Agenda 10/28/2008 Item # 8B
,A,~enda Item ~~o. 88
, October 28, 2008
Page 1 of 193
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DRICLO-2008-AR-13181, John J. Agnelli of Power Corporation represented by Dwight
Nadeau of RW A, Inc., is requesting a close-out of the Berkshire Lakes Development of
Regional Impact (DRI). The subject property has a zoning designation of Planned Unit
Development (POO) known as the Berkshire Lakes PUD, and is located at the Northwest
corner of Davis Boulevard (SR-84) and Santa Barbara Boulevard, in Sections 32 and 33,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and Section 5, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCe) consider an application for the Berkshire
Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) to close-out the DRI and ensure the project is still
in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's
interests are maintained.
CONSIDERA TIONS:
,,,..-...
The petitioner is seeking to close-out the Berkshire Lakes DRI, which includes an Essentially
Built-Out Agreement (EBOA) (Attachment A) between the applicant, the Department of
Commwlity Affairs (DCA) and Collier County; an advertised public hearing action to close out
the DRI but not the PUD, The petitioner is seeking an essentially built-out status for the project
under the provisions of Chapter 380.06(15)(g)3, and 4.b(H), Florida Statutes,
A DR! is a development that, because of its character, magnitude, or location, addresses regional
issues impacting the environment, roadways, stornlwater and emergency services with
substantial effects upon the health, safety and welfare, or more than one unit of local
government. Whereas, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a legal zoning document that is
approved by the local government and prepared in adherence with the Growth Management Plan
(GMP) and which defines a unified development and all applicable development standards and
criteria. The LDC requires all DRI developments to be established by a PUD zoning designation,
The PUD document addresses local issues that have impacts to the conmlunity such as setbacks,
air circulation, building heights, density and intensity of land uses, and consists at a minimum, of
a map and adopted ordinance setting forth the governing regulations, and the location and
phasing of all proposed uses and improvements to be included in the development. According to
the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Section 2.03.06, ''the purpose and intent of
establishing the PUD district is to provide procedures and standards. ....in accordance with the
planning and development objectives of the County under the LDC and the GMP." These
differences are highlighted as this EBGA also includes a request to a11O\v for additional
commercial square footage to be constructed within Berkshire Lakes PUD.
-
The DRI program exists to give regional interests a voice at the bargaining table concerning
large developments that are expected to have :m impact on the region, The Regional Planning
Council (RPC) reviews the DRI and is required to analyze the effects of a proposed DRI on the
Page I of 11
Agenda Item [,la. 38
October 2008
Page 2 of : f)3
region. The RPC acts as an intelmediate reviewing body and upon conclusion of their review
they submit a report to the local government. The RPC has an influence on local decisions, at the
region a] ]evel. Their recommendations are used by the local government in development order
negotiations with the developer. The local government retains the power to make all DRI
decisions subject to state review under the guidance of the RPC. Ultimately the decision making
authority is retained by the local government after the DRI is essentially built-out or abandoned.
Chapter] 63, Florida Statues entrusts the land use decisions at the local level. This delegation of
general zoning authority transfers the legislative zoning powers from the State to the local
government, and by this delegation, Collier County has the authority to regulate the use of land
in the service of community health, safety, and welfare. Local government retains the power to
make all DRI decisions subject to State review under the guidance of the RPc.
The DRI review is intended to examine the impacts of the development that will be felt
regionally. Consideration is given to regional impacts that are closely related to and derived from
the more local impacts of the development. Notwithstanding the rigorous review associated with
the DRI process, the Developer must also, in completely separate applications and proceedings
from the DR! process, satisfy all of the local government's permitting requirements, including
amendments to the local government's comprehensive plan and/or its zoning map. The DRI is,
therefore, effectively a mandatory, formalized development agreement process for developments
over a gIven sIze.
HISTORY OF THE BERKSHIRE LAKES DRlIPUD: On August 16, ] 983, Collier County
adopted Resolution Number 83-46 and Deve]opment Order Number 83-1 (00-83-1) for the
Berkshire Lakes DRI and Planned Unit Development (PUD), a 1,093:!:-acre mixed-use
development permitting residential, office and commercial land uses, and, a golf course. The
project was originally approved to contain 335 single-family and 3,865 multi-family housing
units with 375,000 square feet of commercial and office space, along with an 82.5 acre golf
course and 176.9 acres of parks and greenbelt areas.
Since the adoption of 00-83- l, the subject DO has been amended several times. Starting with
Resolution Number 85-165 and Ordinance Number 85-35, which were approved on August 6,
1985, revising the PUD document by amending subsection 8.02(F)(a), Hurricane Protection, and
adding a stipulation that Government Agencies have jurisdiction to detenlline minimum floor
elevations, as well as establishing an absolute minimum floor elevation. Ordinance Number 85-
75, approved December ] 7, 1985, amended the Master Plan, waiving sidewalk requirements,
street pavement painting, striping and reflective edging requirements. A]so, project density was
decreased from 3.96 dwelling units per acre to 3.84 dwelling units per acre; golf course acreage
and maintenance shops and equipment storage were included. Ordinance Number 86-21,
approved on May 6, ] 986, amended the requirements for paved and reserved parking spaces, and
minimum setbacks from the golf course tract lines were added, and a stipulation was added that
disallowed the issuance of construction permits until lake side slopes adjacent to proposed
construction had been completed and approved. Resolution Number 86-1] 0, approved .Tune ] 7,
1986, amended the Hurricane Evacuation Conditions; Resolution Number 87-275, approved
November 17, 1 987, approved an additional access point on to Radio Road (CR-856), altered the
single-family/multi-family mix without changing the unit total, ch:mged the golf course layout,
Page 2 of 1\
A:::enda Ilem No, 88
- October 28. 20D8
Page 3 of 1 ~)3
and increased the project's open space, Resolution Number 91-448, approved June] 1, 1991,
altered the residential mix without changing the dwelling unit total, amended the development
phasing schedule, required the Developer and Collier County to agree on specific hurricane
protection and evacuation measures, and committed the Developer to various platting,
excavation, sidewalk and setback measures; Resolution Number 92-676 (00-92-5), approved
December 22, 1992, changed the Developer's name and stated that all amendments to the PUD
are to be included in the DO. POI Resolution Number 93-7, approved April 15, 1993, permitted
changes to the development's lake system; Resolution Number 94-677 and Resolution Number
94-678 (DO-94-3) increased the number of single-family residential units from 950 to 1,256
(1'nr-r""'''p of 106 ~\lTPlll' ncr "nits) "'nel r""duf'pd tl,,,,, ,,..,,,lt1'- fa, n,;ly r'~e;d""ntl'" I "n;te fron1 3 ')50 to
\, ... _ __...,_ ....... ""'"-, '" ,~j.b ro..&. ... ... , -... ..... .......... '" ,....... ........11.4 .. .I......... ........,.. ...........'" 11.4 \,.to-'- J."'~ .1 J..., ,.......
2,944 (a decrease of 306 dwelling units), and added an additional access point on Radio Road
(CR-856). In 1998, Berkshire Lakes DRIIPUD was modified through the adoption of Ordinance
Number 98-5 which provided for self-storage as a permitted use, as well as regulation of the
hours of operation and provided language for the landscape bufTers for an out parcel.
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 380.06(l5)(g)3, a DRI is essentially built-out when all the
mitigation requirements in the development order have been satisfied, all developers are in
compliance with all applicable tenus and conditions of the development order (DO) except the
build-out date, and the amount of proposed development that remains to be built is less than 20
percent of any applicable DRI threshold. Alternatively, pursuant to the provisions of
380.06(l5)(g)4.a, and bell), a project could be declared essentially built-out if the state land
planning agency and the local government have agreed in writing that the amount of
development to be built does not create the likelihood of any additional regional impact not
previously reviewed. The EBOA was reviewed by appropriate County staff and was found to be
compliant with all applicable County regulations under the CUlTent approved DO for the DRl.
OUTSTANDING ISSUES: While the approved commercial acreage remains the same, the
petitioner wishes to increase the commercial square footage by 69,312 square feet for a total of
444,312 square fcet. In discussions with thc applicant and agents, the language in Section 2.1 0 of
the Berkshire Lakes PUD (Development Sequence and Schedule) should be interpreted to mean
that the Berkshire Lakes DRl/PUD was approved for approximately 42.5 acres of commercial
land uses. The 375,000 square feet of commercial land uses as noted in Section 2. I 0, of the PUD
document, Market Absorption Schedule, is only an estimate. However, stafT is of the opinion that
the 375,000 square feet of commercial is the maximum amount permitted. The rationale behind
this opinion is that historically the older PUDs in the County were all written with similar
language and the Estimated Market Absorption Schedules were not an estimate but functioned as
caps on the allowable square footage. Furthennore, the Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) reviewed and accepted this DRI at a maximum of 375,000 square feet based on the
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council's assessment for the Berkshire Lakes DRI
(Attachment B) as well as the applicant's own annual monitoring repOlis for the DRI/PUD
(Attachment C), and the initial Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) and subsequent TISs were
support documents for succeeding amendments, Additionally, a letter dated October ] 5, 2007
from DCA to Collier County's TranspOliation Service Division (Attachment E), enumerated
reasons why infonnation provided was not sufficient to justify an EBOA. Reason number one
stated that the DRI was approved for 375,000 square feet of commercial uses and other ancillary
uses. In addition, the most recent DRI report from DCA's Application for Development
Page 3 of ] 1
Item [\Jo E!B
October 28, 2008
4 of 1 SJ3
Approval (Attachment G) indicates that 375,000 gross square feet of commercial development is
the amount approved for Berkshire Lakes DRIIPUD.
Based on this information, staff is of the opinion that the PUD Document (Ordinance Number
91-45 Attachment D) should be amended for consistency to reflect the additional 69,312 square
feet of commercial space that the applicant intends on constructing and to cap the allowable
commercial square footage at 444,312 square feet. Furthermore, the LDC requires that an
increase of commercial square footage over the amount originally approved constitutes a
substantial change to the PUD thus requiring a PUD amendment (See LDC Section 10.02.13).
Staff considers the Berkshire Lakes DRIIPUD to be an appropriate location for expansion of
commercial area and the project appears to be proceeding in a manner consistent with the
approved DO with the exception of the additional square footage identified above. Collier
County is responsible for ensuring compliance with the terms and conditions of the DO, as well
as the provisions of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP),
FISCAL IMPACT:
The developer has paid $5,900,000 in impact fees and provided right-of-way dedications valued
at $1,178,733 for a total contribution of $7,078,733. This figure exceeds the fair share obligation
calculated as $6,829232. The Essentially Built-Out Agreement also includes a requirement for
an additional $110,000 in contributions by the Developer of which $ 10,000 will go towards
County application and review fees and $100,000 will be used to meet various transp011ation
conditions.
There is no guarantee that the project, at the current approved build out of an estimated 375,000
square feet, will maximize its authorized level of commercial development per the PUD
Document. However, if the BCC approves the PUD Amendment through the DRI Closeout,
additional commercial square footage could be developed and the new development could
possibly impact Collier County public facilities.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject prope11y is designated Urban/Urban Mixed
Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict, with a portion of the site lying within a residential
density band, and Urban Commercial District'Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (#6), as
identified on the Future Land Use Map and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the
Growth Management Plan (GMP).
The 1,093::!:-acre Berkshire Lakes DRIIPUD was approved in 1983 for 4,200 dwelling units and
42.5 acres of commercial development. Typical of PUDs at that time, it did not explicitly state
the maxImum square feet of commercial allowed (as the County did not so require), rather the
PUD listed 375,000 square feet of commercial in the Estimated Market Absorption Schedule.
However, the Application for Development Approval (DRI application) indicated 375,000
square f.:et as the maximum. The County has consistently viewed the commercial square feet
(and other figures, e.g. number of dwelling units, number of hotel units, industrial square feet,
Page 4 of 11
1.\.qenda Item r~o. 28
. OctJber 28 2008
50f193
number of assisted living units, etc.) listed in the market absorption table of PUDs as the
maximum allowed, and PUD application materials, such as traffic impact analysis, would be
based upon those figures in the market absorption schedule. Staff considers the 375,000 figure
to be the maximum amount of commercial development approved and allowed in this PUD/DR!.
The PUD/DR! has been amended since 1983 but the total n umber of residential units and
commercial acres and square feet did not change. One amendment added personal self storage
use in the commercial tracts.
The existing commercial development within the project thus far consists of a total of 371,212
square feet. Of that total, 204, n9 square feet is retail shopping space; 37,320 square feet is
general office space; and ] 29, 163 square feet is self-storage mini warehouse space. All of the
self storage development, and a portion of the office development, is located in Activity Center
number 6 at the Santa Barbara Boulevard/Davis Boulevard (SR-84) intersection.
Through this DR! closeout process, the petitioner proposes an Essentially Built-Out Agreement
(EBOA) that would allow the addition to the PUD/DR! of 14,000 square feet of office
development; 56,000 square feet of retail and service development; and, 3,100 square feet of
retail facilities in connection with the expansion and redevelopment of an existing Mobil gas
mart on the previously developed commercial property within Berkshire Commons. All of this
is located at the northwest comer of the Santa Barbara Boulevard/Radio Road (CR-84)
intersection which is not within an Activity Center, rather designated Urban Residential
Subdistrict.
Total Commercial Square Footage:
371.212 SQFT Existing (retail and service, office, self storage)
14,000 SQFT New Office
56,000 SQFT New Retail and Service
3,100 SOFT New Retail for expansion of existing Mobil ~as mart
TOTAL: 444,3 12 SQFT Commercial vs. PUD/DRI Cap of 375,000 SQFT
The final commercial square footage is 444,312, which exceeds the maximum square footage
allowed for this particular DR!. The petitioner asserts that the self-storage mini warehouse space
should be excluded from consideration based upon a more recent change in Florida Statutes that
provides that self storage use is exempt from DRI threshold review, thus reducing the existing
non-exempt development and allowing for the proposed additional commercial development (see
below).
371.212 square feet of existing development
- ] 29.163 square feet of existing self storaue development
242,049 square feet of existing "non-exempt" commercial development
242,049 square feet of existing "non-exempt" commercial development
+ 7] .300 square feet of additional (new) commercial development proposed in the EBOA
313,349 square feet of existing and new "non-exempt" commercial development
Page 5 or 11
A,oenda It~Jm ['jo, 88
~ October 28. 2008
Pa;]8 6 of 193
However, staff notes this exemption under DRI legislation does not change the fact that self
storage use is viewed as a commercial use (only allowed in C-4 and C-5 Zoning Districts, as well
as Industrial Zoning Districts) in the PUD, therefore subject to the 375,000 square feet limitation.
As a result, in Comprehensive Planning staff's opinion, this EBOA for the DRI is in conflict with
the PUD.
The approved 4,200 residential dwelling units are consistent with the Density Rating System in
the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The commercial development located within Activity
Center Number 6 (self-storage mini warehouses and offices) is consistent with the Activity
Center Subdistrict. However, most of the PUD/DRI's commercial development is located in the
northwest and southwest quadrants of Radio Road/Santa Barbara Boulevard, and is not
consistent with the Urban Residential Subdistrict in which it lies. However, during
implementation of the Zoning Re-Evaluation ordinance (ZRO) in the early 1990s, this project
was granted an Exemption by virtue of its DRI status. Pursuant to FLUE Policy 5.10, the DRI is
deemed consistent with the FLUE to the extent of Exemption granted. This Exemption protected
the "non-conforming" commercial portion of the PUD/DRI from being down zoned to a
consistent, conforming zoning (e.g. low density residential). It has consistently been staff's
position that the Exemption and FLUE Policy 5. ] 0 do not allow for an increase in use intensity,
either commercial acreage or building square feet, beyond that approved in the PUD/DRI at the
time the Exemption was granted; that is, what was approved within the PUD/DRI may be
developed but more commercial acreage or commercial square feet may not be added. FLUE
Policy 5.10 is stated below:
FLUE Policy 5.10:
The zoning on property for which an exemption has been granted based on vested rights,
dedication, or compatibility detennination, and the zoning on property for which a
compatibility exception has been granted, both as provided for in the Zoning Re-
evaluation Program established pursuant to fonner Policy 3.1 K and implemented through
the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance No. 90-23, and as identified on the Future Land Use
Map series as Properties Consistent by Policy, shall be considered consistent with the
Future Land Use Element. Such propeJ1y shall be considered consistent with the Future
Land Use Element only to the extent of the exemption or exception granted and in
accordance with all other limitations and timelines that are provided for in the Zoning Re-
evaluation Program. Nothing contained in this policy shall exempt any development
from having to comply with any provision of the Growth Management Plan other than
the zoning re-evaluation program. Additionally, the Copeland, Plantation Island and
Chokoloskee Urban areas were exempted from the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance.
Existing zoning on properties within these communities shall also be considered
consistent with the Future Land Use Element.
The petitioner has also asserted the 375,000 square feet is not a cap at all, therefore may be
exceeded. And, the petitioner has asseJ1ed that the Exemption granted, and FLUE Policy 5.] 0,
grandfathered the zoning (PUD) and, as such, the PUD may be amended to add intensity; that is,
the petitioner disagrees with staff's position that an increase in use intensity is not allowed.
",-,
Page 6 of 11
item ~~o. .3S
October 28 20Cl8
7 (,f193
Based upon the circumstances specific to this petItIon, the County Attomey's Office has
rendered an opinion on this petition that the Exemption and FLUE Policy 5.10 has grandfathered
the zoning, thus allowing commercial development of the 42.5 acres designated commercial in
the PUD; and recommends a subsequent PUD amendment to state the "estimated absorption
schedule of 375,000 square feet of commercial is an estimation and not a maximum threshold."
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area.
Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development Review as
part of their review of the petition in its entirety.
REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS
. On page one of the EBOA, third paragraph from the bottom of the page, reference is
made to "non-exempt DRI uses." Staff (and the applicant) is aware this alludes to the
statutory exemption of self storage use but this likely is not clear to other readers. Staff
recommends the addition of one or more "whereas" clause(s) to explain, and/or provide
specific reference to, that statutory exemption.
Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed DRI closeout -
which includes an increase in commercial square footage via the Essentially Built-Out
Agreement - is inconsistent with Policy 5.10 of the Future Land Use Element. Should the BCC
agree with staff, then the petitioner may wish to submit a GMP amendment petition to amend
FLUE Policy 5.10 or otherwise amend the FLUE so as to allow the proposed additional
commercial development. However, the BeC, in making the final detennination of GMP
consistency, could find this petition consistent with the FLUE if the BCC interprets:
1. There is no cap on commercial square feet in the PUD/DRI - the 375,000 figure is
merely an estimate so may be exceeded, therefore no commercial development intensity
by which to make a comparison for change in intensity; OR,
') FLUE Policy 5. I 0 allows, or does not prohibit, an increase in intensity of development on
property granted a ZRO Exemption; OR,
3, The statutory exemption allows the self storage building area to be excluded from
calculation of commercial development in both the DRI and PUD, therefore, even with
the proposed addition of 71,300 square feet of commercial development, there is no
increase in intensity; OR,
4. The statutory exemption allows the self storage building area to be excluded from
calculation of commercial development in the DRl, therefore, even with the proposed
addition of 7 1,300 square feet of commercial development, there is no increase in
intensity to the DRI, but that the PUD would need to be amended to address this increase
in building square feet.
Comprehensive Planning stafT does not supp0l1 any of these four options, but notes:
. option #1 likely has the greatest impact (precedent) as many older PUDs are worded
similar to this one - they contain an estimated market absorption schedule, which has
consistently been viewed as the maximum allowed;
Page 7 of ] 1
f\genda Item ['Jo.88
Octoher 28, 2DG8
8 of : 93
. option #2 likely has the second greatest impact (precedent) as there are believed to be
several properties granted an Exemption where the zoning (PUD document) specifies a
use intensity;
. option #3 likely has the third least impact as there may not be any other DRI - whether
granted a ZRO Exemption or not - that is zoned PUD, and contains a commercial
component that allows self-storage use, and is developed with that use;
. option #4 likely has the least impact as there may not be any other DRI - whether granted
a ZRO Exemption or not - that is zoned PUD, and contains a commercial component that
allows self-storage use, and is developed with that use, and because the PUD would still
have to be amended to reflect the added building square feet.
Should the BCC approve this petition, whether based on one of the above options or based upon
some other finding of consistency with the GMP, Comprehensive Planning staff recommends a
modification to the EBOA to explain the exemption of self storage use, as noted above,
Transportation Element: The Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's
DRICLO application and deemed it consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of
the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Transportation planning staff along with the Florida
Department of Transportation, received from the applicant the "Berkshire Lakes DRI -
Comparison ofImpact Fees and Proportionate share" dated February 7, 2008.
On February 14, 2008, the Florida Department of Transportation provided comments following
their review of the Comparison of Impact Fees and Proportionate Share dated February 7, 2008
and asked the applicant to revise the cost estimates to widen the 1.24 miles of SR-84 from 2
lanes to 4 lanes.
On March 3, 2008, the applicant submitted a revised Comparison of Impact Fees and
Proportionate Share to support the proposed EBOA (Attachment E). The data submitted
provided sufficient information to conclude that the conversion of a portion of the commercial
square footage to industrial square footage (storage space), did not create greater traffic than the
original submittal of the Application for Development Approval (ADA).
On March 6, 2008, the Florida Department of Transportation infonned the Department of
Community Affairs that the document received from Berkshire Lakes DRI demonstrated the
applicant's fulfillment of the mitigation requirements of the developer order.
On March 7, 2008, the Transportation Planning Department issued a letter to Berkshire Lakes
DRI confimling that after review of the documentation provided on February 7, 2008 and
supplemental infomlation received on March 3, 2008, it was concluded that the remaining
payment of S 11 0,000 to be made would satisfy the transportation requirements of the Berkshire
Lakes PUD/DRI development orders. Based on the documents provided, transpOliation staff
recommends approval of the Essentially Built-Out Agreement.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and found that
Page 8 of II
!l,,,m r,Jo, 88
Ckt~)ber 2008
9 of '193
the DRlCLO has met all the conditions contained in the Development Order.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
The EAC does not hear DRICLO/ EBOA petitions.
COLLIER COI.:NTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDA TION:
The CCPC does not hear DRICLO/ EBOA petitions.
LEGAL CONSIDER-\ TIONS:
The BCC may close-out the Berkshire Lakes DRI and adopt the Essentially Built-Out Agreement
pursuant to Section 380.06(15)(g)( 4). Florida Statue after it finds that 1. The Developers are in
compliance with all the applicable tern1S and conditions of the development order except the
build out date, and 2. That the DCA, and County have agreed in writing that the amount of
development to build does not create a likelihood of any additional regional impact not
previously provided. E-mails and correspondence attached to the Memorandum (Attachment F)
from Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attomey to Joseph Schmitt, finds that there is no
additional impact Staff questions the consistency of this DRI with the Comprehensive Plan
because the application for development approval that was reviewed by the State referenced
375,000 square feet of commercial development, and the adopted PUD references 42.5 acres of
commercial development or an estimated 375,000 square feet of commercial development on the
estimated absorption schedule. If the BCC desires to close-out the DRI and adopt the Essentially
Built-Out Agreement, the BCC needs to make a finding that based on the facts and
circumstances surrounding the Berkshire Lakes DRI and Planned Unit Development (PUD) that
the 375,000 square feet of commercial development is not a maximum. If the BCC makes this
finding, then the PUD does not require amendment and FLUE Policy 5.10 grandfathers the
additional commercial development The BCC should make it clear that this finding does not
apply to other DRl's and PUD's. Under the proposed Essentially Built-Out Agreement, the
developer will he pern1itted to construct up to 444,312 square feet of commercial development,
of which 129,163 square feet is self storage, It should be noted that the law governing
exemptions to DRI review was changed suhsequent to the adoption of this DRI to exempt self
storage warehousing from DRI review.
To summarize, if the Board wishes to close-out the DRI and adopt the essentially built-out
agreement, the motion to approve should include the following findings:
1. The Developers are in compliance with all the applicahle terms and conditions of the
development order except the build out clate;
2. Based on the facts ancl circumstances surrounding the Berkshire Lakes DRI and Planned Unit
Development, that the 375,000 square feet of commercial development is not a maximum.
3. That these findings are unique to the Berkshire Lakes DIU and Planned Unit Development
and are of no relevance to any other DRI or PUD.
f-
-JAK
Page 9 of ] I
l\aenda !tem r~o 88
. October 2008
Page 10 of! 93
SUMMARY:
As described in the Legal Considerations above, the Berkshire Lakes PUD language is vague
concerning the maximum commercial square footage because it references approximately 42.5
acres of commercial development and an estimated 375,000 square feet of commercial
development. As noted on page 3 of this Executive Summary, staff has previously determined
that the 375,000 square feet is a maximum cap on commercial development. Therefore, staff
recommends that the applicant amend the Berkshire Lakes PUD (Ordinance No. 91-45) to reflect
the increase in square footage allowed by the EBOA. as a condition to approving the EBOA and
which would increase the allowable commercial square footage to 444,312 square feet in the
PUD. This would allow the local impacts of the additional square footage to be vetted through
the County's public hearing process. 1 f the BCC were to choose to close-out the DRI without
requiring an amendment to the PUD, that decision would allow the project to exceed what staff
has routinely detern1ined to be the maximum square footage allmved by the PUD, and in doing
so, the BCC would be making a finding that the current 375,000 square fDotage limit is not a
maximum/cap.
