PUD Amendment for aIde
Cypress, (pUDA-PL2010-388) that is pending Collier County Planning Commission decision,
she has a specific request that requires your attention. The request is that you poll your
respective communities and ask the following question: "Do the residents of OIde
Cypress want a park or not". I will then document the results of your poll and provide an official Olde
Cypress Community position response for inclusion into the package that will be given to the Planning Board during
the decision making process. I explained to Ms. Deselem the process for accumulating information through the
Neighborhood Representatives and promised to follow that process.
As you know the Collier County Planning Board meets on February 17th and the County process
can be deliberate so I am asking some urgency with your poll. Kindly send me your community
poll results no later than end of business Thursdav Februanr 10th. Preferably the results
should be absolute, meaning the exact number that responded and the specific vote "Yes or
NOli, IIPARK or NO PARK II. I will then officially document your responses in a letter and
send to Ms. Deselem and also post on our website. I assume this input will be one of the
variables that is taken into consideration when the Planning Commission renders their decision.
Thanks for your continued support.
Respectfully,
Damian A. Thomas
on behalf of the OCMPOA BOD
Packet Page -189-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
DeselemKay
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Strain Mark
Tuesday, February 08, 2011 1 :56 PM
Chuck Slaght
DeselemKay; CasalanguidaNick; AshtonHeidi
RE: [Olde Cypress Master Property Owners Association Newsletter]: Memo to Residents
sharing need for vote on park
.
Importance:
High
I have read your comments and wish to clarify something...........THE COllIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION DID NOT ASK FOR A POLLING OF YOUR COMMUNITY.
As chairman of the CCPC I am concerned that you would have this idea and ask that you PLEASE
correct this statement to anyone you may have made this too. Without a vote or meeting on
this subject BY THE CCPC it would have been impossible to have made such a request of your
community, regardless whether or not we even had the authority to do so to begin with.
i appreciate your assistance with this matter.
thank you,
Mark
From: Chuck Slaght [chuckslaght@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, February 87, 2811 5:87 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Fw: [Olde Cypress Master Property Owners Association NeWSletter]: Memo to Residents.
sharing need for vote on park
Dear Chairman Strain,
Here is a copy of the letter sent to resident-owners in the Olde Cypress Development for your
reference as I am not sure this has reached your desk.
Sincerely,
Chuck Slaght
----- Original Message -----
From: <Admin~OCMasterPOA.com>
To: <chuckslaght@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, February 8S, 2811 86:83 PM
Subject: [Olde Cypress Master Property Owners Association Newsletter]: Memo to Residents
sharing need for vote on park
> Olde Cypress Master Property Owners Association Newsletter
>
>
> Fellow Residents of Olde Cypress,
>
> As one of the variable elements of addressing the Olde Cypress PUD
> (PUDA-PL2818-388) amendment, currently before the planning commission
1
.
Packet Page -190-
> for a decision~ we have been asked by the Collier County Planning
> Commission to poll the residents of Olde Cypress to determine who
> wants a park and who does not. We have therefore sent a memo to all
> Neighborhood Representatives asking them to poll the residents of
. > their respective communities to find out Yes or No on the park. You
> should be hearing from your respective Neighborhood Representatives asking
preference.
> We have requested that the tabulated responses be absolute and should
> specifically state the number of responses and the specific Yes/No counts.
> We have requested the results be returned by February 10th. The
> results will be tabulated~ posted on the Master web site and also sent
> to the county to aid in their decision making planning process. The
> Planning Commission meets on February 17th.
>
> For ease in responding your respective Neighborhood Representatives
> e-mail addresses is as follows:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> When you receive the request from your Neighborhood Representative~
> the above addresses should assist with your responses.
>
>
>
.~
>
>
>
> Kindly do your part to keep Olde Cypress one of the most desirable
> communities in-Naples.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://ocmasterpoa.com
>
> - Olde Cypress Master Property Owners Association Staff
>
>
>
>
>
> =========================================================
>
>
>
>
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
for your
Da Vinci Dick Kearnan dickkernan~aol.com Santa Rosa Brian Murphy
murphybriani~Yahoo.com Strada Bella Steve Smith SSmith~lesmith.com
Santorini Susan Jensen siensenl~comcast.net Terramar Gary Lusher
~lusher~comcast.net Egret Cove Bill Snyder wcs5353~aol.com Olde
Cypress Adrienne Deluca aadeluca~comcast.net Biscayne Jim Costello
iames.costello~morganstanley.com
This email is being sent to all residents who are registered on the
Master Association website. If you know someone who is not
registered~ suggest that they register to be kept informed of Master Association
You might always want to advise those not registered to expect a
request for vote from their Neighborhood Representative. Your vote is
important so be sure to get involved.
business.
Respectfully~
Damian A. Thomas
On behalf of the OCMPOA BOD
You are receiving this Newsletter because you selected to receive it
from your user page at Olde Cypress Master Property Owners Association.
You can unsubscribe from this service by clicking in the following URL:
http://OCMasterPOA.com/user.php?op=edituser
2
Packet Page -191-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
> then select "No" from the option to Receive Newsletter by Email and
> save your changes, if you need more assistance please contact aIde
> Cypress Master Property Owners Association administrator.
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail
address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this
entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
.
.
.
3
Packet Page -192-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
DeselemKay
. From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Reinhard Werthner [reinhardw5101@gmail.com]
Monday, February 07, 2011 2:53 PM
DeselemKay; Strain Mark
Old Cypress - Board of County Commissioners Meeting - PUDZ-PL2010-1054
Dear Ms. Kay Deselem and Mr. Mark Strain
I am writing to express our strong feelings toward the recommendations to the County Commissioners
regarding two petitions submitted by Stock Development about our community.
Our particular point of concern is that contained in each petition to develop the 63 acres in the area presently
identified as "Vita Tuscana," Stock Development is asking the county to remove its long standing written
obligation [1] to develop Nature Trails and a minimum of 3.9 acres of parks within Olde Cypress.
Stock Development has not met their obligation and want the County Commissioners to relieve them of their
responsibility so that they do not have to develop a park and Nature Trails within the "Vita Tuscana" land
parcel.
We feel strongly that Stock Development is obligated to his contractual Park development commitments to
develop a minimum of3.9 acres of park (s) and Nature Trails within "Vita T~s~?iIla" as. they planned for the
community to become part of our aIde Cypress we love so much. 'I'h.~;PW'lbd"V'~~e,11lentioned "during~the fSales
pit~h:$ \ve-.ciedded:to;ma1c~.o14eCypressoubretite~elft :l1ome:::.~ .ibait--andis\mtch! - -
Thanks for your understanding and support. lbis contractual commitment should not be waived as it will lower
.its value of the total- community and our life style.
Regards
Reinhard & Marie Werthner
Full time residence
7527 Treeline Drive
Naples, FI 34119
.
1
Packet Page -193-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
From: eal!le21632@ao1.com [mailto:eagle21632@ao1.com]
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 2:00 PM
To: Glen Fulker
Subject: Re: Important Message from Your BOA Neighborhood Representative
.
I oppose Stock Development being released from his requirement to set
aside the 3.9 acres ofland for park or green space. This was
represented to me to be included as Common property when I purchased my
house in 2005. I would agree with taking any legal action which may be
necessary to enforce this stipulation.
Being a Builder and Developer all of my professional career, I cannot
fathom why any consideration would be entertained to release the
Developers from their obligations, at the expense of all Olde Cypress
residents in this matter..
George M. Alliegro
2778 aIde Cypress Drive
.
.
Packet Page -194-
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
DeselemKay
. From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pignataror@aol.com
Monday, February 07, 2011 4:29 PM
DeselemKay; StrainMark .
Pud proposals
As a resident of Olde Cypress I would like you and the planning commission to know I support the three Pud proposals
DOA-PL2010-1052, PUDA-PL2010-388 and PUDZ-PL2010-1054 which you will consideron February 17, 2011.
I believe the development of that parcel by Stock is in the best interest of the community especially considering an
alternative could have been condos or other uses. I also believe the park proposal which has a number of people
concerned would be a waste of space and not used by the community at large. It is unfortunate that wasn't enforced
during the original development in a more suitable location.
Having said that I do believe the planning commission should consider requiring Stock to put a wall along Imokalee rd as
part of his plan. A wall would be secure. a sound barrier, and when the landscape grows, esthetically pleasing. Virtually all
communities have them from high end ( gray oaks etc) to moderate (Island walk. village walk) the only glaring exception is
Longshore lakes and their wooden wall is an eyesore and always falling down. This should become a mandate throughout
Collier to keep the character of our community intact .
Thank you for all you efforts on our behalf
Richard Pignataro
7519 Treeline dr
Naples FL
1
Packet Page -195-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Ms. Kay Deselem, AIep
Ms. Nancy Gundlach, AICP
Principal Planners
Collier County Land Development Services
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
.
7480 Treeline Drive
Naples, FL 34119
February 4, 2011
c:;:~ -'.' ~
.~~ ~
Re: DOA-PL2010-1052
PUDZ-PL2010-1054
PUDA-PL2010-388
Dear Ms. Deselem and Ms. Gundlach,
.
Please let me take this opportunity to comment on this pending
proceeding. The issue has essentially been building for many years.
Wnen my husband and I purchased a home in Olde Cypress, we were
drawn to the value for the money, the landscaping and the amenities.
While neither of us are golf members nor do we play tennis, we looked
forward to regularly using the fitness center (which we still do) and
walking on the walking trails. We expected our grandchildren would
.play in the parks when they came to visit.
We quickly found out that the fitness center is woefully inadequate in
size - a situation which the developer has been promising to remedy for
five years. The walking trails do not exist. In the mid 2000's, security
guards in golf carts would order walkers off the golf course cart paths
citing insurance re~ulations.
.
Packet Page -196-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Ms. Kay Deselem, AICP
Ms. Nancy Gundlach, AICP
February 4,2011
Page two
The 3.9 acre park does not exist. The developer m~de' three efforts to
rectify this omission. Initially, he proposed taking part of the driving
range to become a park. Predictably, a frrestorm of protest from the
golfers rejected that idea. Secondly, he added a "park" within feet of
Immokalee Road and the Cocohatchee Slough around a pond. The trail
in it is typically on a 30 degree angle with several badly worn benches
added as afterthoughts. Where are the parks my impact fees bought?
Thirdly, and unconscionably, the developer is now requesting in these
three interlocking petitions - amongst other thIDgs - that the requirement
for a park be dropped because 0 Ide Cypress is built -out, county staff
missed the" requirement for said park (that statement was made in a
public meeting in front of county employees!) and because there is no
more room for a park in aide Cypress.