Based on staffs analysis and the County Attorney's opinion, the BCC has two options which are
listed on page 7 of this Executive Summary. Option 1, which is suppOlied by the County
Attorney's Office (CAO), concludes that there is no cap on commercial square footage in the
PUD and therefore the PUD does not have to be amended; or Option 4, supported by staff,
concludes that the PUD has a perceived cap and which recognizes that self storage facilities are
exempt from calculation of commercial development in the DRl, but does not exempt this land
use from the PUD calculations for establishing a maximum floor area, and, therefore, a PUD
Amendment is required.
RECOMMENDA TION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners (BeC) Approve the Essentially
Built-Out Agreement (EBOA) subject to one of the following conditions.
1. That the BCC finds that the Berkshire Lakes PUD doesn't provide a cap on commercial
square footage and thereby a PUD amendment is not required.
or
2. That the BCC finds that the Berkshire Lakes PUD does provide a cap on commercial
square footage, and that the developer/applicant shall amend the Berkshire Lakes PUD
(Ordinance No. 91-45) to reflect the proposed increase in commercial floor area from a
maximum of 375,000 square feet to a maximum of 444,312 square feet, and the EBOA
shall be revised to state that no commercial development beyond 375,000 square feet is
to be allowed until the PU 0 amendment has been approved by the Board. In addition,
that the EBOA shall be amended to include additional "whereas" clause(s) to reference
the specific Florida Statues exemption.
Page 10 of ] 1
p.:JI:mda item h!o. 38
- October 2008
Page 11 of 193
PREPARED BY:
Melissa Zone, Principal Planner
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
Page ] ] of 11
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Page 1 of 2
Aoenda Item r'lo. 88
-' October 28, 2008
Page :2 of 193
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
8B
DRICLO-2008-AR-13181. John J. Agnelli of Power Corporation represented by Dwight
Nadeau of RVVA, Inc.. is requesting a close-out of the Berkshire Lakes Development of
Regional Impact (DRI). The subject property has a zoning designation of Planned Unit
Development (PUD) known as the Berkshire Lakes PUD. and IS located at the Northwest
corner of Davis Boulevard (SR-84) and Santa Barbara Boulevard In Sections 32 and 33,
Township 49 South. Range 26 East. and Section 5. Township 50 South. Range 26 East,
Collter County. Florida. (eTS)
10/28/200890000 AM
Prepared By
Melissa Zone
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Principal Planner
Date
Zoning & Land Development Review
9/22/20089;30:15 AM
Approved By
Judy Puig
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Operations Analyst
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
Date
10/171200811:28 AM
Approved By
Jeff Klatzkow
County Attorney
Assistant County Attorney
Date
County Attorney Office
10117120081:59 PM
Approved By
Nick Casalanguida
Transportation Services
MPO Director
Date
Transportation Planning
10117120082:20 PM
Approved By
Norm E. Feder. AICP
Transportation Services
Transportation Division Adolinistrator
Date
Transportation Servic~:;s. Admin.
':012112008 'Ii :21 Pc M
Approved By
Jo~)eph K. Schn1itt
COmrrIU!1!ty JeveIOpl11€nt &
Environmental Services
Community Development &
::nvironnH:ntat Servk:es .4dm~nstiator
Date
Community DeveiopmE'nt &
environmenta: Services ,4dmin.
10121120082:55 PM
Approved By
Ray 5ellmro's
Community Development (;,
:tl\.';rOn[;i0li:a: :rGt-\"i':'E:5
Chfer PlannBr
Date
Zoning & ~and Deve.!opment R€'vi~~w
10/21/20082:58 PM
Approved By
tile:/ /e :\A~enda T est\EXDort\ 115-0ctober%2028. %202008\08. %20ADVER TlSED%20PU...
10/22/2008
Susan istenes, AICP
Community Development &
E,"'v!ronrnent~l SerVJC0S
Zar,ing g L.and Deve!op:nent Director
Date
Approved By
OMS Coordinator
Administrative Services
'::oni;-,g g L~nd Dove!c.;-)l';lSnt F:e\/iew
',0:21;20083:17 PM
Approved By
Mark Isackson
County r\f;anage~-"s Off!::e
Applications Ana!j'st
Date
Approved By
James \/. tv1udd
Board of County
Comm!SSiDne~s
information Techn::;iogy
10;21/2008 3 :29 PM
Bud~H:t Analyst
Date
file:/IC:\Agend8TestIFxnort\ 11 :)-()ct()her~';)202R_%20200R\OR.%20A r1VFRTfSFr1%20Pl ; d.
Office 0:" rv:anagem~111 & Budget
1 0/21 /~DU8 4 :Og PfV!
County r\tianager
Dzte
COunty !\!;ar.2~Ter-'sJffice
10121;20085:29 PM
Page 2 of 2
lisn'"l l'~o" (;B
OC1:)r)91 ;:'8 2003
',3 -:,;:3
10/22/200g
f--- ='
I :~~ atI.Dnla,l:TtDTA'lD
~ ~
(I :::~ ,.
~-
CRelIlDl!U!lr'NlID i ...... \
-~ .
.. ~
I ~~arAltS ~ ..,
-- GOLDEN GATE
LOCATION MAP
,i\qenda Item No. 88
- October 28. 2008
Page 14 of 193
~!
~
I
ZONING MAP
PETITION #DRICLO- 2008- AR- 13181
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET
/\aenda item !,-jo. 2:.'3
2800 NORTH HORSES~J.briI~~~)~:~
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 c.g~ ,~l), :, J
(239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6968
. <.r '.'. . ....APF>LlCATION:FOR;~\l.JBI+IC..,'HEARING2;::.:\:.t.p','~ . ...... ..... ....,
:..' CLOSEOIJr PF'A :DEv.ELc.pM~I~t'~oj:JR'EGIONAL:II\IID'~cii::toRIQI..Or:p:~::.. . ..
PETITION NO (AR) [DRICLO-Z008-AR-13181 REV: 1 ]
PROJECT NAME BERKSHIRE LAKES PUD (DR!)
PROJECT NUMBER Project: 19990186
DATE PROCESSED "'~"e' Af-14'08 DUE: 4/29/08
ASSIGNED PLANNER Ui:H ..... l ,
~/.:
;-:;,:':C:,:""
Above lobe COrrlpl~tedlJY st~ff
.'.APPL.ICANJ'Ir..rI7.QRMAj"IOfr,J -, ".,
,7
":""",' ......,.
:":~',- '.
.- .--
.. ....:..'11
NAME OF APPLICANT JOHN J. AGNELLI
FIRM POWER CORPORATION
ADDRESS 3050 N HORSESHOE DRIVE, SUITE 105 CITY NAPLES STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34104
TELEPHONE # 239-775-2230 CELL # 239-285-0345 FAX # 239-775-1398
E-MAIL ADDRESSJOHNA@POWERCORP.NET
Please provide the following information on separate sheets.
D (a) If applicant is a land trust, so indicate and name beneficiaries.
~ (b) If applicant is a corporation other than a public corporation, so indicate and name
officers and major stockholders. * See Attached
D (c) If applicant is a limited liability company, partnership, limited partnership or other
business entity, so indicate and name principals.
fl.
AGi;NT..INFORMATION ....
J
NAME OF AGENT{S) DWIGHT NADEAU
FIRM RWA, INC.
ADDRESS 6610 WJLLOW PARK DRIVE CITY NAPLES STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34109
TELEPHONE # 239-597-0575 CELL # FAX # 239-597-0578
E-MAIL ADDRESSDHN@CONSULT-RWA.COM
NAME OF AGENT(S) C. LANE WOOD
F!RM S,'\LVATOR! & WOOD P.L.
ADDRESS 4001 TArvllAMI TRAIL NORTH, SUITE 330 CITY NAPLES STATE FLORJDA ZIP 34103
TELEPHONE # 239-263-1480 CELL # FAX # 239-649-1707
E-MAIL ADDRESSCLW@SALVATORIANDWOOD.COM
0:\2003\030150.00.00 Berkshire PUD Cornpjiance\OlJU 1 U:meral Consultallon\DRI Closeo\:t\DRi Closeout (DRlCLO)
Application(FINAL).doc3/1 J!20Dg
Page 1 of4
.Agenda Item t'Jo, 88
October 28. 2008
Page 16 of 193
Power Corporation
President: William T. Higgs
Vice President: John J. Agnelli
Secretary: Antonia Higgs
Treasurer: Lisa Loiacano
Major Stockholders: William T. Higgs
Power Holding Corporation
'te:-Tl ib. 38
C)c,t::)ber 2.3. 2008
NAME OF AGENT(S} KEN METCALF, AICP
F]RM GREENBERG TRAURIG
ADDRESS 101 EAST COLLEGE AVENUE CITY TALLAHASSEE STATE
TELEPHONE # 850-222-6891 CELL # FAX # 850-681-0207
E-MAIL ADDRESSMETCALFK@GTLAW.COM
'17 of
-'. ...
-' '\
FLORIDA ZIP 32302
ij y..;i':....':\....:L::..\.,\X;\':: c.,.::..,i,.>..,.,"::',...~'...i.<,:.PiRQel:RP(':pE.S.C:RJBJI(.)N~;",'.'
,"'c,._"'" ".
......-',...,.."........
.......,..,."."".".:.,
d
DRI DEVELOPMENT ORDER NAME AND NUMBER: BERKSHIRE LAKES DO 83-1
DETAILED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY 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. If property is odd-
shaped, submit five (5) copies of the survey (1" to 400' scale).
Please see Exhibit A-1
THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPLYING THE CORRECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION. IF
QUESTIONS ARISE CONCERNING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AND ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION
SHALL BE REQUIRED.
SectionrrownshiplRange 32 and 33/49S/26E Sectionrrownship/Range 5/50S/26E
HAS A PUBLIC HEARING BEEN HELD ON THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE LAST YEAR?
DYes ~ No
]f yes, piease provide a written explanation of the hearing.
IS THE APPLICANT THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER OF THE DR!?
HAS THE PROPERTY BEEN PLATTED?
~Yes
t8l Yes
DNo
DNa
If yes, please identify the recorded plat names and plat book and page references.
Please see Exhibit A-2
is THERE REMAINING LAND TO BE DEVELOPED WITHIN THE DRi?
!2Sj Yes
DNo
If yes, please describe those lands.
Vacant land and surplus parking located within the Berkshire Commons Shopping Center at the NW
corner of Radio Road and Santa Barbaia Boulevard in Naples, Collier County, Florida; which shopping
center is more particularly described as Tract F, Berkshire Lakes, Unit One, per plat recorded at Plat
Book 14, Pages 118-120, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, including surplus parking area
and Parcels 2 and 3 and Outparcel E-1, all as shown on Exhibits Band C attached hereto,
BE ADVISED THAT SECTION 10.03.05.B.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES AN
APPLICANT TO REMOVE THEIR PUBLIC HEARING SIGN (5) AFTER FINAL ACTION IS TAKEN BY
I ~~~~;tE~~~i~~~~L~O~~~~!~i;~~:~~~~R~7si~~ ~g~r~'~~~6~~i~~~N ON TH!S
O:12U03\030150.00,UO Berksh!re PUD CompJiance\OOOl General Consultatton\DRl Closeout\DRl Closeout (DRlCLO)
Application(FlNAL).doc3/J 1/2008
Page 2 of 4
Agenda Item No. 88
October 28, 2008
Page 18 of 193
AFFIDAVIT
I, JOHN J. AGNELLI, being first duly swom, depose and say that well arnlare the applicant and developer
of the DR! property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the
answers to the questions in tMs application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches,
dam, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true
to the best of our knowledge and belief. We/I understand that the information requested on this
application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated
or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is
deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted.
As applicant and developer, Well further authorize DWIGHT NADEAU. C. LANE WOOD and KENNETH
METCALF to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this Petition.
Signature of Applicant
JOHN J. AGNELLI
Typed or Printed Name of Applicant
Typed or Printed Name of Applicant
,,;./
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this/L day of April. 2008, by JOHN J.
AGNELLI, wJ1'57SPersonall~ to me or has produced . as identification.
State of Florida
County of Collier
~v.".~ "us
(Print T .. . a~~~l)_
Namevp ~~tji~iueSiSftpfember W, 2009
~ or: f\.! Bonded Troy Fain. lfl1:tlF.arK:e. trot w:}.~SS.7019
C:\Documents and Settings\johna\LocaJ Settings\Temporary Internet File~\OI.J(~C\Berkshire DR! Closeout
(DRICLO) Applicationl (Revised) (3).doc3/11/200S" I .
Page 3 of 4
I,"~:
113rr, No. 38
.' .. ~;;;~;;r1i:d~~~
APPL.ICATI9NRE~.U~REMENTS
" -,...,
. -,-,';..---,;
A pre-application conference is mandatory prior to submitting an application to closeout a DRI
Development Order.
The petitioner shall submit nine (9) copies plus the original application form and all supporting
information must be submitted with the appropriate fee to begin processing. Additional copies may
be requested depending upon distribution demands.
The applicant and/or his designated representatives must be present at all public hearings and
meetings relative to this petition.
ALL EXHIBiTS AND PLANS SUBMiTTED MUST BE FOLDED OR REDUCED TO A SiZE TO FiT iN
A LEGAL SIZE FOLDER. OVERSIZED EXHIBITS MAY BE USED AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS;
HOWEVER, THEY WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE APPLICATION.
ANY PLANS REFERENCED AS A LEGAL EXHIBIT SHALL BE REDUCED TO 8 Y2 X 11' AND
MADE A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT
ORDER LISTED BELOW W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION.
NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
dditionaJ set if located in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Area
Proposed draft of Essentially Built-Out Agreement pursuant to Section
380.0323 , Florida Statutes, with all attachments,
Detailed explanation of the reason for seeking closeout
One (1) copy (8 Y; x 11) Graphic location map of subject site
Current Exhibit H/DRI DO Master Plan
Electronic copy of all documents with applications in Word format
(CD-ROM or Diskette)
1
9
D
@
IS]
[8J
IS]
IS]
D
o
o
o
D
o
9
1
9
1
0:\2003\030150,00.00 Berkshire PUD Compliancc\OOOl General Consultation\DRl Cioseout\DRl Closeout (DRlCLO)
Application(FINAL).doc3/11l2008
Page4of4
A.genda Item t.Jo. 88
October 28. 2008
Page 20 of 93
EXHIBIT HA_l"
BERKSHIRE LAKES DR] LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Section 32, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; less South 50 feet for
Right-of-Way for Radio Road (County Road 856); less that land as described in O.R. Book 818,
Page 806 ofeollier County, Florida.
ALSO, the West 5/6 of the West 1/2 of Section 33, TO\'i'nship 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida; less South 50 feet for Right-of-Way for Radio Road (County Road 856); less
that land as described in O.R. Book 818, page &10 of Collier County, Florida.
ALSO the East 1/2 of Section 5, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida;
less South 75 feet for Right-of-Way of Davis Boulevard Extension (S,R. 84); less North 50 feet
for Right-of- W ay of Radio Road (County Road 856).
Subject to easements, restrictions, and reservations of record; containing 1093:!: acres, more or
less,
i18m No. eB
Oct:::b9r :::'8 2008
Pa~le 21 of 1S3
EXHIBIT "A-2"
BERKSHIRE LAKES PLAT EXHIBITS
. Berksl1ire 'lillage Book 14, Page 48
. Countryside - Section One Book 14, Page 50
. Countryside - Section Three Book 14, Page 78
. Berkshire Lakes - Unit One Book 14, Page 118
. Berkshire Lakes - Unit Two Book 15, Page 42
. Berkshire Lakes - Unit Six Book 19, Page 16
. Berkshire Lakes - Unit Seven Book 21, Page 68
. Berkshire Pines - Phase One Book 29, Page 47
. Shores at Berkshire Lakes - Phase Two-A Book 32, Page 60
..-
,---
NRC-U ~
--...,
II>
3;
):
~
~
~
1l!
<
o
!~.genda Item No. 88
October 28 2008
p {) ry') ",f O"J:
f
.iI!
..~" ~
.1tJ.ll./!'
Il~,".f
,;:"M
* ol4i
~~~!
__..l ;
;.;;~.. I
,...".~l
~8o( i
~
r-
-
CO
53
~
;J:l
~
~
~
~
!iJ
0.: f-.
~ 1ij
0< 8
~ ~
p ~
~ I::
~ ~
~ 8
13 C)
'" ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ E
l I
,'>i ~
,~ ~ ~ ~
)~ ' "" ::t
~'r.Pl;"{~~~
"~~ a ;
8 ~ -
~ " ~.
~ i IIQ ll>
I" 1 1~1-
"'.... ......~n t '"
~
:;;: P
'$
'" f-
ro ~
~
,.. :;::
~ R
~ iL:
. \\\\ \,
, \,
/ \,\'\\ .-
~~l~ ~'--Y \~././
,,~"'Y:.s~~9 __~ ,.<,"\~'- \O,"~\).
/1 IY / ,-,,0'
-.... C ~ ,/. \) ,\'f.,'(
~. ' //.-/". ..-;..,=/f\'
/ -",,'</- I
,/ )<#/ I
/ ,,,-=i" .l~ "
' /' /0' .,:;>;'
~ / /1 ((/(c!::-" ,,::;':> '.
) li/ I( ~:Jd= :'/;;s~ ill;j!' [~~~~T,~;..,
/ /~~=>~'~' r.~"". / ~ ~ 3f: ~ ~II~..~.~ a;::. ~'a;sr=v :::.1 / I
: (----. '. ~f-i ((~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~J I[$ag~~, 'd;.. I;:" ~ I
l 1'/ -.... ~ ~I II ~'~"~;'~~..'\'i.4':"rjl~~.I~. .....~.~.. .~....~I...;/...... _ t~.~;.,~ dj
: I' I jl I [S"'\\',\\\\\\\\\\\\\~;:"~t~ . S:f: ~ . '. _ L~1
J ,i II ' [Y;-W!,w~ i"ii~ ~ >\g ~ ,I
b-----) i. \ I I '~'\\\\\\;'\~';~~')00<\] ~:;-0 P$' ~I '.r.>.~. Q
C~.::::~:::-." '" ,~,~ I lS'\\\,.~;,\\\ \ '. \ , '. \ .. .... ,'. \\ " ..._ .
f"---I.,"I I i I i CfmWfl~ij;WLl ~~~.~<~%~::. ~_I ~~ UTII:l,I , \
j . ( I II \\\ \ \' \\\ \\\\\\\\'.\\(,] !~~,~, $~' < ," \ n c-; I
I Ii 1i1... . l,.~.\'..'~.\\' \.\'~,\\.\\\'\\ ,'<<<< 1~a8:~~x: ~_..' !. I'I~ 1
I " I II , ""%~ i~ ~ ~.~"~ ""Ii I'~\,g I
1 i I [...llm I ' I 'II r-\ i v!lltt/llf; 'III ,,- ,:: % ~ z:- * ~ ~ 'I. )1
. t i Il,,!, ~! )j @"'-'-"-""":0'"",\() ,'?"J tt .-c;1" .",' ,
FE iiiiii;rrnilniminrJ ~I'I_:::OII: I~ :
~ i1!!LELiilll"!'I!lilll~ q .Ji[ ~:;..~. ;;, E . ~.'!. . "i i,
2.11TITTTlllllilil Illi\ ~ TTTr5 ,; >~'I!"~U'
LlJWlJjlLU111lJ1EJJIII.u , ~./ ~ ..
I
I I
I i
~ ~II[1IK5I\.1Ir1L01.1.lt:l.S
...- ."('('1"1'"
; '~~'1"Jl.J1l
I '
I I
, D~lo<ta,: t.<<<L~,--/
""'~" l~' r.
.'~.L "J"
Itr. ~.\., f>('\.- .-.)
1.". r "~OJ' ,,, AV ,!,,,),".~oo,.y,,, "o",M' ,~_., ",- ",<,.."",,,, D~~!,,,. ,,, ,~..."c"",,~, ,.,,,... >'"' ~.,'W I~'''!'~' O' " ""'"",..,
/
EXHIBIT C
f
r,\(lendE~ !tern t\lo 88
- OctGber 23. 2C08
""n r ~ n"
-
D'.,r._tc....r-...
, -',1,.\0:;.1.11110+
.rl
l"f~
... ., I
f{~,Jn
~~o~
~ '
__o~l
~~'1i
~~ If
__..l l
~::l.l
~~~l
~81(1
~
:s
is
l.>
~
~
V;r
""
r
,
c.:
%
"
l.>
'"
W
""
2
'-
~
~
<.>
'"
>-:
....
~ Q
<::
!g
8
~
i
~
~
w
'"
~
~
~
y--
~ . ~
~ ~ ~ <
;~~~~~~~~
~
~
~ ~ L
~l~~~~i~ ~
f~
DRICLO-2008-AR-13181 REV: 1
BERKSHIRE LAKES PUD (DRl)
Project: 19990186
Date: 4/14/08 DUE: 4/29108
,.
~crhshire
bhcs
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit H
"'_.....
1
Go~ae'"
GA r~
ES7ATES uN'T ",0
..... \I ...... """,",...,,"
...~ ~ f! ~oo e<<J
5CALC iN ~C~
;'~nda Item No. 8B
, 0ctober 28. 2008
Page 24 of 193
GAT( ~Nlr r
N
1
...:~ ~Iu..=.~'.::;::~v'::...o
;:.~'_~:' :;-:;;" D MfA'" ::::~~
.~.IM2
/i,oenda lism No. 38
.' C1ctober 28. 2008
25 of! 93
ESSENTIALL Y BUILT-OUT AGREEMENT FOR THE BERKSIDRELAKES
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DR!)
This Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and among POWER
CORPORATION, a Florida corporation ("Power Corporation"), COLLIER COUNTY, a
political subdivision of the State of Florida ("County'), and THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ("DCA").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, Collier County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and
possesses appropriate legal authority pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to approve
Developments of Regional Impact ("DRJs") within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the County approved tint certain DR! project known as Berkshire Lakes
DIU and issued an appropriate development order to John ], Agnelli, as authorized representative
on behalf of Barnett Bank Trust Company, N.A., Trustee under Trust No, 36-8750, pursuant to
Resolution No. 83-1 adopted August 16, 1983 (the "Development Order"); and
WHEREAS, in addition to the Development Order, the County also approved a related
planned unit development ordinance, Ordinance No. 83-46, on August 16, 1983 (the "Berkshire
Lakes PUD"), to provide appropriate zoning for development of the Berkshire Lakes DR!
project; and
WHEREAS, the property ("Property") compnsmg the Berkshire Lakes DRl project
consists of 1,093 acres, more or less" and is more particularly described on Exhibit '~" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by virtue of this reference; and
WHEREAS, Power Corporation is the successor developer of the Berkshire Lakes DRI
project, having taken over from the original developer-applicant, Barnett Bank Trust Company,
N.A., as Trustee under Trust No. 36-8750; and
WHEREAS, DCA is the state land platlning agency responsible for the administration
and enforcement of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, including those provisions relating to DRIs
such as the Berkshire Lakes DRI project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 380.032(3), Florida Statues, DCA is authorized to enter
into such agreements as may be necessary to effectuate the provisions and purposes of Chapter
380, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the applicable Development Order for Berkshire Lakes DRJ, as amended,
allows for the development of 4,200 residential units and 42.5 acres of commercial property or
an estimated 375,000 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the original development-of-regional- impact review for Berkshire Lakes
DR! assumed that all commercial development within the project would be comprised of retail
shopping and gent:l ill office space; and
'WHEREAS, based upon the foregoing assumptions, Berkshire Lakes DR! was projected
to generate 52,744 Tota! l~.verage Weekday Trips upon completion of all proposed development;
and
Pnolaw: 63596.7
Attachment "A"
Agenda item No. 88
October 28. 2008
Page 26 of 193
\VHEREAS, actual existing commercial development within the project thus far consists
ofa total of371,212 square feet of space, 204,729 square feet of which is retail shopping space,
37,320 square feet of which is general office space, and 129,163 square feet of which is self.
storage mini warehouse space; and
WHEREAS. 129,163 square feet of self-storage mini warehouse space represents over
one-third (l/3rd) of the total proposed commercial development within Berkshire Lakes DR!; and
WHEREAS, self-storage mini warehouse space has approximately ninety- five percent
(95%) less traffic impacls than does retail shopping or general office space, based upon current
averages published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE"); and
WHEREAS. according to current 1TE averages for all land uses within the project,
Berkshire Lakes DR! is projected to generate just 41,444 Total Average Weekday Trips upon
completion of all proposed development as described herein below; and
WHEREAS, 41,444 Total Average Weekday Trips represents a significant reduction of
over 11,000 Total Average Weekday Trips, or approximately twenty-one percent (21 %) less
traffic impacts, as compared to that which was originally approved for Berkshire Lakes DR!; and
WHEREAS, in light of this reductiol\ the parties agree that the proposed development
described herein below does not create the likelihood of any additional regional impacts not
previously reviewed; and
WHEREAS, only a small amount of vacant land and surplus parking lying within the
commercial areas of the Berkshire Lakes DRl project remain suitable for the additional
development contemplated herein; and
WHEREAS, all of said vacant land and surplus parking (the "Developable Land") is
located within the Berkshire Commons Shopping Center ("Berkshire Commons ') situated at the
northwest corner of Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard in Naples, Collier County, Florida,
and more particularly described as:
Parcels 2 and 3, Berkshire Commons Parcel "1,2 & 3", according to the plat
recorded in PJat Book 38, Pages 30 and 31, of the PubUc Records of Collier
County, Florida;
AND
Those portions of Tract F, Berkshire Lakes, Unit One, according to the plat
recorded in Plat Book 14, Pages 118-120, of the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida, being more particularly described as Revised Lot A and
Relised Lot B in Exhibits 1 and 2 of that certain instrument recorded at O.R.
Book 4328, Page 4044, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, said Developable Land is intended to be used and developed subject to the
following-described parameters (the "Development Parameters"):
(i) No more than 14,000 square feet of newly constructed Office Development (as
defined in Chapter 28-24.020, F.A.C.) may be located upon the Developable Land,
excluding OutparceIs E and B-1 as shown on Exhibits "B" and "e" attached hereto;
Prolaw: 63596,7 2
item !Jo. 2.3
Ostober 2<3 2008
i='age 27 of : 93
(ii) No more than 56,000 square feet of newly constructed Retail and Service
Development (as defined in Chapter 28-24.031, F,A.C) may be located upon the
Developable Land. excluding Outparcels E and E 1 as shown on Exhibits "B" and
"C" attached hereto;
(iii) No more than 3,100 square feet of additional principal use Retail and Service
Development (as dermed in Chapter 28-24.031, F.A,C) may be located within
Outparcels E and E-1 of the Developable Land shown on Exhibits "B" and "C"
attached hereto, provided said development is made in connection with the expansion
and redevelopment of an existing Mobil Gas Station Retail Convenience Store now
located upon Outparcels E and }; 1, and further provided that the newly redeveloped
Mobil Gas Station Retail Convenience Store may contain a principle use structure of
up to 4,200 square feet in the aggregate so long as the existing Mobil Gas Station
Retail Convenience Store facility of approximately 1,000 square feet now located
within the Developable Land is also demolished in connection with 'the contemplated
expansion and redevelopment project. An accessory use car wash facility may also
be constructed upon Outparcels E and E 1 of the Developable Land, provided the
existing accessory use car wash fucility now located upon Outparcels E and E 1 of
the Developable Land is also demolished in connection with the contemplated
expansion and redevelopment project.
and
WHEREAS, all existing commercial development within Berkshire Commons as of the
date of this Agreement is depicted in the site plan marked as Exhibit 'B" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by virtue of this reference; and
ViTHERE.A.S, aU known projects presently proposed for development v,rithin Berkshire
Commons, including the above-described expansion and redevelopment project, shall be located
within the Developable Land as delineated in Exhibit "e" attached hereto and incorporated
herein by virtue of this reference; and
VvnEREAS, said proposed projects, or some vanatlon thereof consistent with the
Devebpment Parameters set forth above, may be built until expiration of the Development
Order; and
WHEREAS, the Development Order lacks any stated termination, build-out or expiration
date for purposes of development of the remaining vacant commercial real property within
Berkshire Lakes DR! in general, and Berkshire Commons in particular; and
\VHEREAS, the parties desire to add a measure of certainty to the Development Order
and to provide for a reasonable termination, build-out or expiration date for purposes of current
and future development of the commercial areas \li,rjthin Berkshire Lakes DR! in general, and the
Developable Land of Berkshire Commons in particular; and
Vv'HEREAS, Berkshire Commons, Inc., a Florida cOlporation ("Berkshire"), owns most
of the Developable Land described herein above, excluding those portion; of the Developable
Land commonly known as Outparcels E and E-l as sho'WTl on Exhibits "B" and "C" attached
hereto, which portions are owned by ExxonMobll Oil Corporation, aNew York corporation
("ExxonMobi1"); and
PreLaw: 63596.7
3
Aoenda Item No. 88
~ October 28. 2008
Page 28 of 193
WHEREAS, Berkshire currently has an application for site development plan approval in
process with the County for the development of that portion of the Developable land within
Berkshire Commons commonly known and referred to as "'Parcel 3" on Exhibits "B" and "e"
attached hereto, pursuant to application SDP-AR-809J, which application is hereby incorporated
herein by virtue of this reference (the "Berkshire Project"); and
WHEREAS, ExxonMobil currently owns and operates a retail gas station and
convenience store shopping facility of approximately 1,000 square feet upon those portions of
the Developable Land commonly known and referred to as OutparceIs E and E 1 on Exhibits
"B" and "c" attached hereto, and further has an application for site development plan approval in
process with the County for the development and redevelopment of Outparcels E and E-I as
descn'bed herein above. which development. redevelopment and expansion project shall
encompass both OutparceIs E and El of Berkshire Commors, including a portion of the
Developable Land, all pursuant to applicatioIlY SDPI-AR-I0425 and SDP-AR-9883, which are
hereby inco!porated herein by virtue of this reference (the "ExxonMobil Project'); and
WHEREAS. Berkshire and ExxonMobil have an interest in building out their respective
commercial real properties and projects as described herein above; and
WHEREAS, the infrastructure necessary to support the current Berkshire and
ExxonMobil Projects, and all future commercial projects within the Developable Land of
Berkshire Conunons is already in place, or can readily be constructed within the boundaries of
the Developable Land of Berkshire Commons, as and when needed, including without limitation,
sidewalk, bike lane, parking, access, utility and stonn wa1er management facility improvements;
and
WHEREAS, the County has nevertheless requested that Power Corporation provide
funding in the amount of One Hundred Ten Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($110,000.00) for
certain sidewalk, bike lane and roadway infrastruc ture and otller improvements referenced in the
Development Order for Berkshire Lakes DR! and the associated Berkshire Lakes PUD,
notwithstanding the fact that the County has passed numerous road impact fee ordinances
subsequent to approval of the Berkshire Lakes DRl and PUD project, pursuant to which the
County has charged and collected road impact fees of over $6 million against the subject
Property. without reduction, credit or set-off of any kind for transportation and other
improvements donated, funded and/or constructed in and around the Property, and
WHEREAS, the parties have documented the foregoing facts and circumstances and the
developer's contribution and satisfaction of all applicable commitments and mitigation
requirements pursuant to the Development Order for Berkshire Lakes DRI and the associated
Berkshire Lakes PUD. as evidenced in tmt certain memorandum produced by the law firm of
Greenberg Traurig, dated March 3, 2008, addressed to Mr. Lawrence Massey, Growth
Management Coordinator for the Florida Department of Transportation, a copy which
memorandum (the 'Greenberg Memorandum"), as approved by Mr. Masseyon March 6, 2008,
is attached as Exhibit "D" hereto; and
WHEREAS, the parties now desire to enter into this Agreement to address and settle the
above-described issues and any related issues, all as set forth herein below.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein,
it is hereby agreed as follows:
ProLaw: 63596.7
4
Itern No. c!B
CJctcber 28, 2008
Page 29 of : 93
1.
correct.
Recitals. The parties hereby agree that the above-descnbed recitals are true and
2. Essentiallv Built-Out. The parties hereby agree that the Berkshire Lakes DRI
project is "essentially built-out" in accordance with Section 38Q,06(15)(g)4.a and .b(II)., Florida
Statutes, because (a) the uses, internal roads and storm water management system are all
consistent with the terms and conditions of the Development Order; (b) all infrastructure and
physical improvements required by the Development Order have b->ven made or provided for as
demonstrated by the Greenberg Memorandum; and (c) the amount of development remaining in
the build-out does not create the likelihood of any additional regional impacts not previously
reviewed.
3. Affect on Other Local Aporovals and Zoning. The parties hereby agree that this
Agreemert shall not affect other local approvals or zoning for Berkshire Lakes DRI, as amended,
except as may be specifically provided for elsewhere herein or necessary to carry out the intent
of this Agreement.
4. Final Development. DCA and the County hereby agree that the commercial areas
of Berkshire Lakes DRl, and in particular the Developable Land within Berkshire Commons,
may be developed without further development-of-regionaI-impact review, subject to and in
accordance with the terms and conditions of (a) the Development Order, as amended; (b) the
County's comprehensive plan and applicable land development regulations; and (c) the
Development Parameters and other terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement which allow
no more than an aggregate total of 73,100 square feet of additional principal land uses to be
developed upon the Developable Land legally described herein and graphically depicted on
Exhibit "e" attached hereto. The parties hereby further agree that development and
redevelopment of the commercial areas of Berkshire Lakes DRl, as contemplated by this
agreement, shall be pennitted under the Development Order, as amended, until the date which is
seven (7) years after the date the last party has properly executed this Agreement. For purposes
of this paragraph, the submission of an application for site development plan approval (or its
equivalent) prior to expiration of the 7-year period contemplated herein above shall preserve the
applicant's right to develop the subject premises, regardless of the date of site development plan
approval or construction of the improvements described therein, Notwithstanding anything
elsewhere herein to the contrary, development of vacant residential real property within
Berkshire Lakes DRl shall be permitted as ani when requested by the respective owner(s) of said
parce~s), subject to compliance with the County's comprehensive plan and applicable land
development regulations in affect at the time, without regard to the date of request or any
expiration date otherwise imposed by tlris Agreement.
5. Accuracy of Information Power Corporation represents and warrants that the
information it has presented in connection with the negotiation of this Agreement and the recitals
set forth hereinabove are, to the best of its kno wledge, true and accurate. Based upon such
information and representations, the DCA concludes that this Agreement reasonably applies and
effectuates the provisions and purposes of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.
6. Remedies~ In t.l}e event of a breach of this ~AA.greement or failure to comply \vith
any term or condition of this Agreement, or if this Agreement is based upon materially
inaccurate information knowingly presented by Power Corporation as contemplated in the
preceding paragraph, the DCA may terminate this Agreement or file suit to enforce this
Agreement as provided in Section 380.11, Florida Statutes. Injunctive relief shall be granted to
ProLaw: 63596.7 5
Agenda Item No. 88
October 28, 2008
Page 30 of 193
the DCA or the County in the event of a breacb of this Agreement or a failure to comply with
any terms or conditions imposed by this Agreement.
7. Limited Effect This Agreement affects the rights and obligations of "parties"
under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. It is not intended to determine or influence the authority or
decision of any other state or regional agency or the County in connection with the issuance of
any other permits or approvals required for further development as authorized by this
Agreement. This shall include, without limitation, applications for Site Development Plan
Approval Nos. SDP-AR-8091, as ammded, and SDPI-AR-10425/SDP-AR-9883, as amended, for
the Berkshire and ExxonMobil Projects, respectively. Approval of the Berkshire and
ExxonMobil Projects shall be subject to review and comment in accordance with the established
procedures ofeoUier County.
8. Binding Effect The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall run with tbe
Property subject to the Berkshire Lakes DR! and shall inure to the benefit ot; and be binding
upon, the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. . Power
Corporation shall record a notice of this Agreement which complies with Section 380.06(15)(f),
Florida Statutes, in the official records of Collier County. Florida, and shall provide DCA with a
copy of the recorded notice within thirty(30) days of execution of this Agreement.
9. R,etained Rights. All parties retain rights to take any action or prosecute any
proceedings provided for by law, notwithstanding this Agreement. Nothing contained herein
shall act as a waiver by Power Corporation of its rights to limitation on liability as provided for
in Section 375.251, Florida Statutes.
10. Severability. The invalidation of any provision or provisions of this Agreement
by lawful court order shall not modify any of the other provisions of this Agreement. which other
provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
11. Effective Date. The Effective Date and the date of execution of this Agreement
shall be the date the last party signs and acknowledges this Agreement.
12. Consideration As partial consideration for the approvals and agreements
contained herein, Power Corporation shaU, within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this
Agreement, pay to the County the sum of One Hundred Ten Thousand and nollOO Dollars
($110,000.00).
13. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or morc counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, together, shall constitute but one and the
same Agreement.
Prolaw: 63596.7
6
il:;;rn tJo 88
O::t::,bSi' 28. 20:-:8
31 Jf'193
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties by and through the undersigned duly authorized
representatives have executed this Agreement on the dates set forth below.
Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence as
witnesses:
(Corporate Seal)
POWER CORPORA TION~ a Florida
corporation
By:
Signature of Wi mess #1
Print Name:
PrintedJTyped Name of Witness # I
Title:
Signature of Witness #2
PrintedJTyped Name ofWilness #2
STA TE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me tlus _ day of
2008, bv as and on behalf of
Power Corporation, a Florida corporation, 0 who is personally lmoV'.'ll to me or D who Ins
produced (type of identification) as identification.
NOTARY PUBLIC
TYPED, PRINTED OR STAMPED NAME OF NOTARY
MY COMMISSION EXPtRES:
Pmlaw: 63596.7
7
Aaenda item t-Jo. 88
- October 28, 2008
Page 32 of 193
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Signature of Wi mess 1#1
By:
PrintcdlTyped Name of Witness #1
Print Name:
Title:
Signature of Witness 112
PrintcdlTyped Name of Wimess #2
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUN1Y OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
2008, by as and on behalf of the
Florida Department of Community Affairs, 0 who is personally known to me or 0 who bas
produced (type of identification) as identification.
NOTARY PUBLIC
TYPED, PRINTED OR STAMPED NAME OF NOTARY
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
ProLaw: 63596.7
8
Itsm [,10. [j8
O:toher 28. 20CJ8
33 of 193
BOARD OF COillli'TY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Signature orWi~ #1
By:
Print Name:
PrintedlTyped Name of Wi mess #1
Title:
Signature of Witness #2
PrintedlTyped Name ofWilness #2
STATE OF FLOIUDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
2008, by as and on behalf of the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, 0 who is personally lmO\....n to me
or D who has produced (type of identification) as identification.
NOTARY PUBLIC
TYPED, PIUNTED OR STAMPED NAME OF NOTARY
MY COMMlSSlON EXPIRES:
Approved as to form & legal sufficiency
o,.J.vl--
County Attorney
Prolaw: 63596.7
9
Agenda Item No. 88
October 28. 2008
Page 34 of 193
JOINDER & CONSENT
The undersigned do hereby join it and consent to the above-described Agreement for the
sole and exclusive pUTpose of establishing a time frame for final development within the
commercial areas of Berkshire Lakes DR!, all as set forth above.
Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence as
witnesses:
(Corporate Seal)
BERKSIDRE COMMONSt INC.t a Florida
corporation
By:
Signatu~ of Witness Itl
Print Name:
PrintedlTyped Name of Witness #1
Title:
Signatu~ of Witness #2
Printedffyped Name of Witness #2
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
2008, by as a.'1d on behalf of
Berkshire Commons, Inc., a Florida cOIporation, 0 who is personally known to me or 0 who
has produced (type of identification) as identification.
NOT ARY PUBLIC
n'PED, PRlJI1TED OR STAMPED NAME OF NOTARY
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
Prolaw; 63596.7
10
~,oencia item f'Jo, ,38
- October 28, 2008
Page 35 of 123
Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence as
witnesses:
(Corporate Seal)
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION, a
New York corporation
By:
Signature of Witness 1/-1
Print Name:
PrintcdlTyped Name of Witness 111
Title:
Signature ofWilness #2
PrinlcdlTyped Name of Witness #2
STATE OF
COU1\TTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
. 2008, by as and on
behalf of EXXOlll'vlobil Oil Corporation, a New York corporation, 0 who is personally known to
me or 0 who has produced (type of identification) as identification.
NOT/illY PUBLIC
TIPED, PRlNfED OR STAMPED :-lAME OF NOTARY
MY COMJo,iISSION EXPIRES:
ProJ ;:'W' 63~q6 7
11
,!\.genda Item No. 88
October 28. 2008
Page 36 of 193
EXHIBIT "A"
BERKSHIRE LAKES DRI LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Section 32, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; less South 50 feet for
Right-of:Way for Radio Road (County Road 856); less that land as described in O.R. Book 818,
Page 806 ofCoUier County, Florida.
ALSO, the West 5/6 of the West 1/2 of Section 33, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida; less South 50 feet for Right-of-Way for Radio Road (County Road 856); less
that land as described in O.R. Book 818, page 810 of Collier County, Florida.
ALSO the East 1/2 of Section 5, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida;
less South 75 feet for Right-of: Way of Davis Boulevard Extension (S.R. 84); less North 50 feet
for Right-of:Way of Radio Road (County Road 856).
Subject to easements, restrictions, and reservations of record; containing .:t. 1093 acres more or
less.
Prolaw; 63596.4
---_._----;-~\ ,-' -..-..-. .---
--'- - \ \ \ ./ /'
r 0 , , .
l ~~- \\
~~~/-:#"~'~/ ~
1 ./ )
.// =;I
'./ V!.::..",
/ .11, .@'~I .----- _, ~_,. =
i / /' 4,-"'" ~ b ~ !2 ~. "" '"
~/ If-,.Yfj /~ ~Y/</;~~~~I UI~ :i!j
i) 'I ~~", -.;y;. $ X ~. x: ~I '~ %.::;, I ;;y-
, " L,p~ ((f: 2,% eX ~ :l:J (3, ll~.~ ~ ~', ~
/' " ", < '" v', 'Re a! 2i" ' ,'"
II 0 'i ~ ~ ,,,,,,,,,~,, ~
\1 I, :::r:: ::;1/ G\~,~
U II "I r " "'/1:'1/:))/)/'
Iii n 11!!/~/1;"fl.'I;"I/" II '--
I " I [f,lii/I. /, ] "ml:
. ,I 1J.\\:"\i)<<*ffl~<;~\< 1\\\V
.__,J) i I 1)\;\\\\.\ \]';""11/ J;
\ /j!!I!i!!!!!I/!/!il/lj~
',,''''NC """" rj~7;?77777T!7l77n
~'-I\ J I I ;t!m~
I ) II , , """""'8
I ! II I toTIoJJi i ii?~
1 I', UiT'1..'1 i I ~\\\\\\\\\,\"\\ " ~
ill~'
'f-J U
I i--e 01111111111111.111" Iii
i I t::'II'I'iu r
i ~ JI!:liI::illl'i,I", Ii ~ "
, : l "w U UUl!ll1illlilli',-", , ,/
L_ ' :"..=T:::....,,___.
\QIlC..Cul<-.;.....S>/.
..00.",."",...,..."""""..,);0,."'.........,
, l~l:.Jl"""'\ZlXIJ\O}(l('\ll1
PARCEL _,
B"Il'~:;11l1tf oo~~a~s
~A.RCEL 1. Z.Y.l_~\)
(P'R,lll, ~
t
~
'^
~
,.
~
;0
w
iG
,.
S!
6
, m !'jo 8S
l\aenoD, Ita ~8_ ':in08
- October "~~1 ~ i 93
Paqe ,->' 0
~
~
~ II
h Illl
~ IL-
~ 10.: f::
r.l I ~ ~
'"'"l I ~ tj
I ~ ~
i ~ ~
I:::J ~.
I r;J 8
'I ~ ~
;;; [;j
! - ~
I! ~ ~ "'
1_-
:, ~ .
,. ~ ~ ~ ~
1ft!. 11"
i~
HI,:
.'i!:
,I'j ~l-
t.:=d-
r--_n~
, ,
i i
I i
I i
I i
I
!
)
~-~~
-_.---/
....~~!',
(N. u_ -. ~";
I _ ~_..\""'_...".......,__..,.... _.,~^,........._"" ,,,,,,,,,,..,
"; _'_.Mllll'6-Jt_~1,2'o(I:I'\IIUrtlCoI..ClOJlll"""'"
EXHIBIT C
PAA~ 1
i
i
i
!
I
i
I
I
I
I
I l(;
_",,",cat, Z
I >
'i!
I '"
I ~
i OJ
~
I D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
---
NlIll:r..-~
(PL .15, '"-"lo ~'.1Il1
I
i
f
Dt:lt.VnOaN3L.ElA'C:l
iMDt 10 og;n. lJ.lOO
NlMIOIW..SQUoIAt fm
~ MH;'........
""'U$tll
{\(Jonda Itom No. 88
- Octobor 28. 2008
Page 38 of 193
II
.~jJil
~l>:5! r
~ 004,
~i'ioo4l
.-~l
~o~:
""'~ I
~~i
G
~
I
:::
t;:i
~. ~
~ ~ ~
2 ~
~ I
~ ~
I &j !
,N .
,~ , ~ ~
iki~r
H 1-
ijlPI~
I ,U
[terTI f',~o" -S8
O:.:tober 28. 2008
39 of 193
Exhibit liD"
Greenberg
Traurig
Memorandum
TO: La'Wrence Massey, FDOT
CC: Claudine Auclair, CoHier County
Nick Casalanguida, Collier County
FROM: Kenneth B. Metcalf, Alep, Director of Planning
DATE: March 3, 2008
RE: Berkshire Lakes DRl" Comparison of Impact Fees and Proportionate Share to
Support Essentially Built Out Agreement
Introduction
The Berkshire Lakes DR! ("Project") is now nearly built out with only one undeveloped
commercial site remaining. In order to reach closure on the DRL CoUier County worked with the
developer of Berkshire Lakes to draft an Essentially Built Out Agreement pursuant to
~380.06(I5)(g), F.S. One of the requirements for such an agreement is that all conditions ofllie
development order have been appropriately satisfied. In reviewing the draft agreement, DCA
requested confIrmation from FDOT that the transportation conditions set forth in the DRl
development order have been satisfied. In response to this request, we have been working willi
County staff and FDOT staff in a cooperative manner to document how the transportation
conditions were met. As we've discussed., the developer paid $5.9 million in impact fees and
donated substantial right of v...ay as the means of complying with the fair share payments required
by the development order. Collier County has agreed that such payments shall be creditable
toward the DRI obligations as legally required by the courts and Florida Statutes to avoid
duplicative charges. During our meeting on January 31.2008 and a subsequent conference call on
February 14, 2008, we discussed the methodology for this report in detail and reached agreement
ou a final set of assumptions that would be used to document that the iIDpact fees and value of the
right of way donations exceed and satisfy the transportation conditions set forth in the development
order. The purpose of this report is to summarize the methodology as agreed upon by the parties
and 10 present the results, which demonstrate that the developer has saiisfied the requirements of
the development order through the payment of impact fees and donation of right of way.
Agreement on Methodology/Assumptions
The methodology presented in this report is consistent with the agreement reached at our
previous meeting and follow up conference call on February 14,2008. We reach agreement on the
following assumptions for this final report:
TAL 451450856v4 31212008
Aqenda Item No. S8
~ October 28. 2008
Page 40 of 193
To: Lawrence Massey, FOOT
Date: March 3, 2008
Page 2
1) utilize the mid-range. per-mile construction cost estimates provided by FDOT for 1990-91
as set forth in your February 5 emai1;
2) utilize a 1.65 multiplier to account for the additional costs of right of way, engineering.
eEl and other costs as reported in your February 5, email;
3) credit right of way donations provided by the Developer for Radio Road and Santa Barbara
Boulevard;
4) continue to utilize ADA trip assignments and methodology as previously presented for the
purpose of determining the project's share.
We have agreed to utilize these assumptions in the interest of resolving these issues expeditiously.
We continue to believe that the 1.65 multiplier for right of way and soft costs is excessive and not
appropriate for the early 19908. recognizing that. it was the statewide average for the period from
2000-2005. While the right of way estimate (19%) appears reasonable and fairly consistent with
the percentages reported for Collier COWlty (15%) for Radio Road~ local data confmn that the soft
costs locally were much lower than 46%. We also continue to assert that the plain language of the
development order does not require a proportionate share based on right of way and soft costs, but
is rather limited to construction costs only for S.R. 84. Similarly, we do not agree that the fair
share for "upgrading" Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard refers to a share of widening. In
that case, the language would have referred to widening. Statutory construction principles would
give a different meaning to upgrading versus the term widening because both terms are used in
different conditions within the DRl development order. We reiterate these points to emphasize that
the calculatioDS presented in this report should be considered very conservative in terms of
assuming the worst: case "fair share costs" for comparison to the impact fees and right of way
donations provided by the developer.
Right of Way Donation Value
The right of way costs donation values were determined by using the 1995 per square foot
value documented for Radio Road right of ".ray as reported in the County's impact fee study.
Attachment A provides an excerpt from the study. This figure was then reduced by 25% to account
for administrative overhead ac:sociated with the right of way transaction. This resulted in a value of
$1.59 per square foot. This value was then discounted at an annual rate of 5% to estimate the
values for the target years during which each right of way link was donated. which occurred for
various links between 1986 and 1993. The resulting right of way values are set forth in Table 1
below for Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard.
Table 1. Right of Way Donation Values.