Sadly, in its analysis of the petitions, county staff seems to agree with
the petitioner. Elimination of the 3.9 acre park requirement would be a
huge miscarriage of justice and violation of county ordin~ces. It would
add sev~re injury to the insults that the homeowners of Olde Cypress
have en4ured for at least five years at the hands of the developer.
Thank you very much for your time, consideration and your efforts at a
fair and considerate conclusion to this situation.
v ~ry truly yours,
~J4I3>>1~
Sally B. Muir, Hom~wner
~
es D. Muir, Spouse
Packet Page -197- -
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
LeeB31937@aol.com
Friday, February 04, 2011 9:26 AM
DeselemKay
PUDA-PL2010-388 OLDE CYPRESS
#2 PARK & TRAILS.jpg
.
To: Planning Commission
C/O Kay Deselem
Principal Planner
PUDA-Pl2010-388 OlOE CYPRESS
The PUD requirement for a park and walking trails at Olde Cypress has been a
contentious issue for several years. A park and trails were a part of the original plan for
the community. Member of the community were told by the marketing department of
Stock that this was one of the amenities they would receive. Furthermore, early sales
literature (see attachment) given to prospective residents stated that these amenities
would be provided.
Stock has wanted to remove this requirement for some time. Two years ago Stock tried
to force the community to accept removal of the requirement by threatening to place the
park in the driving range. At that meeting Stock representatives stated that there was
now no place to place the park except in the range. This attempt was viewed very
negatively and the community showed up in mass at a Stock meeting to voice .
their opposition. Commissioner Henning attended the meeting and supported the
residents. Stock retreated and did nothing about the park and trails until now.
At this juncture, Stock has now acquired the adjoining property and wishes to add it
to Olde Cypress. Their is now sufficient land to place the park and trails in the newly
acquired land. But Stock doesn't want to do it and is again trying to be relieved of this
obligation so that more homes can be built. It is an economic decision for Stock. If he
builds the park and trails, it will mean less acreage on which to build homes.
Furthermore, it sets a bad precedent for the county to allow developers to "change the
game rules" to the detriment of customers/residents just because it puts more money in
their pockets.
In my opinion Stock should not be relieved of this obligation unless the community as a
whole agrees.
Respectfully yours,
Leland Berry
7414 Treeline Drive
Olde Cypress
.
Packet Page -198-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Frances Chinn [franceschinn@hotmail.com]
Friday, February 04, 201111:07 AM
DeselemKay
Olde Cypress
Dear Ms. Deselem:
We are residents of Olde Cypress and are writing this e-mail to get on record that we feel Stock
Development should meet its obligation of building a park and nature trails within our community.
Although Olde Cypress is a lovely community and we have lived here since 2001, it is lacking in
some ammenities. Having the park and nature trails were promised when we first purchased our
property, and we feel those commitments and obligations should be honored. The park and nature trails
can be included within the Vita Tuscana community, and we strongly urge the Planning Committee to
reject Stock Development's request to relieve them of this responsibility.
Thank you.
Fran and Dave Chinn
Packet Page -199-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
email from Bellows from Strain from Thomas Sipila 1-31-11.txt
From: Bel 1 owsRay
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 7:41 AM
To: GundlachNancy; DeselemKay
subject: FW: RE olde Cypress PUD Hearing
Another comment for the file
.
-----original Message-----
From: StrainMark
Sent: wednesday, February 02, 2011 7:27 PM
TO: BellowsRay
subject: FW: RE olde cypress PUD Hearing
please make sure this gets added to the CCPC packet on the 17th, thanks,
Mark
From: Tom sipila [tsipila@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 7:14 PM
To: StrainMark
subject: RE olde cypress PUD Hearing
Hello Mark,
As a long-standing resident of olde cypress, I feel stock Development should
honor the 3.9 acre park commitment along with the nature trails promised in
the original PUD. while stock Development has been an honorable partner in
our development over the years, upholding this commitment would only confirm
the true underlying integrity of the organization.
Respectfully,
Thomas sipila
3128 Terramar Dr
Naples, FL 34119
under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want
your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by
telephone or in writing.
.
under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want
your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by
telephone or in writing.
Page 1
.
Packet Page -200-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
email from Bellows from Strain from chuck slaght 1-31-11.txt
From: BellowsRay
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 7:42 AM
To: DeselemKay; GundlachNancy
subject: FW: olde Cypress and Vita pima PUD Issues for February 17, 2011
please add to the CCPC back-up for this item
-----original Message-----
From: StrainMark
Sent: wednesday, February 02, 2011 7:26 PM
To: BellowsRay
subject: FW: Olde Cypress and Vita pima PUD Issues for February 17, 2011
please make sure this gets added to our CCPC packet for the 17th, thanks,
Mark
From: Chuck Slaght [chuckslaght@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 7:25 PM
TO: bmk@bmkre.com; AhernMelissa; HomiakKaren; StrainMark; MurrayRobert;
jodiebert@comcast.net; schifferBrad; pmedney@collier.org; ReedcaronDonna
Subject: Re: olde Cypress and Vita pima PUD Issues for February 17, 2011
Dear commissioners,
The CCPC is hearing a proposal by the Stock Development Company to amend the
olde cypress PUD to take out amenities that were promised in the original DRI
documentation on February 17th. I have included a letter, also my filing with
collier County code Enforcement (as a violation), and an email between County
code Enforcement Nick casalanguida and Counselor Richard Yovanovich for your
review and reference (I was also disappointed in the handling of this as I
never received any notification that this case was closed and why: sad state
of affairs as I had to pull this information out of them and I was the
complainant).
while stock Development's counsel Richard yovanovich states the PUD is not
closed it is moving forward with another development which could easily handle
the inclusion of a park (vita pima). So why then amend the PUD especially with
the additional acreage available?
I ask that when this comes before you that you "reject" the developers
amendments and demand compliance with the DRI and PUD documentation.
commissioner Henning was at an olde cypress community meetin~ where this was
discussed a couple of years back and has heard the community s true feelings
as have others please ask for their input. while we have an olde Cypress
Master Property Owners Association (OCMPOA) it is apparent that it is not
acting in the best interests of the community or it's membership (they tried
to secretly make a deal with stock Development but were caught and withdrew
it). when stock Development ran the OCMPOA with an iron totalitarian fist they
could have just amended this without adversity, and we would have been caught
off guard, but they have now been called on the carpet about this and tried to
make an unsuitable area a park (actually was a lake and the back of a driving
range) ask about that move and why it was done. If they owed nothing to the
community why make the attempt to correct and provide an area with a walking
trail around a lake in 2008 or 2009777 I am sick of people not living up to
their word and agreements (especially if they can buy their way out) and we as
a country are now facing people who don't keep their promises, word, and lack
integrity: we can ill afford this.
I am sadly disappointed that it has come down to this but we as a County can
ill afford not demanding people provide as stated in the DRI/PUD documents to
the letter of the law and to binding agreements between the SWFWMD (DRI) and
Page 1
Packet Page -201-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
email from Bellows from Strain from chuck slaght 1-31-11.txt
the county (PUD) or everyone will seek to slither out of their arrangements
with our citizens. If this was your community and you were promised a 3.9 acre
park and you tendered money to buy your home there what would be your
expectations? when people bring proposals before you do you not expect them to
follow their plan and documentation? I ask you to think in this manner when
looking at and applying- the legal and binding rendering or recommendation to
the county commissioners that was also made many years ago by your
predecessors! I hope your commission will stand up and make developers aware
their word and promises are legally binding.
please place copies of this in your CCPC packages for the meeting February
17th regarding this issue.
Thank you for your service to our great county.
God Bless,
charles c. slaght
2918 Lone pine Lane
Naples, Florida 34119
under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want
your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by
telephone or in writing.
.
under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want
your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by
telephone or in writing.
.
page 2
.
Packet Page -202-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Carol Rafaloff [carolraf@comcast.net]
Wednesday, February 02,201112:35 PM
DeselemKay
aide Cypress Development - Vita Tuscana
I am writing to advise that I am not in favor of eliminating the 3 plus acre park at Olde Cypress
which Stock is trying to have removed from the PUD. I believe there is enough property to have
Stock put the park in for the children that live in Olde Cypress. All Stock need do is allocate a few
lots near the golf course driving range instead of squeezing in a few more homes for their profit
line. The park was supposed to be built and there is no reason for it not to be other than greed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Residents of Olde Cypress
Carol and Howard Rafaloff
7359 Monteverde Way
Naples, FL 34119
.
.
Packet Page -203-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Alice MacDonough [aliciamacd@aol.com]
Wednesday, February 02, 20113:09 PM
DeselemKay; StrainMark
James Kress; Carole Raff Raff
OlDE CYPRESS PARENT
Ibg.jpg; rbg.jpg; bgJetter.jpg
'c".": . .~- _>! ..,:~ ~-cc;~~,' '~~;~~:,:?~~_~~:~~.~~~;j~~~':~~.' .:. " ~~~~~~>~~;~~. .::~/t_:t.:~~.~",
, ., .~".. ~ __.. 'w..'_ _ ,.. .,~"'~> ;!'?~._'Ml."",,~. =.;lm., '. u. '''''''#,~='''
'- . ~. ,........, ~.....' -_ ...r=.: ="'"'"~..... ~:!i;;''''-K,~~'' . _. " ..,1~~___
.........~\
- ::_ "r ~ q
I am a mother of 4 children living in the Olde Cypress community for the last 7 yrs.
We have been waiting many years for this "park" that was supposed to be built.
Therefore ( am "NOT" in favor of eliminating the 3 plus acre park at Olde Cypress.
which Stock is trying to have removed from the PUD. I believe there is more than
enough property to build a small park.
We love our community and the people who live here, but feel that the young ones
are being pushed to the side.
Stock has a written obligation to uphold...But would like for the county to excuse
them from it... Should greed really be the deciding factor in this?
Teach our children to let your "yes" mean "yes".
Thank you for your time,
-Alice MacDonough-
Resident of Olde Cypress
7496 Treeline dr
aliciamacdCcl>.aol.com
Packet Page -204-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
.
.
Packet Page -205-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
email from Mark Strain email from Alie MacDonough 2-2-11.txt
From: Stra;nMark .
Sent: wednesday, February 02, 2011 7:28 PM
TO: DeselemKay
subject: FW: OlDE CYPRESS PARENT
Attachments: top.jpg; photos.png; bottom.jpg; bg_pattern.jpg; lbg.jpg; rbg.jpg;
bg_l etter. j pg
please make sure this gets added to our CCPC packet for the 17th. I did not
know you were the planner, I assume that since this was sent to you, you are.