Roadway Donated Acreage Year Donated Value Per Square Total Value of
Foot Donation
Radio Road 1.043 1995 $1.59 $72,238.47
PB 21, pp. 68-69 .84 1993 $] .51 $55,549.50
PB 19, PP. 16-17 .60 1992 $1.44 $37,362.26
TAL 451450856v4 312/2008
lLem i~o. c,s
O:~tJber 20G3
~^t of 193
To: Lawrence Massey, FDOT
Date; March 3, 2008
Page 3
PB 15, Pl). 42-43 .71 1988 $1.37 $42,403.55
PB 14, PP 78-80 1.46 1987 $1.30 $82,813.90
Santa Barbara 2.937 1988 $1.37 $175,280.54
Blvd., PB 14, pp
118-120
PB 14, pp 78-80 6.41 1987 j $1.30 $363,309.7
PB 14, PP 50-52 6.47 1986 $1.24 $349,775.48
Total $1~178, 733.40
Fair Share Methodology
Tills calculation of the Project's fair share based on Project volumes has not changed from
the previous submittal. Table 2 utilizes the Project volumes from the point in time at which each
link of Radio Road and Santa Barbara reached 10,000 ADT, which the ADA utiiized for
determining when improvements were necessary. Thus, the project volume divided by 10,000
ADT determines the fair share for Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. Tbe ADA forecasted
total link volumes and Project trips for 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005. Table 2 shows the year that
each link was forecast to reach the 10,000 ADT-threshold and provides the corresponding Project
volume for that year for the pUrpose of calculating the fair share. 'Where the target year occurred
between 1990 and 1995, the total link volumes and Project volumes were interpolated as shown in
Table 3. Please note that Santa Barbara does not require interpolation because the segment reached
the 10,000 ADT -threshold in 1990, and project volumes were forecasted for that year. This phasing
approach is consistent with current proportionate share methodology, which. calculates
proportionate share based on the project trips for the phase that triggers the need for the
improvement. FDOT accepted this approach at our last meeting.
Table 2: Berkshire Lakes Estimated Fair Share Costs
Total Cost with
Prop Costl (65%) for RIW and
Road Link Year Miles Share CL Mile GEl
SR 84 nfa 1991 124 1 $1,408,000 $2,880,768
Airport Road to
Radio Livingston
Road Road 1991 1 0,246 $1,408,000 $571,507.2
Uvingston
Road to Santa
Radio Barbara
Road Boulevard 1993 2 0.4911 $1,408,000 $2,261.847
Santa Golden Gate
Barbara Par1cwayto
Boulevard Radio Road 1990 1.4 0.3367 $1,408,000 $1.095,110
$6,829,232
TAt 451450856v4 3I2/200fJ
Agenda Item No. S8
October 28. 2008
Page <12 of 193
To: Lawrence Massey, FOOT
Date: March 3, 2008
Page 4
Table 3. Interpolation Calculations Based on ADA
Interpolation for Radio Road (between Livingston and Airport)
1990 Volume 9535
1995 Volume 11601
1995-1990 volumel5 = 413.2 per year
Link forecasted to reach 10,000 ADT In 1991 per ADA
1990 Project Volume for same link 2093
1995 ProjectVoJume for same link 3928
1991 Project Volume = 2460
Interpolation for Radfo Road (between Livingston and Santa
Barbara)
1990 Volume 7482
1995 Votume 11226
1995-1990 volu mel5 = 748. B per year
Link forecasted to reach 10,000 in 1993 per ADA
1990 Project Volume for same link
1995 Project Volume for same link
1993 Project Volume ""
3219
6040
4911.6
Conclusion
The developer paid $5.9 million in impact fees and provided right of way dedications
valued at $1,178,733 for a total contribution of $7,078,733. This figure exceeds the fair share
obligation calculated as $6,829,232. which again must be considered a conservatively high
estimate, The Essentially Built Out Agreement also includes an additional $110,000 in contribution
toward various transportation conditions. Based on these findings and the supporting compliance
chart previously provided by our team, we request your support in advising the Department of
Community Affairs that the developer has satisfied its DRl transportation obligations.
TAL 451450856v4 31212008
>
~
I'll
l"J
:::r'
E3
."
l:I
-
-
iiem No. EB
October 28 20D8
-'13 of 193
(1(III!UUm!Unmillmnun I~
i,iil ~J~III& ~J~~~1~ 1 ~J a
~~~J ~
If!I'f!JIII!iIIJ!IIII!;II'IJIIIIII'li<
~ J ~~ 1 ~lj.J~!foll~~ ~fiii~ ,
!id"fn~UifWJH~ ~Um!:~!Ii. I.
J!~.Iil; ii!:! ~~ ;; rfJ!lfl II -:r
f fl fa . ~ ~!it "
J J J J
&a!!!!!s~aaOoo~~!!~~~!a&s~~!~~&&&
t91~l4Z9U JIICI'
t-:>
e!tt&&&e!e!!!~a~a~~S~$!BaaS&SSS8$
k~~~ii~;~;~'~&iisi~~i8ti~iiii8~t8
;o~l~~i;;;ooaoiiii~i;io~~i;li;;;;
iit'~~;iiiiiiii;.~il;;i~f;;;;i;11
~ttu ~~~;==~~~9~~~8~~~~=~~~.~e~~~~
a~liili~i~~iiiig~!iiil~!I!i8ill~l
;~B9iii~B~iiEii~lli&i.itli~iii~l!
~.~ .~! -#.~~.n:.:::-._M.~~_~
fi~s!i~=fi~ii;iaii~~~il~iiii~l~ii~!
~n5iiige~i~s!i~iB8&aiiii!Egi$isis
n!tI8SS~tsEttn!l!ts8tS!B8SSIE8!~;
l~i~;;;;i!;;~;~;I~;~~i;;i;;;;~~i;
..
-
_I -
. .'
. ;..
· . 'jJ1 f
,.,
[, -"
r Il~i'.<
~, a....
; r I ; , ",::':
iti:l~",:
<r sI ":.'
ttf i'::
fg ~
::t
irl tr.
i [I ~ /4~.;
1;1 I I .,:.,.......
1;1). D ~ . ;;r1;~
I ..~~t;
.'I~1
11 i i :'::<.::"ff
i 1'::" ~~~~
11
jri
. l?.
.......
. .
-
/\
.;.../
jl' H
_I
'"
t '\"'!". >
. '.. ~ .
i,o,.... '.
. ~. .
[l
J
i
In
In
In
I ["1 ,~
.J
o
o
i F'~:.
r "-'-, 1\:i~'/
J
f]
l
r~
d
D
DEVELO~MENT OF REGIONAL
IMPACT ,ASSESSMENT
'.. _.' FOR
Berkshire Lakes'
11-8283-24
....., "'~
#~ ~ n'.r'
-e'-:-\1.1' '\.::....} <> r
,',", :'::,,,.$ \I. to ,,~ '\ ....,..,."
p"~ ~,:\\... ....~ .....".;\..,....'~~
(0. ~ '.... .\'''~:~ \t...J
,;""'It 1. """"'.,~ " ..
... "~J ,- t ~'...-' .~ ~ .. ..~', '\
.~~"l .'~ '~,. ~~ .,.v.t"~"'..,">f.~:~'''?v~
" '~,...., " ".' -I "~" ~\ ~
c:;\< ';, .. .~. t-~~~~\ V'
4....-!' i'~~ ..
-,)
~..'" . 'J
\,~S;"
u
U
i .
i r t
1.J
[l .
~.
SOU.THWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING. COUNCIL
MAY, 1983
l
,
d
\ r 1
.~. .._1
.~
Attachment "B"
Agenda Item No', 88
October 28, 2008
Page 44 of 193 .
. .
ft.
/~
I i
n
, !
r~
!
1 .:'
(.t;:
[.1
J
rI
r''''
U
f1
[]
n
u
[J
[4 .t.'~:
r--.'/
1
r"'
j!
U
fi
L.1
n
l i
U
n
u
u
n
U
[ f
11',
.\
,,-:,.'
u
u
11efTI No. '38
Octcber 28. 2008
Pc:ge 45 of 193.
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP
CHAIRMAN........ Mr. Stanley W. Hole
VICE CHAIRMAN... Mayor Thomas Smith
SECRETARy....... Commissioner Franz ROSS.
TREASURER. .. . . .. Commissioner Roland Eastwood
CHARLOTTE COUNTY
Ms. Kathryn Hindman
Mayor Johri A. Hufnagel
Commissioner Franz Ross
Commissioner Joseph A. Tringali
COLLIER COUNTY
Commissioner David C. Brown
Mr. Stanley W. Hole
!I.tr. E. J. "Buck" Kidd
Commissioner Mary-Frances Kruse
Councilman Wade Schroeder
GLADES COUNTY
Commissioner Bill Branthoover
Councilwoman Michelle Gelinas
Commissioner Sam Griffin
Mr. Vance Storter
HENDRY COUNTy
Commissioner Donald Davis
Commissioner Charles E. Hall
Mayor Thomas. Smith
Mr. Stanley C. Wegscheid
LEE COUNTY
Mr. Gateley N. Daniel
Commissioner Roland Eastwood'
Mr. Gordon D. Meiers
Commissioner Roland Roberts
Councilman Jim Williams
SARASOTA COUNTY
Mr. Harry C. Adley
Commissioner Robert L. Anderson
COIDrrLissioner Jim Greenwald
Ms. Mary A. Kumpe
Councilwoman Rita Roehr
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCIL
2121 West First Street
Fort Myers, FL 33901
(813) 334-7382
f
J H'.
1- '
~ "
ll0"',~;
~~.;.
o
D
o
n
u
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
STAFF
WAYNE E. DALTRY..........EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DAVID Y. BURR ......... ~ .ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
Glen Ahlert
Todd Boyce"
Betty Bursiek
Richard N.' Carpenter
Bob Donaghue
Nancy Furdell
. Mary Gibbs
Sue Gill
Virginia Grimes
Celestine G. Holloway
William B. Horner
Usha Jain
James E. Newton II
William W. Platter
o
! 1'1"
Jlj
~
l
in
~u
,
~
1 f'r
y ~
lu
I
! [T
! ~
I J(.
~._.
,
J
[J
p.genda Item t\jo, 88
October 28. 2008
P21ge 46 of 193
R
r-le..",:..
'::'):~ :}
.-j?
o
n
--1
II
f'
i Ll
, [^"
I J
I
10
G
1 r!
\ . I
~u
! OC'-i)
t
~U
I
!
RP
U
D..
.
[J
[J
j
n
Uf
I-
[.!
i
J(...
-...:.:'
u
~
~
J\..
INTRODUCTION
LOCATION MAPS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPLICANT INFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
REGIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX: STAFF REPORTS AND SUPPORT DATA
'. ". . . . .
I. Regional'Issues
... . .". . . . -. .
A. Drainage '. . . . .'. . . . ." . . . .
B . Energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c. Hurricane Evacuation . . .'. . .. . .
D. Historical and Archaeological Sites ..
E. Transpor.tation (Also a local issue)
F. Water Quality . . . . . .
II. Local Issues .
. . lit .
A.
B.
Education .
Fire Protection '..
Fi.scal . . . . . .
FloOdplains ...
Health Care
Hous ing ....... . . . . . . . . . .
Police Protection. . . . .
Recreation and Open Space
Solid Waste .. " . . . .
Vegetation and Wildlife/Wetlands
Wastewater Management
Water Supply . . " . . . . . .
. .
.. .
. .. .
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
III. Report of the South Florida Water
Management District ...........
item iJo. [:B
:Jctcber 28 2008
-'17 of 193
page
1
3
5
7
13
14
14
16
21
23
26
40
43
43
45
50
56
57
60
64
65
66
67
69
70
73
r'"
Ji
i
I !e,""
. \'~ ',:~.
[J
I r1
I 1
n
[]
u
[]
fi
U
d~:t
o
fJ.
l'
[,'J
J
[]
u
n
U
,__UC":
.
l i
j
u
Agenda Item No. 86
October 28, 2008
Page 48 of 193
INTRODUCTION
~he Berkshire Lakes Development of Reqional Impact is located
in Collier County, four miles east of downtown Naples. It .
. includes 3865 multi-family and 335 single family housing units,
with 375,000 square feet of support commercial facilities. An
18 hole golf course is proposed on-site, as well as 16 lakes,
which will function as water retention areas. Primary access
to the site will be from Radio Road, and Santa Barbara and Davis
Boulevards.
In Collier County, the residential Development of Regional Im-
pact threshold is 750 dwelling units as defined by Chapter 22F-
2.10 of the Florida Administrative Code. Since the project
exceeds this threshold, the applicant has submitted an Applica-
tion for Development Approval (ADA) for the' proposed Development
of Regional Impact, as required by the Florida Land and Water
Management Act (Chapter 380, Florida Statutes) for all ORIs.
The 'impact assessment for the Berkshire Lakes DRI has been pre-
pared by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council as
required by Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes. The DIU assessment
is largely based on information supplied in the ADA. Additional
information was obtained by contacting local officials, consulting
official plans, and by reviewing reports related to specific
issues in the impact assessment. The ADA was r.eviewed by the
Collier County staff and their comments and recommendations were
integrated into various elements of the assessment. Water and
water-related elements of the project were also reviewed by the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation .and the South
Florida Water Management District. The transportation element
was reviewed by the Florida Department of Transportation. The ADA
was also reviewed by the State Bureau of Land.and Water Management.
~
The Council staff's assessment is.sp1it into regional and local
issues~ The regional issues are those that affect more than one
county. Recommendations made by the staff in regards to these
issues are formal conditions to be included by the local govern-
ment in any Development Order that is issued. In contrast, the
local issues are those that affect only the jurisdictions in a .
particular county. At the request of Collier County, council
Staff did not prepare formal local recommendations for the devel-
opment order. Staff analysis of local issues is included, but
only the regional recommendations are outlined in the colored
pages of the Staff Findings and Recommendations.
The findings of this evaluation and the Southwest Florida Region~
al Planning council's recommendations are intended to assist
collier County in reaching its decision regarding the proposed
development. The recommendations are not intended to foreclose' or.
abridge the legal responsibility of local government to act pursuant
to applicable local laws and ordinances.
1
I'
!
,.
~
~
~
t
~
c....'
'.. . ~
'.
. '.
,,';.'
C".
" -.-,
~':.~ f
/.
~.
item rJc. 28
~ctob9r 2,g, 2008
Page49of1S3
Copies of any linevelopment Order" (an order granting', denying,
or granting with conditions, an Application for Development
permit) issued with regard to the proposed development should he'
transmitted to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
and the Florida Department of Veteran and Community Affairs.
2
r1
f1
, ~
i l
p~
~ i
i .
q
1 I
n
u
~.1!
q
U
1'.1
!<I "
J.
~. ~
q
! ~
U
P
d
l~ ?
'j)
pI
a ~
t~
n
l'
. ~
n
~ i)
U
[.1
H
II
n
p
U
p'
d
U'j
rE.F
U
lit
q
~ t
L~
I p
! II
~-
Ilr':"k
~?:f: .
o
10
n
U
n
[l
In
!
I [1
I J
f-" Q:'~
-'....4...
I J ~:..~':.;'
~
~p
!,J
1
i
I D'!
i
t
I
l OJ
i ~
1 .
I
l
ILl
I
i
iq
lU
I
1
in
u
f.~
I
f/ ..
lJ~,,;.
I
J
[l
..>
. ,.__'r"
i'
{
SARASOTA
~/ / II .J{
.. " '~..-I
: t I . .
:: \"':'fo..' ..... J
Q
c::.
r
-&\
,~
.'..\....-
o
'"'1\
~
. <t$'o
+
.",.
c:"
o
Agenda Item No. 88
October 28, 2008
Page 50 of 193
t
,
.I
-'\
.........;
":t..,..
'\
HENDRY.
()
. Berkshire Lakes
o
o 6 10 ,. 20 II M'lES
I' , IRNC
SWFRPC
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGiON
3
COLLIER
(':
r
j
ltelTl t~o, 88
Jctober 28. 20(;8
PagE 51 8f'lS!3
'l
i.;f..o::.
~-->~. ~~
:r~~ ~==~::::
. -11'--"'--:tt"'~-"~
:$::-~-;~:~: ~~.
i "::::::-=-1"~~~ST"'~=-'""
1- t . ~:'~"l ~"i~
.: t + .~. rrr)ci0
I, ~":'\.i )It
..... . I .....-:; '.
. '-J" --=~~
LEE COUNTY
COI.L.IER COUNTY
1- -
C'.
\~- ,~
~.
.~.
/4,,'t-
~
..~
I
31
"H
-@"
~\
:-t
\\
',II
// .. ,
'11
.11
~I L I
~ I _.L_ :
i
\ I
(
o
,..
.-..
. ---lr'l
.... .t...
~~-
..-...
'-... --=
: I. ~.
~
'1
WM..
~_....
. I
~
-=: .
*- .s-
"!.
~ir'---: ~._. -
.~ J._
. r- "..
j
-:~
F
~
. .-
-- ~~ :Ji-._
2;'_ ...,.--=
_=-~~ =:..:J;
," --:~::..:;.
..-.......~~
"f-iP....., '-I -'~~~~~t.
.:fr -
I .--..:~ .~
=--:- .::::.:r~ -==..
, ~.2~~
~. l~~~:-.:.
=.:: -;.::..f:f:. .: t .
..:..~-= 1":-..
r
I~
..
9 . I 2 (Miles)
.__..! I
SWfRPC-May83
LOCATION MAP
4
n
n
, ,
I ~
n
n
i i
n
i j
u
fl;
II
q
U
r'~
l ~
l.1I
.Ln
[~
"
J
q
, Iii
LIl
r.~
ill
f]
, ~
lJ.i
!lV,
L~
Jj
rj!
! ,l
U
")1
H
.U
u
n
u ';
~ ?:
\:....:3
1 H
1_1 j
11(:\~j
\:::'''-1
n
In
!
1Ft
III
I
In
I LJ
I
I[]
I
!
i[l
lU
l
l_ jqi?:~
\St~
j !
,U
1
i [I..
I J
!
j [I
j .jj
U
In
!U
1
,
lU
i
t
i
i r ~
U
[ f
/.....,
J\...:o--
'..
.
~ {.
u
!. f
I.
_!
Agenda Item No. 88
October 28, 2008
Page 52 of 193
APPLICANT INFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Project Name
Applicant
Date on which DRI-ADA was received
Date on which DRI-ADA was
found sufficient
County DR! Hearing Date'
Type of Development
Location of Development
DRI-Threshold
Development Summary:
Total DWelling Units
Total Acres
Gross Density
Total Population
Estimated Average Potable Water
Demand: *
Estimated Average Non-Potable
Demand: *
Estimated Average Sewage
Generation: *
Estimated Solid Waste
Generation:
Major Roads Impacted
. Project Construction Period
* At buildout
Berkshire Lakes
John 'J. Agnelli
3174 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 33942.
November 1, 1982
March 21, 1983
July 12, 1983
Residential
Collier County
750 units
4200
1093
3.84 dulae
7119
1.477 mgd
2 . 8 21 mgd
1.223 mgd
28.5 tons/day
Radio Road
Santa Barbara Blvd.
Davis Blvd.
20 years
5
1
I
I
!
f
~
~
~
!
!
j
I
!
I
~
,
l
,
J
j
,
j
I
,
!
(
l
~
j
(',...,
:~::.,y-:)
'._. ..'l'
:.?"~~' .....
"'i~~
(S'.
,.;~. :.
..(.;,:.;
"f.:.::
,.
\:,...
item i-la. ()B
O:::t-:-Jo9r ::28 2003
:)3 af 193
PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN
i,'
APPROXIMATE
P..PPROXIMATE DWELLING UNITS OR % OF TOTAL
DESCRIPTION ACREAGE COMMERCIAL SQ. FT . LAND
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family 132 335 \:;'7-"') q,o 12%
Multi-Family '435.4 3865 ~1'? x.3i:> 40%
Total 56 7 ~ 4 4200 . . 52%
COMMERCIAL/MULTI-USE
Total 42.5 375,000 Sq. Ft. 4%
RECREATION/OPEN SPACE
Golf Course 149.2 N/A 14%
Water Management/Lakes 149.5 N/A 14%
Parks/Buffers/Greenbelts 109.3 N/A 10%
Rights-of-Way 75.1 N/A 6%
Total 483.1* N/A 44%
* Does not include open space and recreational areas to be provided within
multi-family areas.
6
'f'""
, '
11
i j
,
~ f
! i
\
n
. U
LJI
r-i
! a
! ~
!1
1 i
rl!
~ II
~ 6
It t.l
f]
~
l
If.
d
nl
.,
.. t.
']
j II
LIJ
n
~ Ii
U
P
l..11
l'
~
fll
H
[J
;r'~
I ~
~ {;
U
t~
.. ti
"
"
..i:
n
!l: 1;
ii..ii
n
~ "
U
~ "(
U
17'~
P
d
i 0.'"
~ .' 4 ..... ",'. .
. ....'.,.';
..'
r'
i
l ,
r'T
, .
l .
r '
l.
r '
;
1
~ ;,
Aqenda Item r\jo. 88
- October 28, 200@- ~.
Page 54 of 193
. C\~\:
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL'S r'C ()~'(~\()~~
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..~.(~:5~;~?~~; ~,:.\~\)t'
c.,",:. ,t '\ 4 ~.J\~ \
v ~ ...'>(\~.~\\~\
RBiI..QNAL ~~ \..,\./\
IT IS THE.RECOMMENDATrON. OF THE. SOUTHWEST FLORlDA REGIONAL PLANNING
COUNCIL THAT .THE PROPOSED PROJECT BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOL-
LOWING CONDITIONS:
,
. ..
~" 1. DRAINAGE (Refer to Section A)
~ r
I
. -
f :
j
L
.-.. Qi,.,..
."" ;;.;
~ ",:" .',
,
.. .
f .
~
L
~ .
'j
i .
~ ..
;
, .
f r
I
t.
~ .
]
,!
L
, .
!
L
1
;! ('"
{ .,~..:,
i...
The drainage system for .the proposed Berkshire Lakes Project
discharges into the Golden Gate Canal System and Davis Boule-
vard. (SR 84) swale system which eventually discharges into
Naples Bay. Naples Bay was the subject of a section 208 Area-
wide Water Quality Management Study, and a bay of regional
concern. The app~icant has proposed a drainage system, that
with minor modifications indicated by the South Florida Water
Management District, should not have regional impacts.
REUlMr1ENDA T IONS.
Any DRI Development Order issued by Collier county shall contain
the following provisions:
a. Surface Water Management Permits must be ob-
tained from the South Florida Water Management
District prior to the commencement of develop-
men t .
b. The control level elevation concerns identified
in the South Florida Water Management District
Impact Assessment Report, page 2, Appendix II,
must be addressed by the applicant during the
District Surface Water Management permitting
process.
2~
ENERGY (Refer.toSectibri'B)
The proposed project would be an all' electric development.
As such, it would increase energy demands of the Region in a
manner similar to that of other lIall electric" developments.
The applicant has committed in the ADA to provide a variety of
energy conservation measures.
7
, c.:.
I , ~. '.<>
: '
i ..
, '
l.
f ~
;
f ..
~ t
,
, .
, .
~ ":'
~
. .
f'(
,
;
l .
~ :-
,
,
i. I<
r .
j
L
; ,
l ,
. '
i
L
\ .
;
L
~~:"
item r'~o 88
OcL)ber 28 2008
Page 55 of 193
RECOMMENDATIONS
Any DRI Development Order issued by Collier County shall contain a
provision that the following list of energy conservation features
be incorporated into the review of all final site plans and archi-
tecture for Berkshire Lakes and/or implemented through appropriate
deed restrictions and covenants:
a. provision of a bicycle/pedestrian system connect-
ing all land uses~ to.be placed along all arterial
collectors and local roads within the project.
This system is to be consistent with Collier
County requirements.
b. Provision of bicycle racks and/or storage facili-
ties in office and commercial areas and in multi-
family residential areas.
c. Cooperation in the locating of bus stops, shelters
and other passenger and system accommodations when
a transit system is developed to serve the project
area.
d. Use of energy-efficient features in window design
(e.g., shading and tinting).
e. Use of operable windows and ceiling fans.
f. Installation of energy-efficient appliances and
equipment.
g. prohibition of deed restrictions or covenants that.
would prevent or unnecessarily hamper energy conser-
vation efforts (e.g., building orientation, clothes-
lines and solar water heating systems).
h. 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, recreation areas and other interior
and exterior public areas.
j. Selection of native plants, trees and other
vegetation and landscape design features tha.t
reduce requirements for water, fertilizer,
maintenance and other needs.
8
r ' ,
Agenda Item f'>Jo, 88
October 28, 2008
Page 56 of 193
r"~
I
! .
! ,
k. Planting of native shade trees to provide reason-
able shade for all recreation areas, streets and
parking areas.
1. Placement of trees to provide needed shade in the
warmer months while not overly reducing the
benefits of sunlight in the cooler months. (Shade
in the summer should receive primary consideration.)
m. Planting or ret:eriti::ltJ1\,' of. native. ;Shade, 'trees; .:;for
each'res'ideritial unit.' ' '
l
I l
r ,
\ .
, ,
~ 7
l
i.
l .
n. Orientation of structures, as possible, to re-
duce solar heat gain by walls and to utilize
natural cooling effects of the wind.
o. Provision for structural shading (e.g., trellises,
awnings and roof overhangs) wherever practical
when natural shading cannot be used effectively.
p. Inclusion of porch/patio areas in residential units.
f '
l.
f ~
i ~
I ,
lr 3. HURRICANE EVACUATION (Refer to Section C)
i ..
,
l
. .
The project is located in an area that could be vulnerable to
hurricane flooding in Category 3 storms or greater.
f '
,
j
L"
RECOMr'1ENMrr ONS.
Any DRI Development Order issued' by Collier County shall contain
the following provisions:
'i
I
;1
1. ~
a.
The applicant shall use a m~n~mum floor elevation .
of 12.8 ft. m.s.l. as'required by the SFWMD or Coll~er
County Building Code. Should these requirements .
be lessened through'regulatory changes, Recommendat~ons
b, Cr and d below shall become requirements.
r ~
~
t "
I'
L
~ ~
,
L
c.
On-site refuge space shall be provided at a ratio of
20 square feet per person.
provisions shall be made in deeds and convenants that
tempor~ry shelter for persons living in ground level
units shall be made in buildings of more than one
story; designated refuge space shall be located in
the interior hallways of upper story structur~s or
similarly protected areas with protectedopen~~gs
leading directly .tb ,the exterior.
b.
~ ~
!
~ .
....
! .
1
i.~
l'
L
1 '
-'.-
-9-
I .
r ,
I.C":\
'. ",~"",.'
f '
i
j .
I ,
f '
i :
! .
r ,.
, .
{
~
. .
f "
I
i:. ...
, .
~
! h
f .
L
(",.
;. ~. - ';'...
r! ...~
l
i. "
~ ~
Ie
Ii :-:
,
~
L
. h
. .
,
,
i h
! .
,
J
t 1
! "
,
l.
~ 7'
~
Pi.....
, "
,
i
~ (
'-\..,
1 .
i
)
l...
item hio EB
October 28. 2CJ08
Page 57:Jf 93
d. On-site shelters shall fulfill the following condi-
tions:
* Shelters shall be designed and constructed to with-
stand winds of 140 miles per hour, and certified
by a professional engineer, licensed and registered
by the State of Florida
* Shelters shall be e~~ipped with emergen~J power and
potable water supplies (generators and storage tanks).
* Shelters shall be constructed with as little glass
as possible,' and glass should be protected by shut-
ters or boards.
* Shelters shall provide adequate ventilation, sanitary
facilities, and first aid equipment.
e. A homeowners'association shall be established to provide
education to ~esidents concerning hurricane evacuation,
shelters, etc.
21. HISTORICAL AND' ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES (Refer to Section D)
One archaeological site,' and an additional potential site, have
been identified. at the proposed project. These sites are found
in areas that are 'planned for multi-family development1 however,
the significance of thes'e 'sites' has not yet b.een determined.
. . "
R~
Any DRI Development Order issued by Collier County shall contain
the following provisions:
a. The applicant shall receive the approval of the appro-
priate department of local government before proceeding
with any development of the archaeological site or
potential archaeological site. An initial site
clearance plan for each phase shall also be reviewed
and approved by the appropriate local government
personnel.
b. Prior to any construction in the area where the arch-
aeological site or potential site is located, an
assessment of the sites and their sicrnificance shall
be made. In addition, the appiicant~shall meet with
the appropriate personnel at Collier County to deter-
mine the appropriate measures to be taken to conduct
the assessment.
c. Archaeological sites shall be preserved if
found to be of significant value.
10
f .
i
i'J.,genda Item No. 88
October 28. 2008
Page 58 of 193
, ,
l' 5. TRANSPORTATION (Refer to Section E)
1 \
r'
I
l>
Traffic generated by the Berkshire Lakes project, when combined
with other growth in the area, will cause Davis Boulevard (SR 84)
to exceed its capacity from C-3l to C-9Sl. Intersection im-
provements may also be required at the project's access point
to Davis Boulevard.
r'
1 ~
~
f .
,
.,
: :.
f .
j
L .
Based on the needs outlined in this document, any DR! Development
Order issued by Collier County shall contain the following provisions.
a. The applic"ant shall be required to pay for the
signalization, turn lanes and other improvements'
deemed necessary by the County Engineer or FDOT
for ~he intersection of the project's. southern
access road with Davis Boulevard (SR 84). These
improvements shall he made at the time that this
intersection is found to exceed level-af-service
"ell). Service level determination shall be made by
either the Collier County Engineering Department or
FDOT.
r ,
I
1.
J :
~
~ .
r ~
~
Ii .
b. At such time as Davis Boulevard (SR 84) reaches
service leveL C, the developer representing
Berkshire Lakes will fund a proportionate share
of 1.24 miles of the Qost of construction based.
on total buildout of the project. Developer will
supply bond addressing this issue.
.,
L
tr .
l
i 1; 6. WATER QUAL1:TY (Refer to Section F)
! .
;'
L
The proposed drainage system for the Berkshire Lakes project dis-
charges into the Golden Gate Canal System and Davis Boulevard
(SR 84) swale system which eventually discharges into Naples Bay.
Naples Bay was the subject of a Section 208 Ar~awide Water Quality
Management Study and a hay of regional concern. .. 'The use of water
quality "best management practicesll in the drainage system design
should mitigate project impacts on Naples Bay.
f r
!
L.
~ '
!
L
~
I'
,
,
l.~
Any DRI Development Order issued by Collier County shall contain the
following provisions.
f -
L
a. The drainage system for the Berkshire Lakes project
shall implement the water quality "best management
,
t..
11
!I.genda Item [\]0. Ej8
October 28 2008
Page 59 of 193
r .~
i .
r ,
1 .
1 .
practices" outlined in the Berkshire Lakes Appli-
cation for Development Approval, response to
Question 22 Drainage, Part C., pages 22-5 and 22-6.
b. Surface Water Management Permits shall be obtained
from the South Florida Water Management District,
prior to the commencement of development.
1'1
i.
I,
r .,
c_ ~~~ on-going maintenance and monitoring program that
regularly inspects, maintains and samples the storm-
water drainage system shall be implemented.
i .
! /.
f '
l .
t ~
~ r
'- ,
~ f."
~
, .
~ :
,
L
f f
i ,
t "
~ .
. .
l .
i .
~ .
I '
~
t"
~ .
,
;
i.._s
, '
j
I
L...;;
1 ^
,
L~
.i'
12
R
116.~.~
I ;.:;;::,'f.
~\/~-;;
[]
n
r'l
J
[]
ID
~D
~
~
o
~ rp:.....
1- dZi'
!o
to
I
I fJ
!
I U'
i '
i
i [I
I!
a
1 fl
~ f-
lU
l
i fl....
B Q.
i
lJ
[]
Agenda Item No. 88
October 28,2008
Page 60 of 193
APPENDIX
STAFF REPORTS AND SUPPORT DATA
The. council staff's assessment of the'uBerkshire Lakes" DR!
identified the following issues of regional concern: Drainage,
energy, hurricane evacuation, historical and archaeological sites,
transportation, and water quality. The Staff reports for each
of these issues are attached as Appendix I. Appendix II contains
the Staff reports for each of the twelve (12) local issues:
education, fire protection, fiscal, flood plains, health care, ,
housing, police protection, recreation and open space, solid
waste, vegetation and wildlife/wetlands, wastewater management,
and water supply.
Before formulating the recommendations in the previous section,
the staff anlayzed all of these local and regional issues. As a
part of each analysis,. the staff determined the project's impacts,
any necessary remedial action and the applicant's commitments to
a solution. Such determinations were based upon both the appli-
cant's and Council Staff's calculations and estimates. Where appli-
cable, supporting correspondence from local officials is included.
Appendix III is the Impact Assessment Report on Berkshire Lakes by .
the South'Florida Water Management District.
...13
Iter:: l'Jo. 59
02tober 28 2008
v;,1, ,..-... f,' 1, q -:~ rlf
I....- j.......... W
i ~
APPENDIX I: REGIONAL ISSUES
C'
, ,','
A. DRAINAGE
1. Project Impacts
Review of the Application for Development Approval (ADA)
for the Berkshire Lakes DRI, and other documents on the
drainage impacts of the Golden Gate Canal system, indi-
cates that historical drainage patterns of the general
Berkshire Lakes area have been totally altered due to
past drainage and roadway activities. According to the
ADA, historic drainage for the area occurred as sheet-
flow which discharged in a southwesterly direction.
This sheetflow pattern was disrupted by the construc-
tion of several roads including Radio Road and the con-
struction of the Golden Gate Canal which forms the north-
ern boundary of the site. The Golden Gate Canal has sig-
nificantly lowered surface groundwater tables'on adjacent
lands and has, in effect, reversed drainage patterns on
the northern portion of the Berkshire Lakes site.
(.
The eventual receiving water body for drainage of the
Golden Gate canal system is Naples Bay. This bay has
received special attention from the SWFRPC as the focus
of a Section 208 Areawide Water Quality Study. The section
208 Study as well as other studies, has shown that the
Golden Gate Canal System is a major freshwater input into
Naples Bay, at times discharging 20 to 40 times historic
freshwater levels.l As a result, the potential increase
of freshwater flows into the Golden Gate Canal System is
a regional concern.
Drainage patterns on the southern portion of the project
have also been altered by roadway construction. Radio
Road and Davis Boulevard (SR 84) have interrupted the
Southerly sheetflow, which currently is directed into a
roadside swale system associated with Davis Boulevard
SR 84).
The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) re-
viewed the ADA and a Permit Application for Conceptual
Approval which was concurrently processed for the Berk-
shire Lakes Project. Review by the SFm1D has found that
there appears to be no off-site run-off impact associated
with the project site.2 This is due to the above de-
scribed past construction activities, the flat nature of
the site and the lack of any other channelized features
on the site. As a result the amount of off-site runoff
is limited to 110 cfs (cubic feet per second) per flow.3
/
\:
.,
:2 Naples Bay Study, Collier Co. Conservancy, 1979, p. C-6.
3 S~~WMD Impact Assessment RepQrt, pg. 2, Appendix II.
Ibid.
14
l !
fl
P
d
n
U
n
I'll
i i
id
.'.~
q
tB
pi
I ~
il.~
! ,
'iL..,~
n
u
n
H
U
il]
U "
U
n
I~ ;.
U
n
u
in
. ~J
~
~..il
n!
H fi
u
~ "
iL.ll
lI""'J
p
Li
r'!
H
'1
1[.'"
.' !"'-
. :"
",","'''
[I
n
ill
10
I
,D
[1
I j
ID
!D
~- f2;".".l
, -"S'
I
I U
U
In
iU
In
lu
~
ID
I 0
l
10
I Ql:..;--:
I ... ,
,
~
f
U
[J
.i\aenda Item [,-lo, 88
~ October 28. 2008
Page 62 of 193
The SFWMD concluded their analysis by stating:
"In summary, based on an analysis of the information
provided in both the ADA and the Conceptual Approval
application, staff has concluded that an adequate
drainage system can be developed for the site without
creating an adverse impact on regional drainage patterns
or stormwater facilities."l
2 . Remedial Action
The SFWMD noted a minor problem with the proposed drain-
age system. The SFWMD Impact Assessment Report stated
that:
"Various control elevations, ranging from 7.0 feet NGVD
to 9.0 NGVD, are proposed within the water management
system. The Golden Gate Canal (the northern property
line) is normally maintained at elevation 4.1 feet.
NGVD. It should be noted that a rock cap, along with
some muck-type soils, supports a perched water table
in this area. Consequently, due to the head differen-'
tial between the canal and lake elevations in Basins
A-I'I B, and C and the possibility of drainage below
the rock cap from the lakes to the canal, it may be
difficult to hold the control elevations proposed for
these basins. should this project be approved, this
issue can be eva~uated during the District's permit',
review process. "2 . ":'
3. Applicant Commitment
The applicant has proposed a drainage system, that with
minor modifications, should not have off-site impacts.
lSWFWMD Impact Assessment Report, pg. 2, Appendix II.
2SFWMD Impact Assessment Report, pg. 2, Appendix II.
15
!
!
r
r
,
I
I
~
~
~
!
I
~
!
i
I
!
,
1
t
I
"
,
,
~
!
C."".
. '..;: '.~
. .. ,':l~
I'......"l:..
Cy
\,.: ,
item !'Jo :8
C)::t0ber 28. 2008
63 :)f : 93
rOT:
\ ,
n
i i
B.
l !
ENERGY
1. Proj ect Impa:cts'
The proposed Berkshire Lakes project will rely on
electricity to satisfy most energy needs. Electri-
cal energy requirements have been estimated and are
presented below:
r..~
,.
. t
i ~
r~
I'
, ~
t z
Table B-1
Daily Electrical Energy Requirements
Average Daily Peak Hour
Consumption (Kwh)3 Demand (la-r) 3
Resi- Commer- Res i- Commer- Resi- Commer-'
Phase dentiall cia12 dentia1 cia1 Total dentia1 cial Total
1-1990 1,035 100,000 34,031 6,016 40,047 3.240 470 3,710
II-1995 2,135 200,000 70,199 12,033 82,232 6,683 940 7,623
III-2000 3,135 300,000 103,079 18,049 121,128 9,813 1,410 11,223
IV-200S- 4,200 375,000 138,096 22,562 160,658 13,146 1,763 14,909
fl
iU
~"i
i r.
j ~
t ~
n
J
d
n
I ~
u
L Cumulative number of dwelling ~nits. Includes single family and multi-
family.
2. Cumulative square feet of commercial area.
3. Cumulative, figured at end of phase.
:r~
H
, \
:L~
This project will contain both residential and commercial
development. The residential portion will have single
f~~ily and multi-family units. Total average daily elec-
trical consumption is estimated to be 160,658 kilowatt-
hours at project completion with a peak hour demand of
14,909 kilowatts. The €~ect~icity sUPPlier has stated
that electricity will be available as needed.
2._ .. Remedial Action
l...
r-11
H
,I ,..
d
'ff'f;
.. ~
U
rl1
u J
tiJ
Energy conservation measures and features should be imple-
mented during initial site planning and project construction.
well-integrated energy efficiency features will produce
benefits throughout the life of the project. Long-term
expense can be reduced and long-term dollar and energy sav-
ings can be increased through early planning for more effi-
cient energy use.' The applicant can utilize his right of
review and approval of all final site plans and arghitec-
ture, along with deed restrictions and covenants, to achieve
an efficient, self-contained community.
~'~
H
U
n
q
lLJi
j*~11
P
kJ
~ n
H
.. ~,
....'"
LlJ
16
r~
u
LR
:1
11(<:
j []
I
I~ n
n
U
Agenda Item No. 88
October 28, 2008
Page 64 of 193
The energy conservation goal ,of the SWFRPC is to promote
and develop the mosteffedtive, efficient and. economical
use of' all form's;'of"~e:rfer9'?" available to . Southwest Florida.
(291-2.ll, P.A.C.) The first objective under that goal
is as follows:
To reduce reliance 'upon and improve the efficiency.
of automotive transportation. (291-2.11,1,. F.A.C.)
To meet that objective, it is recommended that the follow-
ing measures be incorporated by the applicant:
[1
o
~[l
~
I 11
~ U
L /".
I If"
~
~O
~ .
I'
i [n
I j
Ii
~
[1
]
a. provision of a bicycle/pedestrian system connect-
ing all land uses, to be placed along all arterial,
,collector, and local 'roads within the project.
This system is to be consistent with Collier County
requirements. .
b. provision of bicycle racks and/or storage facili-
ties in office and commercial areas and in multi-
family residential areas.
c. Cooperation in the locating 'of bus stops, shelters
and other passenger and system accommodations when
a transit system is developed to serve the project
area.
The third objective under the Council energy conservation
goal is as follows:
To encourage the improved efficiency of community
design (especially new construction). (29I~2.ll,3)
.~. ;:
To meet that objective, it is recommended that the following
measures be incorporated by the applicant:
d. Use of energy-efficient features in window design
{e.g., shading and tinting).
i n
i r"
hLl
1:
! r'~.
! "
I U
i [1
L.YC:
1
U
e. Use of operable windows and ceiling fans.
f. Installation of energy-efficient appliances and
equipment.
g. Prohibition of deed restrictions or covenants
that would prevent or unnecessarily hamper energy
conservation efforts (e.g., building orientation,
clotheslines ~~d solar water heating systems).
(State statute prohibits approval or renewal of
a plat or subdivision plan if deed ,restrictions
or covenants prohibit or have the effect of pro-
hibiting solar collectors, clotheslines or other
energy devices based on renewable resources..."
Ch . 16 3 . 0 4 IF. S . )
.,
t t'
~I
~ -
17
~
i
I
~ .
!
~ .
n
,
i
i.
I
I
i
!
l
~
!
!.
!
~
i.
I
L\genda!tem tJo. 38
O:::tober 28. 20tJ8
e5 of. -:93
n
n
h. Reduced coverage by asphalt, concrete, rock
and similar substances in streets, parking
lots and other areas to reduce local air
temperatures and reflecte'd light an.d heat.
i. Installation of energy-efficient lighting for
streets, parking areas, recreation areas and
other interior and exterior public areas.
The fifth objective under the Council energy conserva-
tion goal is as follows:
fC."-
'<2;';1:
1 f
n
! <
i ~
n.
t j
To encourage ~ncreased utilization of natural energies.
(291-2.11, 5, F.A.C.)
n
u
. r1
d
!~
To meet that objective, it is recommended that the following
measures be incorporated by the applicant:
j. Selection of native plants, trees and other vege-
tation and landscape design features that reduce
requirements for water, fertilizer, maintenance and
other needs.
k. Planting of native shade trees to provide reason-
able shade for all recreation areas, streets and
parking areas.
n.,.
u
pi
l.~
,
"
Jl
r"
n
it]
(<.:...,
.....-:..~
,,:.,;.,.
1. Placement of trees to provide needed shade in the
warmer months while not overly reducing the bene-
fits of sunlight in the cooler months. (Shade in
the summer should receive primary consideration.)
l1
ID. Planting of native shade trees for each residential
unit.
[~
'1
I ~:
'Jl
n. Orientation of structures, as possible, to reduce
solar heat gain by walls and to utilize natural
cooling effects of the wind. (A general east-
west orientation will expose the smallest area
to the strong morning and afternoon sun.)
n~
f, jj
(~
r!J
n
u
o. provision for structural shading (e.g., trellises,
awnings and roof overhangs) wherever practical
when natural shading cannot be used effectively.
n
U
p. Inclusion of porch/patio areas in residential units.
u
3. Applicant Cormnitment
The applicant has made the following energy-related commit-
ments for this project:
n
~ H
~~
/
~
n!
p
Ll1
tll
18
~.~
~. !l
~ r:
U
I rl
1 n
L. I
1.](..,
n
[]
n
U
o
II
[]
n
iJ
~UC
~
o
;U
10
Ii
"
10
1'1 U
10-
,
j
I
"
jp
l Ur.......
~ ""
l
U
o
Agenda Item No. 88
. October 28. 2008
Page 66 of 193
Compliance with the Florida Model Energy Effi-
ciency Code for Building Constructron.l (It
should be noted that such compliance is not
voluntary but is' mandat-ed' bylaw'~ F.S. Ch.
._.553..S03-553.:90,7.)'.. '
2. Encouragement'of passive solar building ~esign. .
This will consist of preservation of nat7ve ve~e-2
tation and proper building siting and ~r1entat1on.
3. Cooperation in the locating of bus stops, shel-
ters and, other passenger and system accommoda-
tions.3 .
1.
4. provision of a. comprehensive bikeway system
connecting all land uses with bike paths/side-
walks to be placed along one side of all main
roads within the project.4 (See following map
with bikeway location.)
",/
r
1. ADA, p. 25-7. .
2. Sufficiency Report, p. 20.
3. ADA, p. 31-26.
4. Ibid.
19
t
i
i
(
,.
I
~
t
i
, .
G'.:.,.
". '~.i;:1:
".1<6'
i
~
~
i
I
f
(
~
I
~
};
~
a
~
a
~
i
R
,
j.
I
,
~
~
~
.
&.
.
,
"
,
t
~l
g
~
j
~
\
!
1.
,
,
r
~:
~
~
t:>.~;;.
~.:;)!
(
Got.flt
f"S'JA T6 S' IINI r jO
! !
GATI'
.. 611<E.WA.Y LDCA"flcW
~erk5hire
lahc9
--=
l
20
item ~~o 8B
October 28 2008
Page 67 of: 93.
r-,
, ,
n
#.&Tt &lIUl' 7
( -
i h
n
H
I "r
. ~
,
n
i 'f
U
n
i\ ~
~.li
""l
H
!LJ
I.~
"
j
"l
L
" .
ILl;
b
n
lG
M
Jl
n
u
[1
Jl
P
6 ~
:U
N
t
J
n
i ~~i
Ui
r~
! ~
U
.~~-=~loC
;S:CAl.C ". '(( r
n
u ~
u
~......." ."
r.L.'J(W .wfUC.It tM/f1f)lf lOLL. 1'<<1_..1lIC
.e",..--... ~.....". . &'41"" J..___
i~,. tf~ Itl-?J ~ . ,...
UJ
q
tt I~
! 1,;
U
I
i r'o
~I.. Jj
I t~.
I . ;,.;~
~ ~.~~/f?
n
lJ
[l
n
[l
I n
[j
o
4\;;:.
,\Z::t'
U
l'
I [l
~
I ['~
r, j'
~ '
'I
Ii
I [J
in
~u
~
~ D'~
r .
"
f
K
!'
~n
~u
~
,
I.' r I
j Jr'
1_ ~.
d
u
[J.
Aaenda Item No. 88
~ October 28, 2008
Page 68 of 193
c.
HURRICANE EVACUATION
1. Project'Impact
The proposed project is located east of Naples and south of
the Golden Gate area in'Collier County. According to the .
Southwest Florida Regional Planni~g Council's Regional
Hurricane Evacuation Plan, the development is located in an
area that would be subject to flooding by a Category 3 Type
Hurricane (winds of 111 - 130 mph). In this type of storm,
maximum flooding of '13.7 feet above mean sea level could
occur.! In storms of greater strength, flooding would be
even more severe, as seen in the table below.
TABLE C-l
Maximum Flooding Levels
MaximUm Flooding (FT.)
Above Mean Sea Level
Storm' Category
1
2
3
4
5
13.7
17.3
. 19.8
Source: Storm Surge Envelope of Envelopes, pre-
pared.by National Hurricane Center for
SWFRPC.
An analysis of potential ~torms2 indicates that flooding
above the site elevation (9 feet) will occur in 39% of the
category 3 strength storm tracks. The probability of flood-
ing generally increases with each storm ea.tegory, as shown
below.
TABLE C- 2
Storm Flooding Exceeding Site Elevation
Storm Category
:it Storm Tracks
Examined
:I storm Tracks
Causing Flooding
1
2
3
4
5
15
23
23
25
24
o (0%)
o (0%)
9 (39%)
15 (60%)
14 ( 60 %)
1. Depending upon storm direction, intensity and various other
fae tors.
2. storm Surge Envelope of Envelopes', Landfalling Storms, SWFRPC.
21
. . .,.___,~~._.~_...,__._,___ __ .__.~_.___._.~. .w.__~.,._.,_.'". .
!
,
(
..
t
~
*
~
~
~
~
i'
I
~
i
I
t
~
i
~
ij
"
J~
1
~
,
t
(<
r
~
i
~
I!
t
item Ih f,B
Jctober 28. 2008
69 of '93 n
1 ~
G~..".
}; '.
According to the preceding table, no flooding would occur
in minimal storms (categories 1 and 2). Since the maxi- l~
mum flooding that could.occur in a category 3 storm.is
13.7 feet, and the elevation at the site ranges from
9-11 feet (and will be higher afte~ construction is 1.'1
completed), off site evacuation would not be necessary B
for category 1-3 storms. The residents living in single-
family dwellings and the first floor units of multiple- n
family housing could be sheltered on-site,either in ti
community buildings (such as the recreation center or club-
house), commercial b~ildings, or in upper level multiple-family
unitslin the units themselves or in co~mon areas such as n
hallways),. - ,jj
2.
Remedial Action
n
t~
c.,
Building the first floor elevation at levels set by the
South Florida Water Management District, or 18 inches
above the crown of the road as required by the County
Building Code, will reduce potential flooding levels
to a minimum in category 3 storms. The use of suitable
community buildings or common area in upper-story struc-
tures as on-site shelters will reduce the impact on
off-site shelters and also mitigate potential traffic
impacts. Therefore, the applicant should provide suit-
able shelter spaceirt buildings meeting Red Cross Shelter
standards and able to withstand winds of up to 140. miles.
per hour. . .
3. Applicant. 'Conunitment
The applicant has stated that no additional on-site pro-
visions are needed for storm shelter space, based upon
the proximity of the site to the Golden Gate Community
Center and other schools.
n
q
L~
n
d
[I
.l>
fi
u
u
11'1
b
r-~
~ f.
d
"1'
j,
p
U
n
U
n
Ill!
U
PI
1'1
U
c
1. ADA Sufficiency Report, pg. 1.
l~
22
n
b
I R
1-
11r":.:
\:.~~. "
in
~
in
I
Ii n
LJ
I
I []
III
,
~[J
j
i [1
rt j
t. lC~>
i U
~
ill
I D
I n.1
~ U
r.