I previously sent two more to Ray asking him to do the same, maybe you can
coordinate with him.
thanks,
Mark
From: Alice MacDonough [aliciamacd@aol.com]
Sent: wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:08 PM
To: DeselemKay; StrainMark
Cc: James Kress; Carole Raff Raff
subject: OlDE CYPRESS PARENT
[cid:D8DBOC39-3A1F-4190-8009-B904E124LA34/top.jpg]
I am a mother of 4 children living in the olde Cypress community for the last
7 yrs. We have been waiting many years for this "park" that was supposed to be
built.
Therefore I am "NOT" in favor of eliminating the 3 plus acre park at olde
cypress, which Stock is trying to have removed from the PUD. I believe there
is more than enough property to build a small park.
We love our community and the people who live here, but feel that the young
ones are being pushed to the side.
Stock has a written obligation to uphold...But would like for the county to
excuse them from it... Should greed really be the deciding factor in this?
Teach our children to let your "yes" mean "yes".
Thank you for your time,
-Alice MacDonough-
Resident of olde cypress
7496 Treeline dr
aliciamacd@aol.com<mailto:aliciamacd@aol.com>
.
[cid:D8DBOC39-3A1F-4190-8009-B904E124IA34/2/photos]
[cid:D8DBOC39-3A1F-4190-8009-B904E124IA34/bottom.jpg]
under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want
your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by
telephone or in writing.
page 1
.
Packet Page -206-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
email from Mark Strain w-chuck slaght email of 2-2-11.txt
From: StrainMark
Sent: wednesday, February 02, 2011 7:30 PM
To: DeselemKay
subject: FW: olde'cypress Staff Report
Same as with the others to include in the packet.
thanks,
Mark
From: chuck slaght [chuckslaght@comcast.net]
Sent: wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:21 PM
To: MarcellaJeanne; Diane Ebert; HenningTom; StrainMark
Cc: casalanguidaNick; Adrienne Deluca
subject: Re: olde cypress Staff Report
Dear county Staff,
It is disconcerting to see a "Staff Recommendation for Approval" at the bottom
of this report! I am disappointed that a body (our collier county staff)
would be willing to give away an amenity that was promised. Now that stock
Development has additional land as requested in the amended olde cypress PUD
(for the Vita pima development) I believe there could be dedicated land for a
park. I see from recent newspaper stories and advertising that the lely Resort
has a new section added by stock Development which states passive park areas
and even a dog park were recently added to the resort's amenities due to
resident requesting these amenities. Can you tell me why we/I have to fight
for what has already been legally stated within our olde cypress DRI/PUD1DO
(original woodlands PUD) documents?
why is it that county Staff would think that resident-owners in olde cypress
would just give away a 3.9 acre park (we have to date lost nature trails,
bike stands, etc.)? why does county Staff side with the developer in this
case? I will review the DRI and PUD documents and see what other amenities
were promised and just pushed aside! DO you realize the true recreational
value of a 3.9 acre park to a community and especially kids (just figure the
simple land value and replacement costs)? Does county staff, cCPC
commissioners, and our county commissioners have kids or grandkids who if they
lived in olde cypress would have no open area to play (kick a ball around
even): the yards in the community are really small (please look at an actual
overhead of the community. We currently have kids playing in the streets which
I consider unsafe even with a 25 MPH limit.
I really do not care what a Board of five persons. may say (which is illegal
anyways) about supporting the developer. They do not represent the community,
period! We do have a number of HOA's within the olde cypress community which
actually represent homeowners not just communal property (limited roads, a
security gate, lakes, and some common landscape areas) and our homeowners and
HOA's were never polled! I do want to see any document that states they
support stock Development as this was not an issue properly voted upon by the
community (referred to by Mr. yovanovich counsel to Stock)!
The collier county long range strategic plans are sadly missing many green
space areas and recreational land and I know the county is trying to right
this oversight. I think that our OC PUD/DRI would be a great starting point to
begin the stand to make sure residents in collier County have park land
dedicated to recreational usage. This was already planned so stand firm in the
langua~e and intent of the DRI/PUD/DO documents! I do not understand why Staff
is maklng the cCPC the escape goat here within the Staff Recommendation
section! what were your directives when this was given to Staff for a
recommendation?
Page 1
Packet Page -207-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
email from Mark Strain w-chuck slaght email of 2-2-11.txt
I believe that when county Staff stands before the CCPC and the county
commissioners and voices their recommendations that someone take a stand and
say there is definitely a need for parks in collier county and that this is
one area where they should stand firm and demand the developer provide all
that has been promised all along in the documents!
No one informed the olde Cypress community of the RPC hearing on January 20,
2011. How does this happen when it concerns the entire community? while there
maybe stock Development team players within the community there are many
others who do not want to give away their property rights as promised.
A contract extended in Florida between a developer and a prospective buyer
where and when money is exchanged is a legal and binding contract. So how can
this be legal to just sponge a park and nature trails from the DRI and PUD
document? I am having trouble because if I did this to another entity I would
be brought into court and taken to task (I would pay dearly). Can you explain
the legality to me of this proposed amendment to the DRI the PUD and the
Development order (DO)?
I believe it is simply the case where the CCPC and County Commissioners stand
fast and order stock Development to live up to their commitments and the olde
cypress PUD/DRI/DO document.
please give me the point of contact for the Southwest Florida Water Management
District (SWFWMD) so that I can forward my concerns to them as well, Thanks.
God Bless,
charles c. slaght
----- original Message -----
From: MarcellaJeanne<mailto:JeanneMarcella@colliergov.net>
TO: chuckslaght@comcast.net<mailto:chuckslaght@comcast.net> Diane
Ebert<mailto:jodiebert@comcast.net>
cc: casalanguidaNick<mailto:Nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net>
Sent: wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:28 AM
subject: FW: olde cypress staff Report
.
.
Good Morning charles and Diane.
Attached, please find a courtesy copy of the draft staff report for olde
Cypress DRI & PUD. As interested stakeholders, I am providing you an early
copy for your review. should you wish to discuss with me further, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
charles, I look forward to our meeting Friday morning @ 10:30.
Diane, please stop by anytime.
Respectfully,
Nick casalanguida
under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want
your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone
or in writing.
Page 2
.
Packet Page -208-
Feb 02 11 10:00a
Nictolas Whiteley
2395966214
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
p.1
.
2963 Mona Lisa Boulevard
Naples
aIde Cypress
FL~4119-7733
Collier County
Growth Management Division - Planning & Regulation
Land Development Services
2800 North Horsesboe Drive
Naples
FL 34104
Tel (1) 239 - 5% 6214
Email: whiteleys@comcast.net
Febru~ 1 ~t, 2011
Ann: Nancy Gundlach and Kay Deselem
Dear Madam
Re: Petitions.: PUDA-PL2010-388: DOA-PL201{)"1052: PUDZ-PL2010-l054
Hearing: 8.30am February 1'JO-..2011
Thank you for your letters dated January 28. 2011 regarding tbc Olde Cypress Development and Vita Pima
hearings_.
. Regrettably we will be unable to attend the above hearings due to other commitments on that date. However,as
full time residents and home owners at Olde Cypress we wish to place on record that we fully support all three
petitions and would hope that planning is granted so that coDstruction may begin soonest. We most certainly do
not want or need a 3_9 acre park at OJde Cypress.
Yours. fait:hfully
/~
Nicholas Whiteley
~~~
Dorothy Whiteley
.
Packet Page -209-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
sue1wine [sue1wine@stny.rr.com]
Tuesday, February 01, 2011 9:20 AM
DeselemKay
Olde Cypress PUD/DRI
Dear Kay:
Ref: Existing Obligation for Development of 3.9 acres (minimum) of Parks and a Series of
Nature Trails
Ref: Collier County Planning Commission Meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, February
17,2011
As a resident of Olde Cypress for 8 years, I am very
disappointed that the 3.9 acre Park and Nature Trails project is being taken off the table. I am a
very avid biker and hiker and would love to take advantage of these wonderful trails. The
promise of a park and nature trail is one of the reasons I bought in this development. It is still
being advertised as one of the amenities if purchasing a home in this community.
We are not allowed to use the golf paths even after hours due to insurance, etc. The only place
we have is the streets within the development and outside the development.
I've also had family and friends visit that would love to roller blade, but the development
sidewalk and streets are not geared up for that type of activity.
I would appreciate your attention in reconsidering the reinstating of this Park and Nature Trail
for the use of aide Cypress residents.
Thank you,
Sue Dunlap
Packet Page -210-
.
.
.
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
email from Mark Strain for pending Action on the olde cypress from slaught 11-18-10.txt
From: StrainMark
sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:39 PM
TO: DeselemKay
subject: FW: pending Action on the olde Cypress PUD
Attachments: Collier County Board of county commissioners Letter on PUD olde
cypress
and Vita Tuscana 101810.doc; olde cypress PUD and Collier .County code
Enforcement letter 111510.doc
Hi Kay. This just came in, I do not know when it is coming up, but the sender
asked to have lt distributed to the CCPC. If you could see that happens I
would appreciate it,
thanks
Mark
From: chuck slaght [chuckslaght@comcast.net]
sent: Th~rsday, November 18, 2010 4:08 PM
To: StralnMark
subject: Re: pending Action on the olde cypress PUD
Dear Mark,
I am forwarding two documents that I have previously sent to different
agencies. The purpose of both letters and complaints was to make sure our Olde
cypress PUD/DRI plan and promises are legally pursued. Also our investment in
the olde Cypress PUD (our community) was predicated on the promise of a 3.9
acre park, jogging trails, bicycle trails, and nature walks. This was also
included in sales brochures and documents and promised by sales staff as well.
I think that an amendment to the olde cypress PUD is ludicrous, malicious, and
illegal (you certainly wouldn't want this to happen in your community or any
other in our county). There are NO amenities in our community for children,
they have not followed the recommendations of the SWFRPC, nor their promise to
county commission or your commission either, and now they want relief due to
terrible planning and execution on their part stating they want to
administratively sponge this off the documents as if it was an error. when I
make a promise and sign a contract I am bound and I always live up to my word
and integrity why shouldn't the same standard be enforced on our developers in
collier county? If not who will be next quoting the same verbiage and
precedence.
please let me know when this comes to your commission for action.
please recommend disapproval and share this with ALL your other commissioners.
sincerely,
charles C. slaght
2918 Lone pine Lane
Naples, Florida 34119
under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want
your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by
telephone or in writing.