, re'l
III
g
I 0
a
in
~U
~
I
in.
I. g i,'.
~-..
L
r:
~\ U
i.
..~ \
1\~
.. ,g
~ .~
. \
.~. ~
Aoenda Item No. 88
~ October 28, 2008
Page 70 of 193
D.
HISTORICALAND' ARCHAEOLOGICAl; 'S:ITES
1. Project 'Impact
An archaeological ~econnaissance of, the area was performed
by Mr. John' Beriault of the Southwest Florida Archaeolo-
gical Society. One archaeological site was found in the
northern part of the proposed project, as well as another
potential site (see Exhibit D-l for locations). The identi-
fied archaeological site is located north of the inter-
state; while the potential site is sit~ated south of the
interstate. Both sites are Iound 'a9jacent to' areas that are
planned for multi-family residential development: the
identified site is located in'a proposed park,a,rea, and the
potential site is within an area planned'as a golf 9ourse.
Some pottery fragments were found at the identified site;
however, th~significance of the sites is unknown at p~esent.
2 . Remedial' Action
An assessment of the importance of these sites should be
~ade prior to any development in that general area.
3. Applicant Commdtment
The applicant has indicated that the developer will allow
a reasonable amount of time for the concerned agencies to
assess the importance of the site and take the appropriate
necessary measures (See attached Exhibit D-2). In addi-
tion, the applicant indicated in the ADA that workers
will be directed to cease work, should signs indicate an
unknown site, until an assessment can be made of the im-
portance of the find.l
1. ADA, pg. 19-1.
23
0..'~
\:M." :
j ..
f. .
I
r;c
; ~::<'
f .
i
I
I
1
;
1;
,
J
1
,
;.
I'.
\:. '..,'
Irem r~o. 38
October 28 2008
P3ge 71 :)f 193 n
, ! /I l t
..J\..
'~~. . \
. ~ ~ SITE \
POTENTIAL SI;;;O:.~ 1-75.
Exhibit 0-1
GOLDe_ GAiTl CAN_iii.
-:::
"
.
b
,
"
~
"
..
C 856
<cou..,ry RD tI,; RAQtO ROAO
Sillr, ~(J B" 0"'0$ eou(.,[V_IiP
BERKSHIRE LAKES
'l.OCA TION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
24
..
..
~
..
CD
..
'"
..
..
'"
..
CD
"
~
"'
<
.
"
..
N
I
.00 -.0 ;!OO ~
~
~c ".Lf. .1It "CCT
1 ~
n
n
p
, ~
U
'n
! ~
i.lI
J]
n
n
U
l~
n
d
ff"~
U ~
U
U
Ii
U
p
g ~
d
P
d
"-"
Uf.l
. ~
iLJJ
r}! ~
~ " ..
ll' i
!
Exhibit D- 2
Agenda Item No. 88
October 28,2008
Page 72 of193
WILSON, MilLER, BARTON, SOlL & PEEK, INC.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS AND LAND SURVEYORS
March 7, i 983
fl
U
[]
I [1
~ .i
. .
1
to
~
I D .
L C....:
i J o-
j
I D
~ D'
g .
I
I 0
I 0
i
I O'~
~ >
~
I,
~ n. i
Hlj
~
~ ["
~ Jt
n ,..
. '
"
I;.....,
Mr. Wayne E. Daltry,
Executive Director
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
2121 West First street
Ft. Myers, Florida 33901
SUBJECT: Berkshire Lake DR!
Dear Mr. Daltry:
Please be advised that it has been brought to our attention by
Dr. Mark Benedict, Environmentalist, Collier County, that there
has been a discovery of an archiological site within the
Berkshire Lakes properties. The approximate location of this
site is south of the lake on Parcel B, as identified on the
Parcel Location Map, Sheet 12-6 of the ADA and on the Master
Development Plan "Exhibit fl-.
..
"
This matter was discussed with the ~ollier County Environmental
Advisory Council as well as with Dr. Benedict and Mr. Burr of
your office. As we have stated in the response to question 19A
of the ADA, we have agreed with Collier County that the
developer will allow a reasonable amount of time for the
concerned agencies to assess the importance of this site and
take the appropriate necessary measures accordingly.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
WILSON, MILLER, BARTON, SOLL & PEEK, INC.
:::::~~A.I.C.P. ~" ~~\G~UWlE~
cc: Dr. Mark Benedict, ph.D. ~ MAR 8 1983
John J. Agnel1i . ..
William T. Hi99s
~YL"fl.ORIOA REGIONAL;
P.1J\NNlNG COUNCIL
~ "1
~
~ U W. R. WILSON, P.E., P.L.S,.' R. W. MILLER, P.E.' W. L. BARTON, P.E." C. H. SOLl. P,L.S. ' T. R. PEEK. P.E.. P.L.S.
I W. M. CHRfST1ANSEN, JR.. P.L.S." F. T. BARBER, Ill, F.E." J. S. AGNOLl, P.L.S." C. H. SCHNEIDER. fl.E." W. F. ASSAAD, A,..j.-c:.:;:o.
~ [ 1 1383 AIRPORT ROAD, NOFlTH. NAPLES. FLORIDA 33942' TELEPHONE: 775.lt24
1 J 25
~
!
!
!
i
(
i
.
I
I
i
I
!
~
I
t
~.
I
fJ
p.
~
I'
~
~
It
i
E
~
~
,
t
~
t
~
,
~
~
~
f
!
i
,
,.
!
l
,
,
9
~
j
!
~..>..
\:>~.. .
.:~:~"':...
f;J~'.
\2" ....
. .::-"~~
"~
c
ttern No. 88
October 28, 2008
73 of 93
p
" ,
i1
! j
E.
TRANSPORTATION
1. ProjElct Impact
a. Applicant Estimate
The applicant estimated that the project would
generate 32,752 daily trips at buildout (2005).
Commercial and recreational facilities provided
on-site would retain 8,772 trips, with 23,980 daily
external trips. The proposed Santa Barbara Boule-
vard would receive the heaviest loading, with 13,070
daily trips. Radio Road was projected to receive
8,588 trips; Golden Gate .Boulevard got just over .
41900; and Davis Boulevard was allocated 4,734 da~ly
trips. .
! ,
n
t ~
n
n
....!l
f"lj
!
l
The applicant assumed that all highway.network im-
provements required by non-DRI traffic will be pro-
vided by some agency. The only other road improve-
ment projected to be required was the four-laning
of SantaBarbara Boulevard, from Golden Gate Park-
way to Radio Road. The applicant projects that
this improvement would be required by 1996, with
the DRI, and by 2007 without Berkshire Lakes. Inter-
section improvements were also projected to be neces-
sary at the developed entrances from Berkshire;
connecting to Radio Road, Santa Barbara Boulevard,
and Davis Boulevard. The developer would bear the
cost of these' improvements. Dual left turh controls
were also projected to be needed at the intersection
of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard,
on the east and south approaches.
"'"1
t]
"
,
a
p
I; ~
d
q
ti
b. Staff Estimate
1]
J "
tJi
1
n
u:
~
n
~ "
d
DRI-Traffic - The Staff of the Collier Coa~ty Metro-
politan Planning Organization recently completed a
study of future traffic in the Radio Road corridor.
As the supp"1ement to this study, the M.P.O. Staff
included a companion analysis of the traffic im-
pacts of the Berkshire Lakes Project. Southwest
Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) substi-
tuted this information for the applicant's projections
on Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. These
traffic projections were then extended to other
roads using the applicant's directional traffic
splits and trip satisfaction assumptions.
1f.1'.
U
n
h. il!)
Lt
O.
".
~
Non-DR! Traffic = The applicant projected non-DRI
traffic based on a sliding scale growth rate. Traffic
would increase at 8% annually until 1985, the~ 6% to
1990, and 4% thereafter. Staff did not object to the
use of this methodology for roads not covered by the
p.
it;
U
26
r~
u
j
~ H"
Ll
! --.~. c..
t . .;' .
.'0"
. []
I~
.u
o
n
1[1
~-~}
I D
I
M n
IU
I n.
t tJ
f
"-
i []
I
,
!
" n.n
lU
I.
,n
ju
I Q.l..:
t._ ..
U
r .
Li
. Agenda Item r\lo. 88
October 28, 2008
Page 74 of 193
M.P.O. study, but did not agree with one of the
appli~ant's major assumptions. The applicant
assumed that all of the traffic generated by the .
DRI was accounted for as part of this projection. .
In reviewing this assumption, staff looked at exist-
ing and future conditions in. the impact area. Based
on. the M.P .0. study, .the number o.f daily' trips gen-
era ted in the Berkshire Lakes impact area could more
than triple .by the year 2005, even without the devel-
opment Of Berkshire Lakes.. This :Lncr.ease would be
substantiallyrnore than was projected by the appli-
cant. For this reason, the applicant's traffic
projections 'were utilized. on roads not specifically
addressed by the M.P.O. study, without subtracting
out ~e projected Berk~~ir~ Lakes traffic.
. .
Directional Traffic Splits - As the area surrounding
the Berkshire Lakes DRI develops, traffic patterns
will change substantially. The o.rientation towards
downtown Naples wi+l be lessened by the development
of large commercial properties to the east of Berk-
shire Lakes. North! south traffic will be subs tan-
tially changed by the extention of Santa Barbara
Boulevard south to pavis Boulevard (as recommended
in this analysis). Thisextention will make Davis
Boulevard the most. direct route between Berkshire
Lakes and the Ci ty of Naples. Instead of heading
east on Radio ~oad, traffic will go south on the Santa
Barbara Extention, and east on Davis. SWFRPC staff,
in c~nsultation with the Collier' County M.P.O. sta~f:,
projects that this will..result in a north/south .
directional balance of trips by buildout of Berkshi're
Lakes (2005). Traffic on Radio Road was projected to
split 60% west, and 40% east. Traffic splits at sub~
sequent intersections were taken from the applicant's
projections in the ADA. '
Road Capacity - The road capacities utilized by the
applicant were satisfactory and were incorporated
into the staff review.
Traffic conditions at project buildout (2005) are
presented in Table E~l. DRI traffic and total pro-
jected ADT by road segment are also illustrated on
Map E-l.
2.' Remedial Action
a. J..pplicant Estimate 1
An analysis was made of volumes, capacities and
levels of service for each intersection which will
be significantly impacted. In determining what
IBerkshire Lakes ADA, p. 31-25.
27
_"_. ._"'____''''!'_~'''''~~~".._~_.._..,...,~,.:o..""'"'__.~_.........-..~<--"......-~~.'_.~'-'..'~'-'-'-'~.~-- "~"~~,.-....._~_._..........--.-,,.~...........--.-..._--.,,..,,,,...........~-----==--....,,~<-----_...".,..............__.-.
.--..
'", .
.~..
f\~1er'1d2 Item ~Jo. 5B
Oct~ 28. 2008
P~*!1775 of 193
TABLE E-l
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AT PROJECT BUILDOUT 2005
I
IA
L~ I
l "1(: ~:,
rl
l
I ["'}
i i
I n
[]
f
i.. ['1
~ j
j,
F ['l
j
01
i
L.l(::,
d
In
In
~' u
!
!. O.
~ ~
~ .
t:
f,
f
iU
~
10
,
~
~
in
1-
! D'~
I .
i'C'.
I .
1 .
,
~
u
[1
J
o
012
j.....r. ,
(MI~ES)
MAP e-1
Agenda Item No, 88
October 28, 2008
Page 76 of 193
l i-,*,
! ',. c,o U N T Y , , . ~.::-~
:,-~ -.....-. .. --- - - ....:..- - ~.:
I. -::= 1=-' 1-:. ,-- "':~_:: "'..::...-::i
.~.:; . -:a. , ';C--=::-~ :="'-:. ..:.-~
, __'=.!!':':::';;'':o:!~ ==:-E =.-\
" ~ ~-:~-.:;:;:..~- ~~..i.
- 1---:..:::--....--- -..-
.-..t:::;:........ ..~
.. ~-~~;.. p;:
~'l . j:;;'''"'''l ~~.:
. ...... ..=..-:
I . --
-.,. - L: + \ ]0---"::
. t ;:.,' rrr """'-.'
. ..'\ ::"\\1'
. ';..."..'. I ::~ \1
. i i..:.-'I' --='l'ij
LEE
..-l-'-r
~.. . ~..- ":r~
"
"
ci
Q:
'-<
c: lI5t
<(
@ III
c:
<(
Z III .
;
g i! ..s
75 ,,' f
en z ,
C,!) , t~
z <(
:> en
:J
,"
..;;.:::
~
-~
'J-
. ~~-..~
~-::.-::.
... ........ ~ D"-
'-, -~. u,!!~~
. :. _ l:"
-....".: - -
I - -::- - -=c...
.--,.-....::.
- ~-=---=
- -- --
--:-= :. :.-::
. 7-;" ==:-
,~.;~
-... - --
~ ::---......:=--:.. ~
,~-r;::.
- .~ :::-:'
KEY
741-DRI TRAFFIC
(U728) TOTAL DAILY TRAFFIC
~ERKSHIRE LAKeS
PROJECTED DRt AND TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AT BUILDOUT (2005)
29
item f'~o. 88
iJcrober 20Q8
::Ja;)8 77 of 1 S-J3
(;:\'to
. ..~~ .
....:::-.
improvements will be required due to the impact of
the DRI, it was assumed that all. highway network
improvements required by non-DRI traffic will be
provided. The' following additional improvements.
will be required to maintain Level of Service C as
the DRI is developed:
I~:'
During Each Development Phase - Entrances from the
developed parcels, as shown on the plan, connecting
to Radio Road, Santa Barbara Boulevard, and Davis
Boulevard would be constructed when needed. Twelve
foot approaches .to all of b~ese intersections will
be adequate to .provide LOS C..,. However ,.if 24 ft.
approaches (i.e. left turn lanes) are constructed at
all entrances to Parcels A andE and to the north
entrances to Parcel F, it is unlikely that signali-
zation warrants will be met by 2005 at any entrance.
The developer will bear the cost for all entrance
improvements.
By 1996 (or when the ADT exceeds 10,000) - Santa
Barbara Boulevard will need to be four-laned from
Golden Gate Parkway to Radio Road. If the DRI site
were to remain vacant, this four-Ianing would not be
required until ,about eleven years later.
cg.r..
--:-.I~.~
':.~'~:..:'~:
By 1999 (or when required' by incre~sedvolumes):
Dual lef.t turn controls will need to be provided at
the inte~pection of .Go1den Gate parkway and Santa
Barbara Boulevard, on the east and sou~~ approaches.
provision for these should be made when this inter-
section is reconstructed.
Airport Road will go over LOS C capacity for four-
lane between Radio Road, ar.,d Golden Gate Parkway
by 1990 unless Livingston Road is developed 'by
that date. This is projected to occur even without
the added DRI traffic.
Airport Road between Radio Road and u.S. 41 will go
over capacity by 1995 unless Livingston Road is devel-
oped. Again, this will occur even without the DRI.
Davis Boulevard will go over capacity at LOS C both
east and west of Airport Road by 1995 unless measures
are taken to increase its capaci ty . This condi tion
is projected to occur even without the DRI traffic
being added.
( ..' ,
. :....
~-:.:",
30
n
n
l i
n
f1
d
n
p
U
q
L
[]
,11
iJ
u
u
n
u
f"it
~ fj
~. jj
f-
I, ~
LiJ
~.~
d
'.1l
f'"
'i
, Ii
Ul
r'"1il
, ~
U
l"
.1<1
,.~
U
!
i_A
11~.
I. _,.~
. ....-\.
'#..~:~',,~.
0":',
.[]
o
n
[]
o
o
!
10
L. C".'
.!f,
U,::'~:,g
-1'.-.
I
i
iO
I
In
ill
!\genda Itefjl t\!o. 88
October 28, 2008
Page ?8 of 193
b. Staff Estimate'
Staff agrees with the' remedial actions estimated by
the applicant, but feels additional improvements .
will also be necessary. The Staff analysis summar-.'
ized in Table E-l indicates that each of the follow-
ing road segments will require improvement to at
least four lanes before project buildout in 2005..
Only roads receiving 5% or more of their'projected
average daily traffic from Berkshire Lakes are
incl uded .
Radio Rd.: Airport Rd. to Livingston
Li vings.ton to Santa Barbara Blvd.
Santa Barbara Blvd. to Davis Blvd.
Davis Blvd. .(SR 84) :Airport Rd. to Livingston Rd.
Livingston to Country Barn Rd.
. Country Barn Rd. to Santa Barbara
Radio Rd. to SR 951
Golden Gate Pky.: 'Ail;:port Rd. to Livingston
Livingston to Santa Barbara
Airport Rd.: Golden Gate Pky. to Radio Rd.
Radio Rd. to Davis Blvd.
Santa Barbara Blvd.: pine Ridge Rd. to Golden Gate Pky.
Golden Gate Pky. to Radio Rd.
Radio Rd. to Davis Blvd.;,.
Davis Blvd. to SR 864
[]
Even if all of the preceeding road segments were
improved to four lanes, +oad capacity would still
be exceeded on certain segments before buildout in
2005. New road corridors, such as the planned
Livingston Road, will need to be developed to meet
this demand.
u
o
[~
IU
lOG....
J . .
} ".,1"0
>''''''''''' "
The road projects currently planned or under con-.
struction are outlined in letters from the County
and District Engineers (see attached exhibits E~l & E-2).
The projects in the immediate vicinity of Berkshire
Lakes are:
Santa Barbara Blvd.
Golden Gate Canal to Radio.Rd. - Right-Of-way acquisition
Green Blvd. to pine Ridge Rd. - Planning Only
Livingston Road
Immokalee Rd. to Golden Gate Pky. - Planning Only
, l
U
U
31
I.
f
;
!
i
I
J
I
j
I
i
;
,
!
i
l
!
I
I
1
;
,
i
1
1
i
I
I
j
i
0"
~:~.:~.
(p;,
'.'
c
r..,Genda item f"io. 38
- OCl::;b9r 28, 2008
79of1S3
r'J
H
l i
Golden Gate Blvd..
l i
Airport Rd. to I-75 - Right-of-way' acquisition
I-75 to CR-95l - Const. within 5 years after I-75
Goodlette Rd. to Airport Rd.-Under const.(4 Lane)
Airport Rd.
Golden Gate Pky. to pine Ridge - Under Const.(4 Lane)
o
n
. .
1-75
n
u
Immokalee Rd. to Alligator Alley-Under Const.(4 Lane)
The discrepancy between the anticipated road needs
and the committed project~ illustrates the need for
additional funding for road projects. The Staff
analysis indicated that Berkshire Lakes will sub-
stantially impact both local and regional roadways. The
most heavily impacted roads are those adjacent to,
or bisecting the project: Santa Barbara Blvd.;
Radio Rd.i and Davis Blvd. Table E-2 illustrates
how much of the capacity of these roads will be
r~guired by Berkshire Lakes. Based on these percent-
ages, the miles of roadway (two-lane) attributable
to the project were then calculated. (See Table E-2) .
n
fll
U
n
d
n
1ft
UJ
TABLE B-2
Ul
OR! IMPACT ON ADJACENT ROADWAYS
['.\1.
j
LENGTH
(MILES)
DEI ,
OF SERVICE
VOLUME
n
, j
U
MILES
AT'l'lUBU'I'ABLE
TO DR-I
Reg ionai'
. -----~-. .
DAVIS B~VD. (Sa 84)
Airport Rd. to LivingstOn Rd.
Livingston to Country Barn Rd.
Country Barn Rd. to Santa Barbara
Radio Rd. to sa 951
n
~ 'I
II
1.53
.n
.80
.55
29.8
30.2
32.1
56.3
.46
.21
.26
.31
1.24
n
Lii
Local
RADIO RD.
rr;
n
u
Airport Rd. to Livingston
Livingston to Santa Barbara Blvd.
Santa Barbara Blvd. to Davis Blvd.
1.59
1.52
1.4.9
i9.4
84.5
56.3
1.26
1.28
.84
~11
J ~
U ~
ILll
SANTA BARBARA BLVD.
Pine Ridge Rd. to Golden Gate Pky.
Golden Gate Pky. to Radio Rd.
Radio Rd. to Davis Blvd.
Davis Blvd. to sa 864
n....
u
2.57 6.3 .16
1.31 42.0 .55
1.00 42.0 .42
2.00 L~ .12
" t::..,
""Z.V.,.J
u
32
11".:
r-
~:
.lj
I Jl
I_n.
1
Ill~\':
~;:..,
~D
n
Aqenda IterTI No. 88
- October 28. 2008
Page 80 of 193
fl
U
These figures allow the impact of the DRI on the
adjacent road network to be concentrated on a shorter
road segment. Rather than having the applicant con-
tribute a percentage towards the widening of a number
of roadways, the applicant can then be assessed 100%
responsibility for the portions of the widening most
critical to the project.
Based on this analysis, staff recommends that the
applicant should be required to meet the following
conditions:
o
In
10
I
(
10.
1- lC1~
ILJ
I
10
10
i
In
lu
I
! rl
i u'
i
,
,
I
!
UJ
I
I
fl
LjI
Regional -
...Add two lanes to Davis Boulevard ($R 84) for a dis-
tance of 1.24 miles ,..at the time ,Davis Boulevard (between
. Country Barn Road' and Santa Barbara Boulevard) is deter-
mined to exceed level-of-service IIC" as determined'by
the Collier County Engineer or F.D.O.T.
...pay for signalization, turn lanes, and any other
intersection improvements deemed necessary.by either
the Collier County.Engineer or FDOT, for the inter-
section of the.southern' access road from Berkshire
Lakes onto Davis Boulevard -- at the time this inter-
section is determined to exceed level-of-service lie"
as determined by the Collier County Engineer or FDOT.
Local -
Dc.
...Donate the right~of-way necessary for the four-
laning of Santa Barbara Boulevard from Golden Gate
Canal to Radio Road.
...Donate the western half of the right-Of-way nec-
essary for the eventual four-laningof Santa Barbara
Boulevard from Radio Road to Davis Boulevard.
...Donate any right-Of-way necessary for the eventual
four-1aning of Radio Road, adjacent to Berkshire Lakes.
...Pave Santa Barbara Boulevard as a two-lane roadway
from the southern terminus of the 1-75 interchange
and the associated paving, to Radio Road -- at the
time of construction of Berkshire Lakes I major access
roads.
...Extend Santa Barbara Boulevard as a two-lane paved
roadway from Radio Road to Davis Boulevard -- at the
time of construction of Berkshire Lakes major access
ro ads.
...4-lane the portion of Santa Barbara Boulevard, be-
tween Golden Gate Parkway and Radio Road, which is not
already four-laned -- at the time four-laning is deter-
mined to be necessary by the Collier County Engineer.
...Pay for signalization, turn lanes, and other inter-
section improvements deemed necessary by the County
Engineer, for Berkshire Lakes' access points onto
Santa Barbara Boulevard and Radio Road.
I
~
.d
u
33
Item r~o 28
()ctober 28 20(i8
:::>3ge 31 Df E3 P
l t
C.'
The above road improvement recommendations correspond
with the recommendations of FDOT which call for the
applicant to:
...contribute to the construction of Santa Barbara
Boulevard as a four-lane roadway,
...contribute to the cost of four-laning Radio Road
from Airport Road to Santa Barbara Boulevard,
...make some provisions for four-laning David Boule-
vard from Livingston Boulevard to Santa Barbara Boule-
vard.
The FDOT letter summarizing their analysis is included
as exhibit E73.
General Considerations
CO',
In addition to the road and intersection improvements
and right-of-way donations recommended above, Staff also
recommends that additional access points should be pro-
vided to the project. If the proposed internal road
network is approved, the 'portion of Berkshire Lakes
south of Radio Road will block access from the west
onto the Santa Barbara Extension to Davis Boulevard. .
To allow for east-west traffic movement, and relieve
future congestion on Radi.o Road and Davis Boulevard,
an east-west through road should be provided on or
near the half section line (T50S R26E Section 5).
This road should connect to Santa Barbara Boulevard
on the east, and eventually be extended at least to
the Livingston Road-extension on the west. A similar
east-west roadway should also be considered for the
portion of the project located north of Radio Road.
c.
~pplicant Commitment
The developer will bear the cost for all entrance
improvements .1
In the event that regular transit service is provided
to Berkshire Lakes, the project would cooperate in
the locating of bus stops, shelters, and other passen-
ger and system accornmodations.2
IB . b' - ~ 1 25
erKs.~re LaKes ADA, p. 3 - .
2Th-tn.. 'I"l. 31-26.
----., I::'-
(
". .
34
l t
p
. c
U
n
q
i E
q
I ~
P
! ~
n
pi
I r.
~~
Li;
o
n
! ~
4';.~~
f1
u
n
p:
il.ll
[~
j
q
i ,.i
" .~
1'......:1::.
r~
U
u
f"
tl
J"
: '.:i
Ui
i '
i_.n
111@.
[]
rl
1[1
[I
n
L1
f]
L
[l
L_ (;:..
~~~~} ~
tJ
o
["
d
u
r.~
II
!J
o
U
r~ .