Page 1
Packet Page -211-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
From: StrainMark
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:39 PM
To: DeselemKay
Subject: FW: Pending Action on the aIde Cypress PUD
Attachments: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Letter on
PUD aIde Cypress
and Vita Tuscana 1018l0.doc; aIde Cypress PUD and Collier County Code
Enforcement letter ll15l0.doc
Hi Kay. This just came in, I do not know when it is coming up, but the
sender
asked to have it distributed to the CCPC. If you could see that happens
I
would appreciate it,
thanks
Mark
From: Chuck Slaght [chuckslaght@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 4:08 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Re: Pending Action on the aIde Cypress PUD
Dear Mark,
I am forwarding two documents that I have previously sent to different
agencies. The purpose of both letters and complaints was to make sure our
aIde
Cypress PUD/DRI plan and promises are legally pursued. Also our
investment in
the aIde Cypress PUD (our community) was predicated on the promise of a
3.9
acre park , jogging trails, bicycle trails, and nature walks. This was
also
included in sales brochures and documents and promised by sales staff as
well.
I think that an amendment to the aIde Cypress PUD is ludicrous,
malicious, and
illegal (you certainly wouldn't want this to happen in your community or
any
other in our county). There are Na amenities in our community for
children,
they have not followed the recommendations of the SWFRPC, nor their
promise to
County Commission or your commission either, and now they want relief due
to
terrible planning and execution on their part stating they want to
administratively sponge this off the documents as if it was an error.
When I
make a promise and sign a contract I am bound and I always live up to my
word
Packet Page -212-
.
.
.
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
and integrity why shouldn't the same standard be enforced on our
developers in
Collier County? If not who will be next quoting the same verbiage and
precedence.
Please let me know when this comes to your commission for action.
Please recommend disapproval and share this with ALL your other
commissioners.
Sincerely,
Charles C. Slaght
2918 Lone Pine Lane
Naples, Florida 34119
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not
want
your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do
not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by
telephone or in writing.
Packet Page -213-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Collier County Code Enforcement: Shirley Garcia
November 15,2010
.
Re: Olde Cypress PUD located at Immokalee Boulevard and Olde Cypress/Treeline
Drive -
This is a complaint regarding the Olde Cypress Planned Urban Development (OC PUD)
located at Immokalee Road and Olde Cypress/Treeline Drive, Naples 34119 and is filed
against Stock Development for failure to build legally documented and promised
resources/amenities for the OC PUD as required by the legal documentation presented
herein.
The first document is from the SWFRPC's official recommendations dated August 1986
page II-8. Section 1 Project Impact states that for every 1,000 residents there shall be a
2 acre requirement for a park and based on the 3,500 population estimate that equates to a
6.2 acre park requirement and only 3.9 acres were planned. Additionally the 3.9 acre park
was remotely located in the Northeast comer and isolated by wetlands. Table D-1 shows
98.5 acres of Preservation Areas, Parks of3.9 acres, and Recreational Areas to be
determined! Section 2 Remedial Action states that a.) "The total park size needs to be
increased to Collier County standards. The parks should be more strategically located
throughout the project. The parks planned for the northeast comer require pedestrian
access, i.e. boardwalks through the preservation areas. All open space should have
general pedestrian access." b.) "Prior to any development or construction the applicant .
should meet with Collier County Parks and Recreation Department to determine park
needs, locations and degree of facilities to be provided." Section 3 Applicant
Commitment states that a.) "A bike/jogging path will parallel major interior roads." b.)
"Open space/recreation areas will be owned and maintained by the homeowners
association. "
The second document I am referring to is "The Woodlands" Master Development Plan
map titled "Exhibit H" this map shows dotted lines on all major roadways as indexed
under the "Master Development Plan" indexed as "Bike/Jogging Trail." Petitioner:
Immokalee Road Partnership & Greg Cabiness; Project Engineers: Hole Montes &
Associates; Land Planner: Julian Bryan. ..
The third document is from the 2000-37 pun Section IV pages one and two "Land Use
and Regulation." Special attention is drawn to section 4.01 "Purpose" and 4.05
"Recreational Facilities and Schedule" starting at sentence three. "The schedule for
development of these facilities relates to the absorption schedule of the proj ect towards
build-out. 1.) Clubhouse and Golf Course with 18 holes, tennis and related country club
facilities (125.14 acres); 2.) Swimming Pool; 3.) Bicycle Paths and Sidewalks; 4.)
Nature Trails; 5.) Passive recreational uses of wetlands and transitional areas
(preservation 176.2 acres minimum) and; 6.) Parks (3.9 acres minimum)." The bold
emphasis is on uncompleted commitments/requirements of the OC pun and earlier
SWFRPC official recommendations.
.
Packet Page -214-
4/26/201-1 Item 7.A.
.
The current developer, Stock Development, is seeking an amendment to the Olde Cypress
PUD and the original I believe it was "The Woodlands" development! Code enforcement
should become involved and make a determination as to violations of the original and
current PUD requirements, enforce code, and recommend denial of any amendment of
documented recreational amenities for the OC PUD to the Collier County Planning
Advisory Board and Collier County Board of Commissioners of the amended Olde
Cypress PUD currently under consideration. Further I believe your agency should
demand that the developer meet the standards (letter of the law) of the "Land Use and
Regulation" agreement of the 2000-37 PUD, original mapping/platting (The Woodlands),
and the recommendations of the SWFRPC documented from August 1986 for "all"
recreational amenities as negotiated and promised to Collier County officials and all
owner-residents within aide Cypress PUD (advertised and bought into this community
concept of a park, bike paths, and nature trails). Please forward this to the Collier County
Planning and Advisory Board and the Collier County Board of Commissioners.
Please assign a Code Enforcement Case number and email me this number so I can
follow the case. Thank you very much for all your hard work for the citizens of Collier
County.
Very Respectfully,
.
Charles C. Slaght
2918 Lone Pine Lane
Naples, Florida 34119
239-398-3739
chuckslaght@comcast.net
.
Packet Page -215-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
October 26, 2010 .
Dear Mr. Williams,
D ~:~D:~ ~
Mr. Barry Williams, CPRP
Director, Collier County Parks and Recreation Department
15000 Livingston Road
Naples, FL 34108
Initially, the Olde Cypress residents with whom I have been working on the issue
of the development of a park (s) within the Olde Cypress PUD/DRI were pleased that the
Collier County Parks and Recreation Department tool.: the position in its letter dated April
3,2008 to Mr. John-Davis Moss, AlCP, Community Development Services that within
the Olde Cypress PUD/DRI there continues to be a requirement for the development of a
minimum of 3.9 acres of parks. We were, however, disappointed that your office
determined in its letter to Mr. Moss that those park development requirements could be
satisfactorily met by the" . . . designation of 3.9 acres of park on the east and west side of
the westerly entrance into the PUD."
I believe that the locations you refer to includes 2.1 acre lake/mortuary preserve
along the eastern edge of the development (identified as the Lake 14 area on the Olde
Cypress PUD Master Plan) and approximately 2 acres ofthe southern end of the existing
Golf Course Driving Range (a previously approved 9.3 acre parcel).
.
I know of no resident who would support the virtual destruction of our golf course
driving range to develop a 2 acre park vvithin its southern boundaries. Furthermore, the
selection of the 2.1 acre lake/mortuary preserve to serve as a second 2 acre park location
is impractical and of questionable value to our residents.
An examination of the location shows that 80% of the acreage consists of an
elliptical pond with a single 6-8 ft. wide grass strip around it that was constructed with an
approximate 45 degree slope. Its located is somewhat isolated being outside of the gated
area of the community (a potential security issue), across Olde Cypress Blvd. and
adjacent to Immokalee Road (road noise issues).
Access would be most inconvenient for the residents as there is no parking
available near the site, and those intending to walk from the community around the
lake/park would need to walk practically from the Olde Cypress front gatehouse on
Treeline Dr. turn south and walk down Olde Cypress Blvd. to Immokalee Road in order
to safely cross Olde Cypress Blvd. at the only designated cross walk to access the
lake/park area.
.
Packet Page -216-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Sir, there is simply nothing there except a pond and a perimeter path around it that
was not designed for walking. Under those circumstances, I seriously doubt if anyone
would use the site, and I cannot envision how it could be developed further.
Since your 2008 letter of recommendation., Stock Development has purchased
65.29 acres ofland within the Olde Cypress PUD/DRI, formally designated as one of the
"Out Parcels" immediately east of the 9.3 acre golf course driving range. Tbis parcel is
presently identified as "Vita Tuscana." On June 14,2010, the developer submitted a
petition to the county (Kay Deselem has the action at Planning) for a PUD Rezone for
Vita Tuscana (fka HD Development) to build a maximum of 158 family units. I
respectfully suggest that your office review again the possible location (s) for the park
and recommend that the developer would best serve the interests of the entire Olde
Cypress Community by adding the proposed development of a 3-4 acre park within the
Vita Tuscana project area.
Sincerely,
';l~ (j /(~
Uames P. Kress
2893 Lone Pine Lane
Naples, FL 34119
(239) 566-7410
cc: Mr. Steven T. Williams
Ms. Kay Deselem
Ms. Nancy Gundlach
2
Packet Page -217-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
From: Keith Gelder [kgelder@stockdevelopment.com]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 10:42 AM
To: GundlachNancy; DeselemKay
Cc: 'Chris Mitchell'; Rich Yovanovich (ryovanovich@gcjlaw.com)
Subject: FW: [Olde Cypress Master Property Owners Association
Newsletter]: Board
Position on PUD's
.
Kay & Nancy,
Please see the correspondence below from the Olde Cypress Master Property
Owners Association in support of the Olde Cypress & Vita Tuscana PUD
Amendments. Thanks.
Keith Gelder
Stock Development
Development Manager
2647 Professional Circle, Suite 1201
Naples, FL 34119
(239) 449-5227 Office
(239) 280-6504 Mobile
(239) 592-7541 Fax
-----Original Message-----
From: Admin@OCMasterPOA.com [mailto:Admin@OCMasterPOA.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 11:18 PM
To: Keith Gelder
Subject: [Olde Cypress Master Property Owners Association Newsletter]:
Board
Position on PUD's
.
Olde Cypress Master Property Owners Association Newsletter
Fellow Residents of Olde Cypress,
During the Q&A session following last Wednesday's Master Association
Board
meeting, a resident specifically asked if the Master Association Board
would
be taking a position on the two Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment
applications currently submitted to Collier County seeking approval of
zoning
changes. The answer was "no", the Master Board would not take a position
on
the PUD amendments but each individual board member, as a resident, could
represent their own position. In the two PUD's the petitioner is asking
the
County to approve the applications to allow development of Vita Tuscana.
Since that meeting, the Master Association Board Members have been
individually canvassed and the sense of the board is that the Master
Association Board will take a position to support the approval of the two
PUD
amendment applications.
.
Packet Page -218-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
In compliance with the Land Development code requirements, a Neighborhood
Information Meeting (NIM) will be held on Monday evening October 18th at
5:30
pm at the Olde Cypress clubhouse. This meeting is being held to provide
residents an opportunity to become fully aware of stock Development's
development intentions and to give residents an opportunity to influence
the
form of development.
Respectfully,
Damian A. Thomas
On behalf of the OCMPOA BOD.
http://ocmasterpoa.com
- Olde Cypress Master Property Owners Association Staff
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this Newsletter because you selected to receive it from
your
user page at Olde Cypress Master Property Owners Association.
You can unsubscribe from this service by clicking in the following URL:
http://OCMasterPOA.com/user.php?op=edituser
then select "No" from the option to Receive Newsletter by Email and save
your
changes, if you need more assistance please contact Olde Cypress Master
Property Owners Association administrator.
<,
Packet Page -219-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
October 18,2010 R
.
Nancy Gundlach and Kay Deselem
Growth Management Division
Department of Land Development Services
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida, 34104
Subject:
Olde Cypress PUDIDRI
Existing Obligation for Development of3.9 acres (minimum) of Parks
and a Series of Nature Trails (unspecified length)
Dear Planners:
In accordance with Paragraph 4.05.4 (Nature Trails) and 4.05.6 (parks), SECTION IV,
Olde Cypress PUDIDRI, dated December 28, 1999, the subject obligations were
specifically established for the developer to undertake in the process of developing the
OIde Cypress community.
I ask that the Collier County Planners recommend to the County Commissioners that
Stock Development not be relieved of its responsibility to meet its obligations under
paragraphs 4.05.4 and 4.05.6 of the PUDIDRI.
.
My position on this matter is predicated on the following facts and observations.
a On June 8, 2010, Christopher R. Mitchell of Waldrop Engineering submitted a
request (referencing PUDA-PL20l0-388) to Ms. Gundlach asking that she support his
request to the Commissioner on behalf of Stock development to revise the language of
paragraph 4.05.6 striking any referenced obligation for a "... park requirement." Mr.
Mitchell based his request on the following hypothesis:
"During the original zoning application review and permitting, Section
4.05.6 was included that requires 3.9 acres (minimum) of park located
within the PUD/DR! Boundary. The 3.9 acre park was proposed to be in
the northwest corner of the DRI per the PUD master plan submitted with
the application. During the review process, the land use along the eastern
boundary of the PUD/DR! was revised to exclude any and all
development, including the required park acreage, at the request of
Collier County staff to reduce impacts to the environmentally sensitive
area. The area along the eastern boundary was revised in the master plan
to be wetland/preserve, yet the language in Section 4.05.6 was never
revised to exclude the requirement of the park"
.
Packet Page -220-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
.
b. I question the validity of the above request for relief for the following reasons:
1) The fact that the County staff purportedly directed the revision of the
northeast boundary of the Master Plan to exclude the introduction of
any park land in the wetland/preserve area in no way relieved the
developer of his responsibility to develop a minimum of 3.9 acres of
parks and the establishment of Nature Trails in other areas located
within area project's 538+ acres as the community was being
developed.
2) In paragraph 9.02 B, SECTION IX, General Development
Commitments, it states: "The design, criteria and lay-out illustrated in
the Master Plan and Development Plan shall be understood as flexible
so that the final design may comply with all applicable requirements
(my italics) and best utilize the existing natural resources."
.
3) Now that the development of the initial area project is completed and
the developer made no effort to meet his initial obligation by
developing park lands and Nature Trails in the remaining 500+ acres
Oess the wetlands/preserve areas) as the community was being built
out, he asks that the County relieve him of the obligations because
they no longer existed once the initial parks locations were taken off of
the Master Plan diagram. Based on in the facts as outlined in sub-
paragraphs b. 1) and 2) above, his conclusions about no longer having
an obligation to develop the park land and Nature Trails are without
merit.
4) lfthe developer believes, as he told those Olde Cypress residents
present at a recent public meeting held at OIde Cypress, that once the
parks were removed from the original Master Plan in the early
development stages of the project, he no longer had any obligation to
develop a park elsewhere within the community, then why did a
former Stock Development VP meet with a group of Olde Cypress
residents in the 2007/2008 Winter Season acknowledging that the park
had not been developed, and saying that the only place remaining
within the community that Stock Development can think of to
establish it was at the southern end of the existing Golf Driving
Range? 1 A suggested location, I might add that is outside of the gated
portion of our community, thereby open to public access, and located
right next to the traffic noise ofImmokalee Road.
c. .As the substantial majority of the aIde Cypress residents are golfers and
opposed the virtual elimination of a full size Golf Driving Range so that a 3.9 acre
park could be established at its southern end, and as no other practical location
.
1 Note that County Commissioner Tom Henning was present at this meeting held at the Olde Cypress Club
House.
2
Packet Page -221-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
currently exists within the original Olde Cypress area project, I suggest that Stock
Development revise its recent petition: PUDZ-PL201O-1054 that requests a PUD
Rezone for Vita Tuscana (fka lID Development) to include the addition of a 3.9
acre park and a small Nature Trail complex within the additional 65.29 acres to be
developed within the overall expanded OIde Cypress PUD/DRI.
.
I thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
Sincerely,
James P. Kress
2893 Lone Pine Lane
Naples FL 34119
(239) 877-1601
An aIde Cypress resident
.
.
3
Packet Page -222-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Collier County Board of County Comm.issioners
Collier County Planning and Zoning Advisory Board
Collier County Urban P13.l.ll1ers
October ] 8, 2010
Re: PUDZ-PL2010-1054 and PUDA-PL2010-388
Dear Honorable Madame~s and Sir~s,
I am writing this letter to voice my objections to the passage of both the
amendment and revision/rezoning to the Olde Cypress PUD and the Vita ad
hope you will see the error in both planlled urban deveiopment changes.
First I W3.I.,t to address PUDA-PL201 0-388 the (Olde Cypress Development)
issue. I have no issues with reducing the projected density from 1100 to 942
dwelling units. I do take issue with the elimination of trails and park (3.9
acres minimum) however. I believe especially the DR! atld the PUD both
stated that "there needs to be" and ''there would be" a 3.9 acre park with
nature walking trails! I also understand that PUD designs change Bur do
not eliminate the general elements (h01ues, golf courses, parks, etc.). I
further understand there can be amendments to PUD designs but that this
does not include changing DID requirements or represent majoT changes.
Secondly, let me say that at no time until the present (2010) has anyone
precluded t.;.e lake and nature trails for the PUD/DRJ and that almost ALL
homes were sold with the "lake/nature trails" listed as amenities and this is
the reason many people bought home sites and built in the Olde Cypress
POO/development! Please check the DR! carefully and let me know about
this issue.
Even thou~~ the Stock Development Company was not listed as the original
developer the Stock Family funding "was" part of the original party to the
origination of the PlJD, its layout, and the actual development ofOlde
Cypress {please look at all the documents for principal parties}. All parties
. entered into a legal and binding agreement with Coliier County
Commissioners such that they could proceed, develop, sell, and profit from
the residential lots, dwellings, and amenities (a golf course could produce
income) that were developed. The listing of a park and nature traiis was
included in brochures, the OIde Cypress sales website, and sales documents
handed out by Stock sales representatives (mine Cfu-ne from Chr-is 8t Cyr a
Stock Development licensed realtor). p...s these amenities are presented as an
inducement to buy with entitlements (usage and equity) I find it fraudulent
.
Packet Page -223-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
for anyone to try and back out of a legal agreement (both with Collier
County and resident-owners).
.
Recently Stock Development in an attempt to satisfy the requirements of the
PUD and the DR! document attempted to develop a park with a singular
walking trail at the entrance to the Olde Cypress community. This was
outside our gated community and thus fatally flawed (no parking,
dangerously located next to major canal, a lake actually served as the park
aspect when the driving range directly across the street was not acceptable to
the community or the golf members). While Mr. Brian. Stock may say this
was done by a subordinate VP after a heated community meeting, where
resident-owners stated emphatically they wanted their park and nature trails,
it was therefore an. attempt to rectify Stock Development's requirement for a
park and nature trails, and validated through an action Stock's requirement
to have a park and nature trails as required in the PUD/DRI document and
agreement with County Commissioners.
One more factor there are NO amenities for children in our communir-y (I am
told there are 50+/- children currently). I am not asking for a 3.9 acre park
with. playground equipment all I want to see is a park with "green space" for
children to say kick a ball around or play catch as promised. All children .
currently play in the street and this is a huge safety issue and we have
terrible drivers (you can ask)! Nature trails are a push unless they are
elevated walkways in our current preserve areas but a park should be
available for everyone. Finally, if you were promised something and you
paid good money for this with this and it was a selling point/promise
wouldn't you want this for your family (especially for the children) and we
aren't talking small amount but a major even lifetime investment?
I believe and I am hoping it is your duty and responsibility to follow the
letter of the law andreject the administrative amendment (pUDA-PL2010-
388) request and direct Stock Development to provide a park and walking
trails and/or enter binding mitigation with "all resident-owners" individually
to find an appropriate legal solution (not the OIde Cypress Mas'"t.er Property
Owners Association as this is &""1 issue far too important for a five person OC
POA Master Board to determine a legal and responsible solution).
Next let me address PUDZ-PLI054 (VITA PIMA Vita Tuscana RPUD) and
some concerns. I am genuinely concerned with Stock Development request
to rezone this land as I believe the current zoning is appropriate and allows
I
I
.1
Packet Page -224-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
development within their current community design perimeters. It is my
understanding that Stock Development does not cU.t."Tently O\\Tfi the area on
their representative Vita Tuscana RPUD map where they are requesting the
33 multi-family dwellings to be located (to be obtained later?) but even if
they do own it, it is difficult to see how this could be incorporated into Vita
Tuscana RPUD due to possible slough separation. I also have a problem
,vith the fact that this RPUD will need access onto our roadway system
(Treeline Drive) which is another separate PUD (commercial area to the east
with access seems only logical solution as it appears landlocked). "What are
the ingress and egress plans for the multi-family dwellings and the RPUD in
general? WPile we may have a few issues with allocating access to the single
family dwellings of Vita Tuscana RPUD we certainly do have
insurmountable issues for multi-family access to our community as we are a
single family type gated community. Ifwe are having issues with a park and
nature trails within our PUD how are we going to be able to control the VT
RPUD as well as the 33 multi-family dwelling issue.