Jc:;~:::
ft
l ~
.Jj
o
EXHIBIT E-1
''PlJorM'd ~~? W~l-e?'6
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX
PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
Building.D
Al:jenda Item No. 88
~ October 28, 2008
Page .32 of 193
September 17, 1981
.,.
Ms. Debora Allen
Wi1sonl Miller, Barton. So11 & Peek. Inc.
1383 Airport Road North
Naples. Florida 33942
Re: Section 32, West ~ of Section 33,. Township 49 South. Range 26 East,.
East Yz of Section 5. Township 50 South,. Range 26 East.
Dear Ms. Allen:
In response to your request of September 10. 1981 we offer the following
information concerning planned roadw~ improvements within the area to be
impacted by your proposed development.
Project
Current Status .
Interstate 75
Immokalee Road to
Alligator Alley
'l,'l',~'
Contract recently awarded for the
section betv/een toll plaza and just.
.,est of Santa Barbara Boulevard.'
extension-remainder awaiting fundtng.
R/W acquisition underway.
Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension
Golden Gate Canal to
Radio Road
CR-95l Four Laning
SR-84 to Golden Gate
Parkway
Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension
Green Boulevard to Pine Ridge
. Road
CR-886 four Laning
Airoort Road to
Santa Barbara Boulevard
.'1',
. .; ~
Design completed, awaiting funding.
Planning Only.
Under design-Construction starts
Spring 1982.
35
3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST
NAPLES, FLORIDA 33942
(8 t 3) 774-8999
Airport Road Four Laning
Golden Gate Parkway to
Pine Ridge
O' () Golden Gate Parkway Four Laning
Goodlette Road to
Airport Road .
The above projects are the main improvements planned over the next 20 years
within the affected area. For more detailed information we refer you to the
Traffic Circulation Element of the Collier Coutny Comprehensive Plan, adopted
by County Ordinance 79-32 on May 8, 1979.
c..,.,
." ",-,.-...
~ ;'. ...."J.
(. .
\ ~ . .
'-->
Ms. Debora Allen
September 17. 1981
Paqe Two
Livingston Road
Parallel to and one mile
East of Airport Road-
Immokalee Road to Golden
Gate Parkway
Pine Ridge Road and Extension
U$-41 to 1-75
Pine Ridge Road Extension
I-75 to CR-951
Golden Gate Boulevard
Airport Road to 1-75
Golden Gate Boulevard
1-75 to CR-951
~
i rem I'b. 88
October 28. 20D8
r1age (3 of 193
f1
n
t t
Planning Only.
II
1 J
n
l ~
Under design - Construction start '.
Summer 1982.
n
u
R/W acquisition underway-Construction
within five years after 1-75.
R/W acquisition underway.
n
n
n
Construction within five years
after 1-75.
Under Construction.
[1
Under Construction.
LB
n
u
If we can be of further assistance; please feel free to contact us.
Very truly yours,
n
u
[]
~/5r~
c. B. Barksdale, P.E.
Public Works Administrator
County Engineer
CBB/RD/hac
fl
u
f]
\.' .i'
Ul
'''1!
11;
J
u
IL.:.
36
lr"
it q
n
::......13
I
I_n
l ~I' r,'. ':'.~<
~-.:~f;."
["1
.J
[1
I
I
I
in
It!
~
, III
I' 1
if
t' rl
l L
I
i
10
o
1(:~;;
L~
o
o
u
a
n
U
n
LJJ
O.
u. . .
C,:.-
n
U
n
U
eXHIBIT e-2 .
n.artment
/\qenda Item No, 88
- October 28. 2008
Page 84 of 193. .
of Tr:e.1.sportati6n
0011 (<A.........
GOllfANOR
Wllll4N N, ROSE
"CRETA""
780 Southwest 24 Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315 2696
September 14, 1981
Ms. Oebora Allen
Wilson, Miller. Barton, SoIl & Peek, inc.
1383 Airport Road, North
Naples, Florida 33942
Dear Ms. Allen:
RE: Section 32, W 1/2 of Section 33, Township 49 S, :Range 26 E, E 1/2 of section
5, Township 50 5, Range 26 E
In answer to your letter of September 10, 1981 this is'to advise that the Depart-
ment has no planned improvements to any of the highways within five miles of your"
proposed development, except Interstate 75.
We received bids on the first project in August, 19B1 for the portion between
Alligator Alley and Santa Barbara Boulevard and have advertised for bids to be
received in September for that portion from Santa Barbara Boulevard to south of'
COunty Road 896 extended. Hopefully we will get funding for two other interstate
projects up to CR 846. We also have plans to four lane CR 951 north of Canal ,B-1
to CR 886, but presently this is unfunded. I am sure your office is aware of' the
planned county improvements on cross roads to the interstate.
The traffic counts you requested are attached.
Sincerely,
~~cZ~
Claude A. White, P.E.
District Transportation Planning
Engineer
CAW:rnd
Att1d
37
eXHIBIT E-3.
item No 38
Oct::;ber 28 2008
F1cJ;{e 85 of 193
[J-'
,
, ,
tl
Department of
Transportation
If"
".[.'
808 GRAHAM
GOVERNOR
,....UL N. ,....PPA5
5ECRE:TAR'I'
If
II
780 Southwest 24 street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2696
0,
f
March 24, 1983
n
~ I
Mr. David Y. Burr
Assistant Planning Director
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
2~21 West First Street
Fort Myers, Florida 33901
n
H
rTi
Dear Mr. Burr:
RE: Berkshire I.ak.es, DRI 111-8283-24
r n.
t ~
We have reviewed the application 'for development approval and the
sufficiency responses for the above referenced DRI and find the following:
...7t
l ..
! j
A.31.F.2 - The figures indicate that Santa Barbara Bou1evard
from Golden Gate Parkway to Radio Road will have a LOS of "D"
by 1990. This would occur soon after this section of road is
built.
f!
,
~
Ll::
c....
:',...;:~
The schedule of proposed road improvements listed on pages
31-4, 31-5 appear to coincide with the times that the LOS on
the other major roads start to fall below level "c".
l .
Lll
The applicant does not propose to bear the cost of any improve-
ments other than the entrance improvements to the development.
The need for four-laning Santa Barbara Boulevard would be
primarily due to the development. The applicant should there-
fore contributeto the construction of the four~lane roadway.
,'11
I ~,
l,:
....
If,
l. ~
1J
c;.
Davis Boulevard (SR-84) from Livingston Boulevard to Santa
Barbara Boulevard will require four laning before the Year 2000
in order to maintain LOS "e". The Department of Transportation
has scheduled the four laning of this road at about this time
depending on the availability of funds. The development would
be one of the primary causes for the need for four-laning this
section of Davis Boulevard at this time. The 21% constibution
to the traffic would be the cause of the drop of the LOS to "D".
The applicant should make some provisions for four-laning this
road if the Department of Transportation does not have runds to
do so.
, ". fl~tt\1JWlE1DJ.
MAR 28 1983
r1j
~ ~
UJ
[1
~
.ll
fl1
IJ. t,
"
31
'-'1
"
, ~
U
f'""7-1
~ ~j
ill
U
_ .... _ __~.."...,.t
S.W. rLUHJUA Kc::.utV,...""'"
PLANNING COUNCil.
~ ~
u
38
p
H
l'.
jf,
11
1 tIc..:
i
I
10
!n
I n
1 U
II
I 0
I [1
I
i
iO
[1
J
If
n
[]
u
u
o
U
[Ie...
U
[l
\ J
\
Agenda Item No. 88 .
October 28. 2008
Page 86 of193
Mr. David Y. Burr
March 24, 1983
paqe Two
Radio Road from Airport Road to Santa Barbara Boulevard will
require four laninq before the Year 2000 due to this develop-
.tne.nt. The applicant should make some oontribution to the cost
of four laninq tlds road.
A.l.e Page 73 of Sufficiency Report - It is Department of
'l'ransportation policy not to accept drainage other than natural
drainage. '!'he existing drainage is overland by sh,eet flow.
The applicant proposes to conoentrate the flow at two points.
:If we can be of any further ass;i.stance, pJ.ease cio not hesitate to
oontact this office.
Sincerely yours,
~.'V~
Morris Wiseman, P. E.
Long Range Planning & Systems
Engineer
MW:md
39
!tem r~o 88
October 28. 2008
87 of '193 n
o
l!
F. WATER QUALITY
c..
1. Project Impacts
! ~
. .
Based on the information supplied by the ADA for Berkshire
Lakes and the review of this information by the SWFRPC
staff and the SFWMD, there appear: to be three potential
areas of water quality impact by the proposed project.
The sources of water quality impacts include:
a. Stormwater runoff
b. On-site Wastewater Treatment Plant using
percolation ponds and spray 'irrigation
c. High Chloride groundwater used for irriga-
tion .
n
~...;
n
d
n
l g
("
Stormwater runoff is a wide spread source for.water
quality impacts in Southwest Florida. Numerous studies
have shown that runoff contains a myri;ad of pollutants'
that are flushed from land surfaces. The typical
control of these impacts are "best. management practices"
which detain the runoff to allow pollutants to settle
out or be removed by biological uptake.
The majority of stormwater runoff created by the Berkshire
Lakes drainage system will be discharged into the Golden
Gate Canal System. The eventual receiving water body
downstream is Naples Bay, a bay studied by the SWFRPC
during the Section 208 Areawide Water Quality Management
Program and a bay of Regional Concern. .
n
1i
n
fl
d
n
l R.
i'
.~
Ui
Review of the proposed drainage system by the SFWMD finds
the following:
n
J \j
Uj
"A number of Best Management Practices (BMP1s) have
be incorporated into the system design, including the
use of grassed swales and retention/detention devices.
Where V-notch bleeders were impractical, the use of
vertical slots was incorporated to detain the first
flush. In addition, where velocities might create
a possible erosion problem, spreader swales are
utilized to decrease velocities and encourage sheetflow.nl
n
; ~
L.Il
p
d
:L~
The SFWMD concludes that the drainage system as proposed
should not create adverse off-site impacts.
r"1!
U.
~
Water quality impacts may also occur from the proposed
on-site wastewater treatment facility. Sewage effluent
(whiCh contains numerous pollutants) will be discharged
in percolation ponds and is also proposed as a water
source for landscape irrigation. Both disposal methods
f1l
I'r.
L1J
r:--F:!
Ie
'J
11 ?;
IWO
~
~ SFWMD Impact Assessment Report, pg. 4, Appendix III.
f"
, ~
~
I ~
U
(,...-
,- ~ \.
n !,
Lis
40
u
(
1
, ff]
j
IJ..
lit>
In
[]
10
I
I Ti
I [l
I
!
10
I
) [1"
I ~
1-.
/;....\
~ ':;~~;.i!
n
_!l
o
u
u
u
q
u
n
n. ,
,.-...
~_.
u
u
Agenda item ~~o, 88
October 28, 2008
Page 88 of 193
are acceptable if the treatment facilities are properly
constructed, located, maintained and monitored. The
use of sewage effluent for landscape irrigation is also
considered a desirable option since it re-uses water and
the nutrient pollutants found in effluent.
The third source for water quality impacts is the potential
use of low quality groundwater for irrigation purposes.
The SFWMD Impact Assessment Report states that:
.tThe ADA shows a section o.f poor quality water (hi9h chlo-
ridesl at approximately 60 to 80 feet deep which &~sects
the project site from the northeast to the southwest.
The applicant has stated that'the possibility of this
higher chloride water migrating laterally or vertically
would be insignificant. However, based on the staff's
assumption that all non-potable groundwater withdrawals
will be made from the Tamiami Zone 1 {due to the absence
of data indicating otherwise}, and because of the loca-
tion of the poor quality water on the site, staff is of
the opinion that the water quality in the shallow aquifer
may be impacted by the possible application of higher
saline water. No other pollution sources were addressed
in the AD1\.. "
2.
Remedial Action
Due to the lack of available information with regard to-.'
the non-potable water demandof.~he .Berkshire Lakes DRI, the
SFWMD staff were unable to conf~r.rn that. sufficient water
is available ~o meet irrigation" demands without causing.
adverse impacts on the. water quality of the shallow
aquifer.l Additionally, this water could find its
way into the drainage system as well as the spray irri-.
gation of sewage effluent proposed for later phases of.
the project. ~
Based on the potential sources of water quality impacts
of the Berkshire Lakes project, the following remedial
actions are indicated:
a. Since the project site is located within a Reduced
Threshold Area identified by the SFWMD, all
water uses greater than 10,000 GPD (gallons per
day) must apply for an individual Water Use
Permit from the SFWMD. Due to the poor water
quality in the lower zone of the aquifer pro-
posed for withdrawal it is recommended that
site specific data about aquifer characteris-
tics {both quantity and qualitYl including
Aq~ifer Performance Test results be submitted
with the permit applications.2
1.
2.
S7~lD Impact Assessment Report, p. 5.
Th~ rI ,.., :::;
~.., ,t'. -
41
,L'i.oenda it.~m r\Jo. 88
- O::tober 28.2008
Page .:':9 of 193
r,
W
II
0.'....
(~.~~~:\\
b~ Surface Water Management Permits must be ob-
tained from the South Florida Water Management
District, prior to the commencement of develop-
ment.
II
nu'
! .
c. An on-going maintenance and monitoring program
that regularly inspects, maintains and samp~es
the stormwater drainage system should be imple-
mented. This program should sample surface
water discharges and would monitor all other
sources that eventually input into the drain-
age system ( i. e. spray irrigation of sewage
effluent, irrigation water)~
3. . Applicant Commitment
n
tJi
n
u
n
The applicant has committed to the use of several water
quality "best management practices. for the proposed
drainage system which should mitigate off-site water
quality impacts of stormwater runoff.
..-~
H
d
['~
~
j
rl
I... U
l.li
CT-
u
n.
U
[]
'1
lJ
u
[]
q
i ~
ILl!
(.
n
p
dJ
u
42
Url
;,'
.r,
10
L_l J
llr'...
0':~
.!~.. A.
[]
in
!
ID
In
I
! 0
!
In
j
l
I IJ
,
L_. cr-
I tl"M
I O'
I
j
I []
!
!
I n
j U
10
!
j n
I U
,
i
I
] P
u
i
I
I
IU
i "
: . ~{:
~
u
iu
I
I
Agenda Item No. 88.
October 28. 2008
Page 90 of 193
Appendix II:
LOCAL ISSUES
EDUCATION
1. Project Impact
The applicant has projected that Berkshire Lakes will generate
a total of 840 school age children by the time of project
bui~dout. This projection is based. on a student generation
rate of .2 per unit (8% of the project population). 'The
applicant's students per unit assumption has been found to
be acceptable by the Collier County District School Board.
A breakdown of total projected students is presented below
in Table A-I.
TABLE A-I!
PROJECTION OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN, B.~ APPLICANT
Elementary Middle High Total
(K-5) (6-8) (9-12)
376 214 250 840
The SWFRPC staff finds the applicant's projection of school
aqe children generated by the development to be under esti-
mated. One reason for the low total is that the student
generation rate was set at only half of the county average..
Considering' the applicant's persons per unit rate of 2.53,
a student's per unit rate higher than .2 should exist.
Staff used a more moderate value of .33 .student's per unit"
in calculating the project's fiscal impacts. As shown in.
Table 2, the staff value generates 1,386 total students by
buildout, an .increase of 546 over the applicant's estimate.
A second factor which affects potential student generation
levels involves the project's commercial component9 Commercial
development proposed for the Berkshire Lakes site could generate
anywhere from 285 to 575 additional school age children within
Collier County. Assuming that only half of the jobs created
by the development are to be filled by new residents, then
285 ,additional school age children will result. As can be
seen in Table 2, when these students are grouped with those
generated by the project's residential base, a total of 1,671
additional students will result, a figure nearly. twice the
size of the applicant's estimate.
..
lserkshire Lakes ADA, pg. 26-1.
43
ltsm f~o. 88
October 28. 2008
91 of :93 fl
i I
TABLE A-2
I ~
I j
(;,,-
PROJECTION OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN, SWFRPC STAFF
Elementary Middle High
(K-5) (6 -8) (9-12) .
Residential
Component 624 346 416
Commercial
Component 128 71 86
752 417 502
2. Remedial Action
Total
fl
j K
u
1,386
n
L~
285
n
H
1,671
fl
I I'
iE
The student impacts identified by the SWFRPC staff support the
need for a new elementary school in the vicinity of the Berk-
shire Lakes development sometime in the mid to late 1990's.
Therefore, a 20 acre school site should be reserved by the
applicant for the use of the Collier County District School
Board. Also, the applicant should provide off-street school
bus safety loading zones centrally located within the develop-
ment.
1'1
.l j
fl1
d
u
~x
~ ~
U
. G.~:
3.
Applicant Commitment
The applicant has not committed to providing any school sites
or educationally related facilities within the development.
I "
\..."
a
n
U
l~]
.. ~
.ll
[11
i.~
"
JJ
fm
l~
J)
n
u
('..~:,
\...
n
q
ill
Ul
l1'4
fl1
. ~~
. H
U
R
it::;..)
o
n
I fI
ID
1
I []
I
ID
I [1
1 j
I ". '.,
JC,;';'
I
u
n
u
u
u
[l
n..
UI .
1
u
O'l!
.~
,L,qenda Item ro.Jo. 88
- October 28, 2008
Page 92 of 193
B.
FIRE PROTECTION
1. Project Impact.
a.) Fire protection services for Berkshire Lakes will
be provided by the East Naples Fire Control District
and the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District,
both of which include a portion of the proposed
development within their boundaries. The portion
of the proposed development east of the Santa Bar-
bara Boulevard south extension shall be served by
the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District
fire station located on Golden Gate Parkway. This
will be located two miles away or about 3' 'minutes
travel time once the Santa Barbara bridge and road
extension is completed. The proposed development
west of Santa Barbara Boulevard shall be ser~ed. by
the East Naples Fire Control District's fire station.
located on Airport Road, which is aboutl3~ miles
distant or about 6 minutes travel time.
The fire chiefs in both fire districts indicated in
letters to the applicant that there will soon be a
need for additional fire protection facilities in
this area of Collier County. Chief James Billman .'
stated, "We feel that a firestation must be built'
to serve not, only your project but other proposed
projects in the same area".2 Chief David Reeves
in reference to other planned developments in the
Sallle area as Berkshire Lakes stated, "collectively,.:.:
these developments create the need for a manned fire'
station in that a~ea~ Therefore it is suggested
that all three developers enter into agreement to
purchase land and build a fire station with each
sharing the cost."3
b.) Staff Estimates
In a letter to the Council staff, Chief Reeves
indicated that capital'improvement costs to con-
struct a new fire station to serve Berkshire Lakes
and other proposed nearby developments in his &is-
trict would approximate $500,000. lilt is recom-
mended that the construction of the fire station
be completed, fire apparatus purchased, and the
station manned by the end of the third year of
development (assuming the development goes forward
as planned. )" 4
1. ADA, Appendix I, letters from respective fire chiefs to
applicant.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. See attached letter from Chief David L. Reeves dated
March 30, 1983. (Exhibit B-1)
45
t...::;enda item 1,10. cB
- October 28 2008
Page 93 of 1 ~:3
('~
: :..-;.:
. ."..'
'.....f'
In a letter to the Council staff from Chief
Billman, he stated "It is not considered prudent
to build a station on the boundary of (either)
district's responsibility as would be the case
if either department located a station physically
inside the boundaries of the Berkshire Lakes. The
East Naples Fire Department needs' a station west
of the development and Golden Gate Fire Department
needs a location east of the development."l Chief
Billman also indicates a cost of construction, ex-
cluding land purchase, of $500,000 for a new
~stati6n. Both fire chiefs presume that ad valorem
taxes will pay for manpower, as needed.
It appears from this discussion, that that there
will be a need early in the development of Berk-
shire Lakes (perhaps as early as the end of the
third yearl for at least one new fire station to
serve this and other projects. From the Appli-
cant1s response to ADA Question 20J, the Berk-
shire Lakes project will not in the early years
provide sufficient revenue, by itself, to the
fire districts for this construction. Since other
planned developments in this area contribute with
Berkshire Lakes to the need for these fire stations,
these other. developments should also contribute
to any construction costs, lincludingthe provi-
sion of a more appropriate site fo+ a station).
2. Remedial Action
To address this need in the early years of the project
to construct fire facilities, representatives of each fire
district and each proposed development in the area should
meet to develop a fire protection plan. This plan should
include all proposed developments in this area and would
allocate projected capital improvement costs per unit
for needed fire facilities based upon the share of units
planned for each development over the time period.
(.:."~,.
.....
....;",.:-.~
3. Applicant Commitment
The applicant stated in the Sufficiency Report that it,
"Intends to mitigate it's impact on the applicable fire
districts, if any, through revenues from Ad Valorem ta>m-
tion and, if needed, through it's intended participation
in, and its contribution of it's proportionate or pro-rata
share, of any areawide, fair and equitable fee or taxing
oroorams when legally adopted and uniformlv applied to
~ll-new unitsj"2 - ~ .-
(;
1.
See attaohed letter from Chief James Billman dated
April 4, 1963. (Exhibit B-2)
'R""rk-""'hir,,, T.::>l,-""",. C<n-r-ri....i""'nr"", 'R"".rv'\....~ .... ?()
---:-0..--.....--- --..---, - -------...-..l "'''-.c--- -, r. --.
2.
46
f"
. t
f"j
[ .
l i
o
n
n
d
1'"1
L~
n
["11
~
j
['1
s
L~
f1
..p.
tll
u
n
LA
u
U.."1
, I
i ,
p
~ ~
!:.:...}J
u
L:.
"n
!.
I, !
lUJ
I
JR
J }
Exhibit B-1
Agenda Item No. 88
October 28. 2008
Page 94 of 193
~
l j DAViD L REEVES
. C ';', Chl.f IPr...
n
o
n
[]
I 0
10
D
I JC
I
I []
ID
I
In
I
i 0
i ,
~ ~.Jj
i
I
IU
(813) 455-1884-
455-2121
GOLDEN GATE FI RE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT
4741 GOLDEN GATE PKY.
NAPLES, FLA. 33999
March 3D, 1983
Mr. William B. Horner, Senior Planner
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
2121 West First Street
Fort Meyers, Florida
33901
Dear Mr. Horner:
This letter is in response to your correspondence of March 25,
1983, pertaining to reassessing fire protection needs for the pro-
posed Berkshire Lake Development.
The assessment that this department presented to
Henderlong on April 26, 1982 is still considered
have been no significant changes in the proposed
ments for that area, other than it coming closer
Mr. Richard
accurate. There
planned develop-
to reality.
It is anticipated that the cost of capital improvements to this
district for adequate fire protection for Berkshire Lakes and th~"
other two proposed developments under consideration will be in the
neighborhood of $500,000. These funds will be used for the purchase
of property, construction of buildings, and procurement of additionai
fire apparatus. It is anticipated that the revenues generated by
those developments would provide the funds necessary for operating
expenses such as manpower, building and equipment maintenance, etc.
It is recommended that the construction of the fire station be com-
pleted, fire apparatus purchased, and the station manned by the end
of the third year of development (assuming the development goes for-
ward as planned).
n ~ec~
U ~(L. Reeves
Golden Gate Fi e
Be
u
[lJ
~
1i
Chief
Control & Rescue District
DLR:mm
47
i '.'
t
Exhibit B-2
,L,oenda :tem No, 38
- O::;tober 28 2008
P?ge 95 of : 93
H
(""
_.;"
,....:.;:*
EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
ST. ANDREWS BLVD, . NAPLES, FLORIDA 33942
! ~
April 4, 1983
I'
H
~ ~
n
l Jl
William B. Horner
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
2121 West First Street
Fort Myaers, Fl. 33901
[]
Re: Berkshire Lakes Development Fire
Protection Needs
P
I ~
d
Dear Mr. Horner,
r,l
U
P
J
Your correspondence of March 25, 1983 has been
received and we have studied and will attempt to
answer your concerns.
C,.,.,
' ' . ..~ ,
.. ~ .
The development will be located in two separate
fire control districts with similar needs. The need
for a fire station in the general area seems well
documented by each department. It is not considered
. prudent to build a staticin on the boundary of your
district's responsibility as would be the case if either
department located a station physically ipside the
boundaries of Berkshire Lakes. The East Naples Fire
Department needs a station west of the development and
Golden Gate Fire Department needs a location east of the
development.
fl1
U
L.
n
-
The next logical approach seems to be a pro-rated
share of needed capital improvement projections to be
paid to each department based on a ratio of units
actually within their respective boundaries. Included
in this formula would have to be an equitable share from
other planned unit developments in the same area to come
on line within the same time framework.
n
u
u
u
It is extremely difficult to assess one development
for its impact on any given area. It seems most logical
to charge a per-unit cost to new developments within a
q
U
",_po .....
....,..
.,
~~~ltUWlE~. :
APR 5 t983
n
H
C;,.'.:.
[]
!i:. \AI ~ "oln/\ Oi:'~I()r-..IAtt
....... I "'Vt,.vn 1...............VI 'f....
'PlANNING GOUNG;IL.
1:.....