I do not like to see something placed with "vague promises" or hearing that
''that will not happen" in a rezoning request (33 multi-family dwellings) as it
eventually becomes a right for the developer as enacted by the County
Commission. Now pair this with the request to administratively amending
and taking out the Park and Nature Trails from our OIde Cypress PUD and
all oftbis is just not right: see the logic?
Please contact me if you have any questions.
I thank you for your time, for your service, and for your dedication I am
hoping you will see the validit"y in my request for denials of both requests
and will act in our best interests as I would ror vours and vour families!
J J
God Bless,
/'.) ..t r" I .
.. .. ifi:=:-
i' t~~l~J:. t~
"--
Charles C. Slaght
2918 Lone Pine Lane
Naples, Florida 34119
Packet Page -225-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
DEVELOPMENT ORDER NO. 11-_
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 86-01,
FOR THE OLDE CYPRESS DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
IMP ACT BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE: AMENDING
THE FINDINGS OF FACT SECTION TO REFLECT AN
INCREASE IN TIm OVERALL ACREAGE AND TO
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY AND
MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AND AMENDING THE
MASTER PLAN, LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO ACCOUNT FOR
THE ADDED LAND AREA AND TO REMOVE THE PARK
REQUIREMENT; SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT;
SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; AND SECTION
FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSL Y ISSUED DEVELOPMENT
ORDER, TRANSMITIAL TO DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND EFFECTNE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida approved
Development Order 86-01 (the Development Order) on November 6, 1986, which approved a
Development of Regional Impact (DRI) now known as OIde Cypress formerly the Woodlands
.
Development Order; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the approval of Development Order No. 86-01, the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida approved several amendments to said
Development Order; and
WHEREAS, "OIde Cypress", represented by Chris Mitchell of Waldrop Engineering,
P.A. and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Y ovanovich & Koester, P .A, has filed its
application and Notice of Proposed Change (NOPe) to Development Order No. 86-01, as
amended, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B"; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, as the governing body of the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, with jurisdiction pursuant to Section 380.06,
Olde CypressIDOA-PL201O-I052
Rev. 2/14/11 I of6
Words stnlek tllroubh are deleted; words underlined are added.
Packet Page -226-
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
.
Florida Statutes, is authorized and empowered to consider proposed changes to the Olde Cypress
DRI Development Order No. 86-01, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners passed Ordinance No.
on
, which had the effect of amending the PUD zoning district for the Olde
Cypress development previously approved in Ordinance No. 2000-37; and
WHEREAS, on
, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, in accordance with Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, having considered "Olde Cypress"
application and Notice of Proposed Change to the Olde Cypress DRI Development Order No.
86-01, as amended, and record made at said hearing, and having considered the record of the
documentary and oral evidence presented to the Collier County Planning Commission, the report
and recommendation of Collier County Planning Staff and Advisory Boards, the report and
recommendations of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC), the Board of
. County Commissioners hereby approves the following Olde Cypress DRl Development Order
amendments.
NOW, TIffiREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND MASTER PLAN
Paragraph 4 of the Findings of Fact Section of Development Order 86-01, as amended,
for the Olde Cypress DRl is hereby amended to read as follows:
The applicant proposes the development of 01de Cypress pursuant to the
ADA, and the terms and conditions of this Development Order, as the
same may be amended. The development consists of ~ 602 acres
which includes a maximum of 165,000 square feet of commercial retail
on a maximum of 12.5 acres, residential development of 1,100 dwelling
units on approximately ~ 184.2 acres, approximately 176.2 acres of
preservation area, and approximately ~ 181.5 acres of lakes, open
.
aide Cypress/DOA-PL201O-1 052
Rev. 2/14/11 20f6
Words strueJ.c threl:lgR are deleted; words underlined are added.
Packet Page -227-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
space, an 18-hole golf course and 2.1 acres of lake/preservation area to
preserve archaeological resources. The general plan of development is
depicted on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference, although the acreages referenced therein and stated herein may
vary somewhat to accommodate site conditions, topography and
environmental permitting requirements.
.
Paragraph 6 of the Findings of Fact Section of Development Order 96-2, as amended, for
the OIde Cypress DR! is hereby amended to read as follows:
6. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE:
h. Prior to the issuance of any local development order to allow
vertical construction for lands within the 63.9 acres being added in
this amendment. the developer. or his assigns. will submit and
receive approval of a Big CyPress Fox Squirrel Manaeement Plan
that includes an overall preserve manaeement plan. Said plans must
clearly identify a method to identify the preserve boundary. This
submittal shall be made concurrently to RPC. DCA. FWC and
Collier County.
Paragraph 9 of the Findings of Fact Section of Development Order 96-2, as amended, for
the Olde Cypress DR! is hereby amended to read as follows:
.
9. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: In "The Woodlands" ADA, numerous
Commitments were made by the applicant to mitigate project impacts.
Many, but not all of these commitments, are listed in this Development
Order.
Additionally, the ADA provided a Phasing Schedule that provided
the timing .basis for this review. If this phasing schedule is significantly
altered by the applicant then many of the basic assumptions of this
approval could be substantially changed, potentially raising additional
Regional issues and/or impacts.
Conditions:
a. All commitment and impact mitigating actions provided by the
applicant within the Application for Development Approval (and
supplementary documents) that are not in conflict with specific
. conditions for project approval outlined above are officially adopted
excepting any park requirements, as conditions for approval.
Olde Cypress/DOA-PL2010-1052
Rev. 2/14/1 ) 30f6
Words struek througb are deleted; words underlined are added.
Packet Page -228-
.
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The real property, which is the subject of the proposal, is legally described as set
forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof.
B. The application is in accordance with Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes.
C. The applicant submitted to the County a Notice of Proposed Change to a
previously approved DR! known as Exhibit "C", and by reference made a part hereof.
D. The applicant proposes the development of Olde Cypress on 602 acres of land for
residential/golf course and commercial development described in Development Order 86-01, as
,
amended.
E. A comprehensive review of the impact generated by the proposed changes to the
previously approved development has been conducted by the County's departments and the
SWFRPC.
F.
The development is not in an area designated an Area of Critical State Concern
pursuant Section 380.05, Florida Statutes, as amended.
G. The proposed changes to the previously approved development are consistent
With the report and recommendations of the SWFRPC.
SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order do not
constitute a substantial deviation pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. The scope of
the development to be permitted pursuant to this Development Order Amendment includes
operations described in the Notice of Proposed Change to a previously approved DR!. Exhibit
"c" attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof.
Olde Cypress/DOA-PL2010-1052
Rev. 2/14/11 4 of 6
Words struElk througk are deleted; words underlined are added.
Packet Page -229-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
B. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order fall within
the parameters for extensions of build out pursuant to Section 380.06(15)(g), Florida Statutes.
C. The proposed changes to the previously approved development will not
unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land
Development Plan applicable to the area.
D. The proposed changes to the previously approved development are consistent
with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Regulations
adopted pursuant thereto.
E. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are
consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.
F. The proposed changes do not constitute a substantial deviation pursuant to
Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes.
SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDERS,
TRANSMITTAL TO DCA AND EFFECTIVE DATE
1. Except as amended hereby, Development Order No. _, as amended, shall remain
in full force and effect, binding in accordance with its terms on all parties thereto. This amended
Development Order shall take precedence over any of the applicable' provisions of previous
development orders which are in conflict therewith.
2. Copies of this Development Order (Resolution) shall be transmitted immediately upon
execution to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Land and Water Management,
and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council.
3. This Resolution shall take effect as provided by law.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Board.
Olde CypressIDOA-PL2010-1052
Rev. 2/14/11 50f6
Words straGk ilirSllgB are deleted; words underlined are added.
Packet Page -230-
.
.
.
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
, 2011, after motion,
This Resolution adopted this _ day of
second, and majority vote.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
, Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Steven T. Williams
Assistant County Attorney
5-(~
1.1.1\
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
FRED W. COYLE, Chairman
Attachments: Exhibit A - Map H
Exhibit B - Legal Description
Exhibit C - Notice of Proposed Change
CP/l O-CPS-Ol 045\44
Olde CypressIDOA-PL2010-1052
Rev. 2/14111 60f6
Words !itruek through are deleted; words underlined are added.
Packet Page -231-
~ n
,1
I'
~
.r
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
LONGSHORE LAIC&:
.
.
..
"0
"'"
~~
..
..................... .
..................... .
......... I............
'"................. ""
............. I...... I..
........................ .
.......................... .
............................... .
.. I... I..............,............
....,............................ .
.................................. .
..... ............ "'..............................
. :.: .::::::::::::: :::::::: ::::::: :::: ;:::::: :;::::::::: ::::: :::~::: ::::: :::::::::;::::::: ::::: :::: ::::::::::::::::::
.':-:-:-:-:-:':-:-:-: -:.:.:-:.:-:.:.:.: -:.:.: -:.:-:.:.:-:-:-:-:-: -: -: -:.:.:-:.: -:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:-:.:-:-:-:.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::.:::::::
.......,......... I........................................
"::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::',:::::::::::::::::::::
.................,................................... .
!~CD
.2 --
.~.....-
~ I>
I I I I D I
c) . ~~: :
".~ . .
~ ~~I!l gb'"~ 0 r~~ .. ~
~il~i'i ~ :. =
~ i:l~l!l C! ~ ~~ m I
~~l Cils~n; ~io~ ~
~ ~z'C'c.ra 0
~oll~ Cl .. lli!jil. '"
~ ~~11 i1l ~ ~~~~ ~ "
~~ g~r;;~ ill '"
!l "
;~g~ .. ~~:g ~
~g ~ ~ r-ciSlii ~ 8
gi! ho '" ~~DiI':' ~
" liil' ..
~'" z!lil Eca~ ~
~::l !'!Cl~ c
.. c
~~c ~ g g::<< '"
6~'" 2 ~ l: c
D a n
2. ~ !O ~ "
': ~
.,. 0
z Z
e ~
OLDE CYPRESS DRI
.
CLIENf: VITA prMA. LtC.
DR! MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT "II"
Packet Page -232-
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Rhodes & Rhodes Land Surveying, !no.
28100 Bonita Gmnde Drive, Suite 107, Bonita. Springs, Florida. w.85
Phone (239) 405-8166 Fa.t. (239) ~8163
DESCRIPTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND
LYING IN
SECTIONS 21 & 22t TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A PORTION OF SECTIONS 21 AND 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: THENCE RUNN.00llS9'51"W. ALONG THE WEST LINE
OF SAID SECTION 21, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE
PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRmED; THENCE CONTINUE N.OODS9'51 "W. ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SECTION 21 A DISTANCE OF 2560.17 FEET TO THE WEST ONE-QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE RUN N.01DOO'08"W.t ALONG THE WEST LlNE OF
SAID SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2659.99 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID SECTION 21; THENCE RUNN.89004'49"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION
21 A DISTANCE OF 2645.04 FEET TO THE NORTH ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SAID
SECTION 21; THENCE RUN N.89D04'26"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 21,
FOR A DISTANCE OF 2644.36 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21;
THENCE RUN S.00055'09"E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 21, FORA DISTANCE
OF 2663.26 FEET TO THE EAST ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE RUN
S.OOD55'37"E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE OF 666.00
FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AMBER TON, A CONDOMINIUM, ACCORDING TO
THE DECLARATION OF CONDOMINIUM RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4278 AT
PAGE 3396 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN
N.89006'04"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID CONDOMINIUM FOR A DISTANCE OF
656.66 FEET; THENCE RUN S.Ol 001'19"E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 1898.09 FEET TO THE NORTH
RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE OF THE COCOHATCHEE CANAL (100 FEET WIDE)AS RECORDED IN
DEED BOOK 43, PAGE 251 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN S.89009'07"W., ALONG
SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 659.81 FEET TO THE EAST LINE
OF SAID SECTION 21: THENCE RUN S.89D09'28"W., ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY,
FOR A DISTANCE OF 660.31 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF F AIRWAY PRESERVE
AT OLDE CYPRESS, A CONDOMINIUM, ACCORDING TO THE DECLARATION OF
CONDOMINIUM RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3866 AT PAGE 4006 OF SAID
PUBLIC RECORDS AND TO THE EAST LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED TN
OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4079 AT PAGE 1265 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN
N.Ooo56'04"W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID CONDOMINIUM AND EAST LINE OF SAID
PARCEL, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1231.49 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
PARCEL; THENCE RUN S.89008'07"W., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL AND THE
NORTH LINE OF A PARCEL DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4079 AT PAGE 1259
OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS, FORA DISTANCE OF 660.47 FEET TO TIlE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4079 AT PAGE 1259 OF
SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN S.OOD56'31"E.. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
PARCEL, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1231.23 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
PAR.CEL AND TO THE NORm RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE OF THE AFORESAID COCOHATCHEE
CANAL; THENCE RUN S.89009'28"W., ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, FORA
DISTANCE OF 990.47 FEET TO THE EAST LINE A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN
SHEET 1 OF 2
I!!!..LJL ~a. I"ll
Packet Page -233-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Rhodes & Rhodes Land Surveying, Ino.
28100 Bonita, Graude Drive, Suite 107, Bonita Springs, Florida. 84135
Phone (289) 40&-8166 ~ (239) 405-8168
OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3579 AT PAGE 3894 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE
N.Ooo57'12"W., ALONG SAID EAST LINE, FORA DISTANCE OF 224.51 FEET TO THE
NORTIIERL Y LINE OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID
PARCEL THE FOLLOWING THIRTEEN (13) COURSES: (1) THENCE S.65023'20"W., FORA
DISTANCE OF 43.57 FEET; (2) THENCE S.78026'13"W., FORA DISTANCE OF 61.22 FEET; (3)
THENCE S.80004'25''W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.57 FEET; (4) THENCE S.84027'31 "W., FOR A
DTST ANCE OF 31.15 FEET; (5) THENCE S.80009'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.89 FEET; (6)
TIffiNCE S.S8048'23"W., FORA DISTANCE OF 24.42 FEET; (7) THENCE S.54027'OS"W., FORA
DISTANCE OF 36.02 FEET; (8) THENCE 8.40025' 12"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 33.11 FEET; (9)
THENCE S.470S7'45 "W.. FOR A DISTANCE OF 62.74 FEET; (10) THENCE S.50021 'OS"W., FORA
DISTANCE OF 49.97 FEET; (11) THENCE S.68022'05"W., FORA DISTANCE OF 37.47 FEET; (12)
THENCE S.42018'38"W., FORA DISTANCE OF 39.61 FEET; (13) THENCE S.S6049'27I1W., FORA
DISTANCE OF 15.80 FEET TO THE AFORESAID NORTIIERL Y RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF A 100
FEET WIDE DRAINAGE CANAL; THENCE RUN S.89008'23 "W., ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-
OF- WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2528.93 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
LESS THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL:
DA VINCI ESTATES AT OLOE CYPRESS, A SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 35 AT
PAGES 33 THROUGH 37, INCLUSIVE, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AND ALSO BErNG DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
A PORTION OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA: THENCE RUNN.00059'51 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE
OF SAID SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1 00.00 FEET POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE
PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; TIlENCE CONTINUE N.Ooo59'51I1W. ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SECTION 21, FORA DISTANCE OF 2560.17 FEET TO THE WEST ONE.
QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE RUN N.89006'45 "E., ALONG THE SOUTII
LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE OF
660.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNlNG OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED;
THENCE RUN N.Ol oOO'Ol"W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID DA VINCI SUBDIVISION, FOR
A DISTANCE OF 1330.06 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89005'40"E.. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID DA VINCI SUBDIVISION, FOR A DISTANCE OF J 321.51 FEET; THENCE RUN
S.OooS8'40"E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID DA VINICI SUBDIVISION, FOR A DISTANCE
OF 1330.47 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89006'45."W., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID DA VlNCI
SUBDIVISION, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1320.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEG.lNNING.
PARCEL AS DESCRIBED CONTAINS 602.04 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
SHEET 2 OF 2
Packet Page -234-
.
.
.
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
STATE OF FLORIDA -
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
DNISION OF COMMUNITY PLANNING
B UREAD OF LOCAL PLANNING
2555 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
850/488-4925
NOTIFICATION OF A PROPOSED CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)
SUBSECTION 380.06(19), FLORIDA STATUTES.
Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, requires that submittal of a proposed change to a previously
approved DRI be made to the ll)cal govemment, the regional planning ag.ency, and the state land
planning agency according to this fDlm.
1. I, Brian Stock, the undersigned owner/authorized representative of Olde Cypress
Development, LTD & Vita Pima, LLC, hereby give notice of a proposed change to a (developer)
previously approved Development of Re!,rlonaI Impact in accordance with Subsection 380.06(19),
Florida Statutes. III support thereof, 1 submit the following infonnation concerning the Olde Cypress
DRl (f/kJa The 'Voodlands DRI) developmellt, which (Oliginal & current project names) infonnatioll is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 1 have submitted today, under separate cover, copies of
this completed notification to Collier County, (local govemrnent) to the Southwest Florida Regional
Planning Council, and to the Bureau of Local Planning, Department of Community Affairs.
0/7/10
I
Date
DO(l.-Pl2010-1052 REV:1
OLOE CYPRESS DRI
DATE: 6/11/10
Due: 7/2/10
Exhibit C
Packet Page -235-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
2. Applicant (name, address, phone).
.
Olde Cypress Development, LTD
2647 Professional Circle, Suite 1201
Naples, Fl34119
Contact: Keith Gelder
(239) 592-7344
3. Authorized Agent (name, address, phone).
Olde Cypress DRI
DOA-PL201 0-1052
submlttted: 1-12-11
(this page only)
Waldrop Engineering, P.A.
28100 Bonita Grande Drive
Bonita Springs, Fl34135
Contact: Chris Mitchell
(239) 405-7777
4. Location (City, County, TownshiplRange/Section) of approved DR! and proposed change.
Olde Cypress Dri (F/KIA The Woodlands Dri)
Naples, FI3410J
Section 21 & 22/ Township 48s / Range 26e
5. Provide a complete description of the proposed change. Include any proposed changes to the plan of
development, phasing, additional lands, commencement date, build-out date, development order
conditions and requirements, or to the representations contained in either the development order or the
Application for Development Approval.
Indicate such changes on the project master site plan, supplementing with other detailed maps, as
appropriate. Additional information may be requested by the Department or any reviewing agency to
clarify the nature of the change or the resulting impacts.
.
No changes are proposed to the phasing, commencement, or build.out dates. The developer proposes
to add 63.88 acres to the existing DRI with no change in total number of approved units. The
additional acreage is pkmnedfor residential development.
6. Complete the attached Substantial Deviation Determination Chart for all land use types approved in'
the development. If no change is proposed or has occurred, indicate no change.
Please See Attached
7. List all the dates and resolution numbers (or other appropriate identification numbers) of all
modifications or amendments to the originally approved DR! development order that have been adopted
by the local govenunent,.and provide a brief description of the previous changes (Le., any information
not already addressed in the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart). Has there been a change in
local government jurisdiction for any portion of the development since the last approval or development
order was issued? If so, has the annexing local government adopted a. new DRI development order for
the project?
There have been fwe (5) development order amendments adopted by CoUier County since the original
"The Woodlands DRU' development order (Ord. 86-1) was issued on November 6~ 1986. The
following is a description oftheflVe (5) do amendments:
.
Packet Page -236-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
.
(1) Resolution (87-96) adopted April 28, 1987, amended section b(S)(a)(7) and (8), transportation,
to clarify responsibilities of Collier County and the developer; amended section b(S)(b)(4),
transportation conditions, clarifying and redefining criteria by which a substantlizl deviation
shall be determined;
(2) Resolution (87-207) adopted September 15, 1987, amending sectitm a(4),finding offact, to
state a maximum square/ootage of permitted commercial retail development and to increase
the total acreage of preservation areas and to set/orth a revised land use schedule that did not
increase the total amount of acreage or dweUlng units previously approved.
The two (2) development order amendments described above were adopted by CoUier County
to resolve appeals of the olthe original Woodland's DRl develompent order to the Florida
Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission take by the Florida Department of Community
Affairs and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning CounciL The Woodland's DRl
development order became effective on November 7, 1990, the date on which the Florida Land
and Water Adjudicatory Comission issued its final order of dismissal of the appeal.
(3) Resolution (94-774) adopted November 1, 1994, extended the woodlllnd's DR! commencement
date and the buJIdout/tenmnation date by four (4) years, eleven months (11) or until October
. 7, 2000 and October 7, 2015, respectively.
.
CoUier County remains the local government with jurisdiction over all portions of the Olde
Cypress DRI.
(4) On October 22,1996, the BCe amended the development order with resolution (96-482) to
reduce the number of dwelling units/rom 1,460 to 1,100 dwelling units and a reduction of the
commercial use from 200,000 sf to 165,000 sf and miscellaneous changes to the plan resulting
solely from permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management. Also, th~ rlght-
of--way reservation on the east side of the Woodlands was eliminated. Miscellaneous changes
were also made to drainage/water quality, transportation, vegetation and wildlife, wetlands,
consistency with the comprehensive plan andfire by the deletion thereof. .
(5) In December 1999, Resolution (99-472) 28.69 acres were added to the eastern edge o/Olde
Cypress in Section 22. Lands to be added included a 2.1 acre archaelogical preserve area.
Standards were also incorporated in the development order to providl!: protection for
archaelogical resources. The gross density was also redu.ced from 2.2 to 2.1 dwelling units per
acre. Minor adjustments in land use tabulations, along with other miscellaneous changes were
made to the development order to accommodate the notice of change.
(6) Resolution (2000-155) adopted May 23, 2000 added 9.3 acres to accommodate the addUion of
the golf course driving range. The request also included a modifICation of the golf course/open
space acreage from 161.7 to 168.3 acres, inCluding lakes. The resldential acreage was
modified from 152.5 acres to J 55.2 acres. No changes to the number of dwelling units,
commercitzl floor area, phasing schedule, commencement date, or build-out date was
requested.
.
Packet Page -237-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
8. Describe any lands purchased or optioned within 1/4 mile of the original DR! site subsequent to the .
original approval or issuance of the DRl development order. Identify such land, its size, intended use,
and adjacent non-project land uses within V2 mile on a project master site plan or other map.
Vita Pima, LLC recently purchased 65.29 IlCres directly adjacent (south) of the O/de Cypress DR/.
The ellsterly 46.64 acre parcel is an existing RPUD (HD Development Ordinance #05-65). The
westerly 1'8.65 acres is currently zoned agricultural. Vita Pima, LLC has flied a concurrent PUD
Amendment appUcation with Collier County to rezone the entire 65.29 acres to RPUD.
9. Indicate if the proposed change is less than 40% (cumulatively with other previous changes) of any of
the criteria listed in Paragraph 380.06(19)(b), Florida Statutes.
The proposed change is less than 40% of any of the criteria listed in 380(19)(b), F.S.
Do you believe this notification of change proposes a change which meets the criteria of Subparagraph
380.06(19)(e)2., F.S.
YES
NO
x
10. Does the proposed change result in a change to the buildout date or any phasing date of the project?
If so, indicate the proposed new buildout or phasing dates.
No changes to buildout dates or phasing are proposed.
11. Will the proposed change require an amendment to the local government comprehensive plan? .
The proposed change will not require any comprehensive plan changes.
Provide the following for incorporation into such an amended development order, pursuant to
Subsections 380.06 (15), F.S., and 9J-2.025, Florida Administrative Code:
12. An updated master site plan or other map of the development portraying and distinguishing the
proposed changes to the previously approved DR! or development order conditions.
Attached.
13. Pursuant to Subsection 380.06(19)(f), F.S., include the precise language that is being proposed to be
deleted or added as an amendment to the development order. This language should address and quantify:
a. All proposed specific changes to the nature, phasing, and build-out date of the development; to
development order conditions and requirements; to commitments and representations in the
Application for Development App~ova1; to the acreage attributable to each described proposed
change ofland use, open space, areas for preservation, green belts; to strUctures or to other
improvements including locations, square footage, nwnber of units; and other major
characteristics or components of the propos.ed change;
See attached Proposed Master Plan, Map H and Proposed changes to the Collier County
Development Order.
.
Packet Page -238-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
.
b. An updated legal description of the property, if any project acreage is/has been added or
deleted to the previously approved plan of development;
See attaclzed legal description of the property to be attached to the Development Order.
c. A proposed amended development order deadline for commencing physical development of
the proposed changes, if applicable;
No change.
d. A proposed amended development order termination date that reasonably reflects the time
required to complete the development;
No change.
e. A proposed amended development order date until which the local government agrees that the
changes to the DR! shall not be subject to down~zoning, unit density reduction, or intensity
reduction, if applicable; and
No change.
.
f. Proposed amended development order specifications for the annual report, including the date
of submission, contents, and parties to whom the report is submitted as specified in Subsection
91-2.025 (7), F.A.C.
No change.
.
Packet Page -239-
~
~
c;,,)
~z
co
~5
u~
~~
~~
~r.1
0=
~z
~o
n
~~
o~
~~
~~
f-oi
rIj
~
rIj
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
.
lI'lcn- ~ 0
u ~ "'", N
o ~ ...- '" tt'i
oQ ~ '-" N ......
0
gj ~ 0
0
.~ ! ~
-E
Pol': 0
U
0 \0 ..,. ~ 0
j 0 0\0 ......
...... NCO Il'i cO
j:l., ....... lI'l \0
- -
7C
:&
0
~ 8 _ 0- ~ 0
~~ In
......~ ..; ~
- co co
"0 - ...
u
8
c..
e
t:l..
~
M .~ '"
'" .~ en
~H f f I/)
.a u Cl
1I bOU ~ ~ .il
e- .~ If" ~ If -5 II> t:l. '" i3
:E = g
~ .a 5 .g II> 5
f -.a ~ '@ d
5 = ::a g u ':;1 fj
~ ~. ] 0 ~ g. ::a
u .~ ~ 0:;1 c:: .tj t:l ~
II> ~ 8
u ..... ~u j ~ t'I ""'" 0 u
0'.... ..9 u 0 U 101
j ..... u ~ .z!s ..... ~~ ~ 0 E ..9 u d ~
0 p.. be 1:1 0 ~ B ~
~~~ <2 d u d
u :tt :tt en :tt -< ....
en
"0
~1t
1l u
u 11~
II>
;:l ~~
"0
d U ;> 0
~ ~ i] .~
'D
~ 5
0 VJ <'I ~
u '0 C Q .
~ .~ u t:
~ ~;a 0
'-" d
.
.
Packet Page -240-
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
. Olde Cypress DR! I PUD Unit Summary
Last Updated: 3/15/2010 .
Subdivision ~ Total Lots. Built to 'Date ~
Strada. Bella SF '. 18 17 94%
Santorini SF . ,55. 55 100%
Terramar SF 55 55 100%
Egret Cove SF 18 18 100%
Ibis Landing SF .55. 55 100%
Santa Rosa SF '. 27. 27 100%
Biscayne Place SF .8... . 8 100%
Woodsedge SF . .'130... 125 96%
Total SF Units - 366.' . 360 98%
Subdivision ~ l'otal Uriits Built to Date ~
Fairway Preserve MF . 264' -264 100%
Amberton MF , .-312 . 132 42%
. Total MF Units . -5.76 396 69%
.
Olde Cypress DRI
DOA-PL201 0..1 052
email submittal 12/6/1 0
Packet Page -241-
Olde Cypress DR!
Total Pro~osed Units
OIde Cypress PUD
MFUnits
SF Units
Unalloca.ted
Total Units
HD Developrp.ent RPUD
SF Units
Total Units
Total DR! Units
OIde Cyp!ess. PUD
Vita Tuscana PUD
Total Units
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Total Units Built to Date Yi
. 1100. . . 756 69%
Existing
. 576..'
. .366'
..158-. .
1100.
J!xisti~
71
71
Proposed
125
.125
Existiqg- .
1100
o
1100
Proposed
942
125
1067
Olde Cypress DRI
DOA-PL201 0-1 052
email submittal 12/6/1 0
Packet Page -242-
.
.
.
.
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
Olde Cypress DRITransporia#on.Summary
Exis~ Unit Mix
~
SF
MF
Total
PM Peak Total
~ Hour Trips
296 1.0 .
804 0.5
1100
~ro.posep. JJnit Mix
.
~
SF
MF
Total
Iripa '.,
296
402
698
PM Peak Total
Units
491
. 576
1067
Hour 'Trips
1.0
0.5.
~
491
288
779
, % Change in Total Trips I 10.40%1
.
Packet Page -243-
Olde Cypress DRI
DOA-PL201 0-1052
email submittal 12/6/1 0
4/26/2011 Item 7.A.
20D " Tuesday, March 22, 2011 · Naples Dally News
.- ~:,:;_~~~~:~::7~-::~~~::~~:'~~:::.:;:~--'~~~:::~-:::::~i-:.:~:~~-~~:.~~~:.;;-~::~:~::~~.~- ;-:''''':=::-::~~
.
NOTICE OF INTENTTO CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT.ORDER/RESOLUTION
Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, April 12, 2011, in the Boardraom, 3rd
Floor, Administration Building, Collier County. Government Center, 3299 East Ta-
miami Trail, Naples, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners will consider the
enactment or a Development Order Amendment. The meeting will. commence at
9:00 A.M. The title ofthe proposed Development OrderlResolution is as follows: .
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER' 86-01, FOR THE OJ.DE CYPRESS
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT BY PROVIDING FOR: SEO'ION ONE:' AMEND-
ING THE FINDINGS OF FACT SECTION TO REFLECT AN INCREASE IN THE OVERALL
ACREAGE AND TO 1NCREASE THE NUMBER OF SINGLE F.AMILYAND MULTI-FAMILY
DWELUNG UNITS AND AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN, LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO AC-
COUNT FOR THE ADDED LAND AREA AND TO REMOVE THE PARK REQUIREMENT;
SECTION "TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT; SECflON THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; AND
SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TRANS-
MITTAL TO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND EFFEO'IVE Dfl.TE.
Copies of the proposed ResoMion are on file wrth the Oerk to the Board and are
availableior inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard.
NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the
County admmistrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. In-
dividual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of an indi-
vidual to s~eakon behalf of an organization or group' ~ en.couraged"lf recognized
by the Chamnan, a spokesperson far a group or organization 'may be allotted 10
,minutes to speak on al}item_ -
Persons wishing to have written' or graphic' materialS' included -in the Board agenda
packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective
public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be. considered by the
B~ard shall be su.bmitte~ to the appr~priate ~ounty staff.a mini'!lum.tif seven da~
pnor to the public j1earlng. All matenal used In presentations beTore the Board WIll
become a permanent part ofthe record. -'
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a . record of tHe
proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure .that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the. testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal is based. .
If you are a person with a disability who nee'ds any accommodation In orde;'topar-
ticlpate in this proceedirig; you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of
certain assistance. Please contact the Callier County Facilities Management De(lart-
'ment, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, 'Building W. Naples, Florida 34112, (239) .
252-8380. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the
County Commissioners' Office.,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA'
FRED COYLE, CHAIRMAN
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By: Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk
(SEAL)
.
March 22.2011
Nn'R~396
.
Packet Page -244-
___~~__._._ I