48
P,
n
U
! "
iR
I
I-
I ~G
ID
10
I
10
[]
10
I
!n
IU
\, .
, ( -
1 \:")~
J:'~
I
ID
10
I
In
o
U
U
Uc..
Aqenda Item No. 88
~ October 28,2008
Page 96 of 193
- 2 -
a certain service area.
Our capitel improvements co~t for a station in'this
area would he approximately $500,000.00 in constant 1983
dollars excluding acquisition of the necessary land.
This costs includes the building and equipment and is
based on the presumption that ad .valorem taxes will pay
for manpower as needed. Our concern over that assumption
is not at this time satisfactorily placated.
I hope I have provided answers to your concerns.
It may be p.roductive to have representatives from
each affected group meet together to solve all areas
of this problem.
It seems a unique opportunity to solve the situation
with a solution to be applied to future similar
developments.
n:~~
~~~illman, Chief
East Napl~s Fire Department
c.c. Chief David Reeves'
Golden Gate Fire Department
\
~
Lll
o
49
I
;
I
I
1
I
1
,
~
j
I
i
,
)
!
,
,
(:,C.
, - '. ~:
, :<..,J
Q"'
(.
L>.qenda !t9m 1\10. 88
- :Jebb8r 28. 2003
Page 97 :)f 193
fll
H
l !
FISCAL
i ~
1. Project Impact
The Charlotte Harbor Fiscal Impact Model has been used by
the SWFRPC staff to assess the Berkshire Lakes proposed
development. The model is a modified per capita multiplier
approach to fiscal impact .analysis. It focuses on cost-
revenue analysis and it does not consider cost-benefit
relations. The model generates estimates of revenues and
service costs based on. a set of .user~supplied inputs which
describe the project (i~e., number of housing units, em-
ployees, etc.). The model can analyze a wide array of deve-
lopment alternatives including residential, commercial,
industrial, institutional or any combination of these. It
is capable of estimating the fiscal impacts of such develop-
ments for three levels of government: counties, municipalities,
and school districts.' The model also estimates the borrowing
capabilities provided. by the new development and the fiscal
impacts of indirect or induced employment as well as the
direct employment effects.
n
n
l M
['1
U
fl
u
q
t]
A. Direct
Results of the analysis conducted for Berkshire Lakes
show that the 4,200 proposed residential units along
with the project1s commercial component will generate
an overall positive fiscal impact for Collier County
during the assessment period. However, negative impacts
for both the county government and the school board
will be experienced in the early years of project
development due to a one year lag in both property tax
generation and population based revenue sharing from
state and federal sources. A complete breakdown of
the revenues/expenditures balance projected for 'the
project follows in. Tables C-l and C-2.
r.~
,
d
L...
tell.
\,
.~
q
lJJ
As can be seen in the following tables, the project it-
self will generate net fiscal surpluses of nearly
$5,569,000 to the Collier County general purpose
government and approximately $23,372,000 to the Collier
County District School Board over a period of 21 years.
However, the magnitude of the seemingly large posi-
tive fiscal balance will be diminished somewhat due
to the fact that it will not accrue initially and be-
cause no capital improvement costs resulting from the
project are considered in the model. It will not be
until the early 1990's that revenues generated from
f]
o
[I'
~
f
lJ
r.11...
Ii
'"""
jll
~
~
IUJ
50
. it'.};
f.
.!l
fl
I f e'."/..
, ...l~","'t..
......:.:~,.
[]
o
n
U
Agenda Item ~~d. 8B
October 28, 2008
Page 98 of 193
.
TABLE C-1
COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL BALANCE'
(In Thousands)
YEARS , REVENUES EXPENDITURES NET'
1984 34.58 40.29 - 5.71
1985 179.16 .287.06 -107.90
1986 454.24 538.88 - 84.64
1987 1014.05 . 1058.35 - 44.30
1988 1289.13 1310.16 - 21.03
1989 1564.21 1561. 97 2.24
1990 1839.29 1813.78 25.51
1991 2341. OB 2282.88 58.20
1992 2564.15 2484.33 79.82
1993 2784.22 , 2685.78 98.44
1994 3004.28 2887.'22 117.06
1995 3509.07 3356.33 152.74
1996 3729.13 3557.78 171.35
1997 3949.20 3759.23 189.97
.,
1998 4169.26 3960.68 20B.58!
1999 4623.62 4385.18 23 8. 4.4
2000 4843.68' 4586.63 257.05
2001 5063.75 4788.07 275.68.
2002 5283.81 4989.52 294.29
2003 5575.40 5256.44 318.96
2004 8600.40 5256.44 3343.96
66415.71 60847.00 5568.71
n
10
ID
lO
I ,..-,
t.:./:
Id
o
I
10
I
\
10
o
u Source: Charlotte Harbor Fiscal Impact MOdel and staff estimates.
U
Dc.",
u
u
51
c..'
., r
\:.
c..
.tgenda Item i\Jo. 38
October 28 2008
Page 99 of 193
r1
rl
Ii
TABLE C-2
SCHOOL BOARD FISCAL BALANCE
(In Thousands)
YEARS REVENUES EXPENDITURES ~"E T
..
1984 39.00 36.70 2.30
1985 165.70 261. 46 -95.76
1986 500.09 490.81 9.28
1987 1268.33 1095;46 172.87
1988 1602.72 1324.81 277.91
1989 1937.11 1554.16 382.95
1990 2271.50 1783.51 487.99
1991 2972.87 2342.29 630.58
1992 3240.38 2525.77 714.61
1993 3507.89 2709.25 798.64
1994 . 3775.40 2892.73 882.67
1995 4476.78 3451. 51 1025.27
1996 4744.29 3634.99 1109.30
1997 5011. 80 3818.47 1193.33
1998 5279.31 4001. 95 1277.36
1999 5903.68 4498.18 1405.50
2000 6171.19 4681.66 1489.53
2001 6438.70 4865.14 1573.56
2002 6706.21 5048.62 1657.59
2003 7060.66 5291. 73 1768.93
2004 11899.66 5291. 73 6607.93
84973.27 61600.93 23372.34
Source: Charlotte Harbor Fiscal Impact Model and staff estimates.
I ~
f]
LI
n
l j
n
1 ~
rl
;
i .
pi
, I'
i I
['il
~
~
n
u
F'll
~ U
u
[]
f1J
! g
U
u
p
u
[]
i~
....
p
U
L!i
52
U~l
"
;'
I
LB'
,I G.~
l! :~,.;.~:..:r
..:....~,.
n
n
n
o
I n.
IU
10
!
In
I @'""
/'i:~~
'.~v::"r
.,
U
o
u
u
u
~
~
U "":
{...;..
......-, ~.~.....
tJj
o
,Agenda Item f\lo. 88
October 28,2008
Page 100 of ~93
Berkshire Lakes begin' to exceed required local govern-
ment expenditures. Therefore, any project-related
capital improvements left to the county to finance
during the first few years of the development may signifi-
cantly limit the availability of local government operating
funds. Collier County should recognize this fact and
carefully evaluate its position in cornmiting to the
provision of services and facilities which might be re-
quired due to the development.
Another concern. lies in.the area. of development impacts
on the local school ,system. It has been estimated that
the project. Mill generate an average need for approximately
$600,000 worth of capital improvements annually throughout
the development period. According to the .analysis presented
in Table C~3, the capital costs for educational facilities'
and eguipment.generatedby the project will not be off-
set by the projected 'fiscal balance surpluses until the
year 2000. ,A net surplus of more than $10,000,000 will.
remain at the end of the assessment period.
B. 'Indirect
2.
Using the Charlotte Harbor Fiscal Impact Model to assess
the potential indirect impacts of, Berkshire Lakes on
Collier County, findings indicate that over the 21 year
project evaluation. period, the county and school board.'..
would each like~y experience significant negative fiscal
impacts due to a projected service base population of
5,000 generated by the development. However, it should/
be noted that theneg~tive values identified were in
both cases less significant than the corresponding sur~
pluses generated in the direct analysis. The indirect.
analysis was based on,.the assumptions that: .(1) all' .
of the .indirect population generated in response to the
project would reside in Collier County, and (2) this
population base e~~ibited average county characteristics.
Remedial Action
Due primarily to the relatively high housing prices ($150,000'
average) and a resultant large ad valorem tax yield for the
project, direct fiscal impacts will in the long run be posi-
tive for the Collier County general purpose government and
the Collier County District School Board. It is unlikely
that this situation would change unless Collier County became
responsible for financing large scale capital improvements
required due to the project.
53
C,'",,,
. . .,<.\
C".
. .'1
,. ....
'.~..
t.'
item no. 28
O:::tober 28 2008
Page 101 of1 S)3
TABLE C -- 3
SCHOOL BOARD
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ASSESSMENT
(In Thousands)
YEARS
FISCAL BALANCE
CAPITAL COSTS1
NET
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
. 2.30
-95.76
9.28
172.87
277.91
382.95
487.99
630.58
714.61
798.64
882.67
1025.27
1109.30
1193.33
1277.36
1405.50
1489.53
1573.56
1657.59
1768.93
6607.93
- 86.45
-538.65
-638.40
-1542.80
-551. 95
-545.30
-551. 95
-1436.40
-438.90
-438.90
-438.90
-1436.40
-432.25
-438.90
-4 38 . 90
-1207.15
-438.90
-438.90
-438.90
-578.55
o
- 84.15
-634.41
. -629.12
-1369.93
-274.04
-162.35
- 63.96
-805.82
275.71
359.74 .
443.77
-411.13
677.05
754.43
838.46
135.35
1050.63
i134.66
1218.69
1190.38
6607.93
23372.34
13040.65
10331. 69
Source: Charlotte Harbor Fiscal Impact Model and staff estimates
r-'i
, ,
,....,.
, ,
t 3
I .,
t j;
n
1 ~
n
I ~
[-1
]
n
j q
d
f'
1 ~
U
n
lli
n
I ~
L!
L"
f1l
U
n
ij ii
d
q
U
l~
!:
.Jl
n
! ~
UJ
n
~ g
"'-'"
1 Based upon an estimated one-time cost. for. each new student as" follows: P'
$5,110 per ~lementary student, $7,207 per middle school student, and U
$8,488 per high school student (Berkshire Lakes ADA, pp. 20-34}.
54
"--"
Iff,
'lH
"
:J
n,
n
t .
ll(,.'-,:
o
o
I 0
I []
I 0
I D
!
to
I
1..- C
d:<;'
a
u
U
n
~j
u
n
Lil
[1
JJ '.:.
~.
,~
u
u
Agenda Item No. 88
October 28, 2008
Page 102 of 193
Project related indirect fiscal tmpacts which might occur
in Collier County are not readily quantifiable. Further,
it is questionable whether or not these indirect impacts are
avoidable. Therefore, no remedial action on the part of the
applicant should be required. Local governments potentially
affected by the project should, however, evaluate the impli-
cations of any indirect fiscal impacts that might result.
Being aware of the fiscal consequences of growth~ direct or
indirect, has now become acutely important to all local .
governments since the recent equalization of homestead exemp-
tion status for all state home owners.
3.
Applicant Commitment
The applicant failed to indicate within the Economy Section
of the ADA what level of responsibility, if any, he will
assume for capital improvements required due to the develop-
men t.
55
C".,,,"
;.:.:.....
'-:,.;:t
(~......".
\i'.v:
c
!tern r"Jo. 88
October 28 2008
1 C3 of 193
r-1
n
D.
FLOOD PLAINS
.
I
l !
1. Project. 'Impact
The project site is partially located within the 100-year
flOOd-prone area, as identified by the Federal Insurance
Administration. Over one-half of the southern parcel
and approximately one-third of the western parcel are
'located in f1ood~pr0ne areas. Examination of the topo-
graphic map submitted with the application indicates
that the majority of the site's flood-prone areas are
between 9.0 and 11.0 feet. Collier County is currently
enrolled in the Regular Phase of the National Flood
Insurance Program.
o
n
u
n
l B
rl
L
[1
.J)
The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has
reviewed the project's flood plain information, and has
concluded that "with regard to the flood protection capa-
bilities of the proposed system, road elevations have
been set based on a 25-year, 3 day storm event and, in
all cases, are at or above the maximum state produced
by this storm. Building pad elevations will be at a
minimum of 12.4 ft. NGVD, which is consistent with the
District's criteria...and also exceed the Federal
Insurance Administration criteria for this area of
Collier County."
n
u
n
The Collier County Building Code requires a minimum
flood elevation of habitable structures of 18 inches
above the crown of the road or the established minimum
IOO-year flood elevatiqn if it is greater. According
to the Federal Insurance Administration1s Flood Hazard
Boundary I~ps, the minimum habitable elevation is nine
feet. However, the crown of the road ranges from 11.1
to 12.1 feet;~ thus, building the first floor 18 inches
above the crown of the road would be required.
2. Remedial Action
b
u
(1)..
j
U
U
Minimum habitable first floor elevations should be set
at elevations established by the SFWMD, or the Collier
County Building Code if greater, to avoid potential
flooding problems. .
3. Applicant Co~mitment
r~
u
The applicant has stated that all residential construc~
tion will meet or exceed the minimum floor elevation
p:
i ~
u
requiremerlts.
rw
I
UJ
1. ADA, Appendix II.
u
56
f'~
\'
ui
R
liC
o
n
u
!
In
IU
I f]
I ~
,n
I
In
i
I 0-
I .
I
I . .c>
U
o
n
a
u
u
U
Dc
u
o
Agenda Item 1\10. -88
October 28, 2008
Page 104 of '193
E.
HEALTH CARE
1. Project Impact
A. Acute Care' '(Hospital) Facilities
Hospital needs for the proposed project wil be met
primarily by Naples Community Hospital, Collier
County's only hospital. This hospital, located
approximately six miles from the proposed develop-
ment, has 339 licensed beds.l
Review of the South Central Florida Health Systems
Council, CSCFHSCl Inc.' s '198'2 He'a"lth Syst'ems Plan
by' the Council staff indicates that there wLll be
a need for 22 additional acute care beds in
Collier County by 1986 (assuming that approved
certificate. of needhedswill'be constructed by
then} 2. Development of the Berkshire Lakes project,
will further compound this need. By buildout (2002),
the project will create the need for an additional
33 acute care beds.3 .
B. Long-Term (Nursin~ Home) Facilities
The applicant has indicated that the proposed prQ-'
ject will require 23 nursing home beds by buildout.4
An examination of the 1982 Health Systems Plan
revealed that, in 1982, there was an excess of 83
nursing home beds in Collier County.5 The additional
bed need generated by the proposed development pro-"
ject would reduce this surplus.
c.
Ambulance Service
The applicant stated that Berkshire Lakes will be .
served by Collier County Emergency Medical services.~
1. South Central Florida Health Systems Council 1982 Health
'Systems Plan, Volume II, p. K-2.
2. Ibid, p. K-14.
3. Using the SCFHSC standard of 4.7 beds per 1,000 population.
and applying this ratio to the buildout population of 7,119
for Berkshire Lakes.
4. ADA, p. 28-3.
5. SCFHSC Health Systems Plan, Vol. II, p. T-12.
6. ADA, pg. 28-4.
57
t
f
r
I
I
J
I,
1
i
I
I
,
I
!
i
I
6,"',."
\:.:..~,:~
(J~~:t
/ .
\.,~ :.
.t,cencla item 1'..)0. 88
~ October 28 2008
Page:CJ5 of 193
{'""^",.
, <
h
, ;
The EMS units respond from 5 locations throughout
Collier County. The nearest station is the Golden
Gate Fire Station, located approximately 2~ miles
from the project site. Response time was estimated
at 4 minutes (see attached correspondence, Exhibit E-l) .
Ii
n
11
LJ:
2 . Remedial Action
n
! E
t t
The acute hed needs generated by the development will
.further impact the present bed deficiency. Issuance
of certificates of need for additional beds or new
facilities in the future will mitigate these needs.
n
. I'
I k
3. Applicant Commitment
q
H
The applicant has stated that private physician offices,
dentists and minor health care facilities may be located
~thin the commercial areas of the proposed project. Nur-
sing homes or convalescent facilities may also be located
at' the site. These facilities would serve only the
limited health care needs of project residents.l
q
i ~
.. .
[1
J:
r."
. ~:
~ '
lM
r: rl
Lli
n
U
r'T-
~ F
U
r'jj
d
d
n
ij ~
LIl
n
u
If"
at
~J
1. ADA, pg. 28-1.
iq
~ ~~
U
u
58
iTn1l
~ ~
q
Il..~
o
I n
1 f1
I ['
j
[]
n
o
(..:. .'
'''-...'. .
d
o
o
1'1
d
[~
J
o
n
"'-"
n.l,
.U(.....
d
n
U
..
Agenda Item No. 88
October 28. 2008
Page 106 of 193
Exhibit E-l
COLLIER COUNTY
~t,artmnt nf 1EmtrStutt! ~tlrial julrittJ
1842 Airport Road. Naples. Florida 33942
(813) nS.8900
April 30. 1982
Mr. Richard P. Henderlong
Wilson, Miller, Barton, 5011, & Peek, Inc.
1383 Airport Road, North
Naples. Florida 33942
Subject: Berkshire lakes
Richard:
Please find enclosed the Collier EMs summary of your ambulance coverage
to the Berkshire lakes development project as presented to us by your
finn.
1) Collier EMS Is the service prOVider for your project area.. 2&3) The
EMS units respond from five (5) Strategic locations throughOut Collier
County. The closest responding' unit would be at the Golden Gate Fire
Station located apprOXimately 2% miles from the project site. This
figures out to an average of 4 minutes from time call is received at
911 dispatch until service delivered. The service provided is the same
throughout the county. that being fully state certified and paramedic
units.
If I can assist you further. please notify me.
R~SP~tf~~11~ submitted.
":\1 'fr~ I! ! .
o&K~ ~e f,eld. Director Collier County EMS
cc; Neil Dorrell
'.
59
L.,c;enda item No 88
':J:tober 28 2008
?3Je 107 of 193
F.
HOUSING
('"-,
1. Project Impact
The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council adopted
on~January 9, 1975 and amended on July 27, 1977, a com-
prehensive set of Housing Goals, Objectives, and Poli-
cies, to guide regional decision makers. While the pro-
posed Berkshire Lakes development is generally not in
conflict with most regional housing policies, the pro-
posal is at least partially inconsistent with Regional
Policy 2 (a) of Housing Objective 2 (Chapter 29I-2.04
Florida Administrative Code) :
C,.!
policy 2 (a): Encourage large scale developments
(DRIs) to provide a variety of housing
types and prices to partially meet the
varying needs of all citizens in the
Region.
Berkshire Lakes will consist of 42001 dwelling units; 335
single family units and 3865 mUlti-family units. In-
cluded in the residential area is an IS-hole golf course
covering 150 acres. There will also be a 375,000 square
foot corr~ercial component providing space for general
retail, neighborhood commercial, financial, and profes-
sional service organizations. Most of the 499 peak-year
on-site construction employees and 1150 employees of the
commercial centers will not be able to afford to live in
the dwellings planned for this development due to the
anticipated prices, which start at $90,000. Construction
of these units without provision of family housing for
employees who will, in many cases, provide services for
Berkshire Lakes residents, does nothing to solve the
housing affordability problems of these Naples a~ea
workers and may actually aggravate their situation.
R
I
I J
[l
n
u
n
lJ
n
n
U
n
[]
~ I'
L.
n
d
[]
Recent rapid inflation of housing costs has affected n
nearly all families in the Region. Many middle and upper ~j
income families meet rising housing costs by choosing to
devote a larger percentage of their discretionary income r.~'.
to such costs. Many other middle and lower-income fami- U
lies can only meet rising housing costs by allocating less
spending on other essentials such as food, clothing,
health, education, or transportation. For these families, f1
the present housing industry rule of thumb that an average U
family can afford, prudently, to spend no more than twice
its gross annual income for direct costs of home purchase [1.
still applies. Indirect costs, especially financing, but U
\:
I An error in ADA Table 32.A.l inadvertently increased the total
to 4 24 0 .
60
III
U
u
n
H
U
l
I
i
!R
1-
also closing, insurance, maintenance and utilities will
then bring total housing costs to 2.5 times, or more,
of gross annual family incomes or one-quarter of the .
family's monthly income.
a. Proposed Prices:. Berkshire Lakes Residential Units
The ADA indicates the price range of residential
units (by phase) and also the type and number of
bedrooms in the proposed units. The table below
illustrates how the ADA distributes the total
number of residential units by price range.
J
ll€.~:~1~
...':-h.'l'
~~H4
n
n
n
u
[I
A.genda Item No" 88
October 28, 2008
Page 108 of 193
TABLE
F-I
[]
OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS
ALL PHASES (YEARS 1-20)
DOLLAR
RANGE
n
u
TYPE OF UNITS
Single Family/
Villas (with lot)
[] Lowrise Condos/
~- fo';"::;"o Garden Apts.
../~
.~ .-
. " Midrise Condos
$120,000-
$ 240,000.
$ 90,000-
$150,000
$100,000-
$150,000
o
u
u
u
u
[j
n.
it;',.
TOTAL .(Al1 Prices & Types)
ONE TWO THREE FOUR + % OF.
BEDROOM .BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOMS TOTAL TOTAL
0 33 269 33 335 7.9%.
0 2420 . 440 0 2860* 67.5%
0 890 155 0 1045 24.6%
..
."'
0 .3343 864 33 4240* ~lOO .0%
Source: Summary of ADA Table 32A.l, percentage calculations by Southwest ~~orida
Regional Planning Council.
* Error in ADA Table 32A.l increased unit totals by 40 lowrise condos.
From the table above, it can be seen that the least
expensive unit will cost a minimum of $90,000, the
price of a two bedroom lowrise condominium or garden
apartment. Using the general guidelines discussed
earlier, the purchase of such a unit would require
an annual income of at least $45,000 or equivalent
assets. Any of these units which might become
available as rentals would, to be economically
feasible, require rents well above those typically
now found in the Region. No rental units are speci-
f ically planned for Berkshire Lakes.
~
U
o
61
c:....
c: '.
:,ce;,da Item f\!o 88
" O:tobsr 28. 20G8
F'a;;e 109 of 193
The applicant intends to market the units both within
the local region and nationally. The ADA states that
since the developer plans not to build housing, but
to sell improved/developed land to builders/contractors,
the marketing efforts and a breakdown of units sche-
0.. duled for retired persons or any group cannot be
ascertained. "However, land prices, permitting, con-
truction, and financing costs will determine that
units built are, and will be, in the middle income
or high~r price brackets of the region. "I
b.
"Affordable" Homes: Current Collier County Residents
and Berkshire Lakes Employees.
The Southwest Florida Regional Pl~nning Council has
adjusted u.s. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment estimates for 1981 and 1983, to arrive at a 1982'
median family income for Collier County of $23,900.2
From ADA- Table 20C.l,the Applicant indicates that 94.9
percent of Berkshire Lakes con~truction employees will
earn less than $25,000 with 30 percent earning less
than $IS,OOO per year. Among the service and office
employees expected to be employed within the develop-
ment, the median annual employee salary will be less
than $10,000 according to the Applicant.3
using the industry rule of thumb, fifty percent of
Collier County families could not afford to spend
more .than $47,800 ($23,900 x 2) in direct cost for a
new home purchase unless the family had other assets
in addition to earned income. While future con-
struction and non~construction employees of Berkshire
Lakes may well be members of families with more than
one wage earner, it is quite clear that most of these
families will have incomes at or below the County
median. The Council staff disagrees with the Appli-
cant's sta ternent that up to fifty percent.of these
jobs will be filled by residents of Berkshire Lakes
since the pay scales and types of jobs anticipated
generally do not match the types of families expected
to reside in the development. In short, few current
residents of the county or future employees of the
project will be able to afford to purchase homes with-
in Berkshire Lakes.
1 ADA, p. 32-5
2 HUD estimated median family income to be $22,500 for July, 1981
and $24,600 for January, 1983.
3 ADA, p. 20-6
c
62
['1
n
I,
! ~
fl
n
t B
n
l ~
n
n
u
n
u
[1
i.
j
[-11
, !i
j
!;
~ ~
IJ
[t!
"
li
1
"'l!!
~ rJ
11..i
l"
....11
r~
~H
u
n
u
lJj
n
! 'i
~ f~
, ..,
t.J:1
D
l j
.
l f c......
i . ~,
.~:. :~
o
p
U
lfl
J
u
o
I U
In
L- Ie
! u
!
I n
I u
I
!
j [11
j j
I
!
I []
U
p
. f.
U
Q"
i;,..-.
"
~
u
u
Agenda Item No. 8B
October 28. 2008
Page110of193
c~ Existing Housing Situation: Naples Area
The Naples. Area Board of Real tors cC?mpiles through".
the Multiple Listing Service, the average or mean
sales prices of new and tisedhomes.sold in the area..
In 1982, the average home sold for a price of $124,780.
The high average sales price fo~ Naples suggests that
only upper income households or those with large
assets (such as retirees) were in the housing market
last year.' Now that interest rates are moderating,
middle income families are once again entering the
housing market and it is once again becoming prOfit-
able for builders to construct houses for middle
income residents~ Berkshire'Lakes, however, does not
as proposed, "provide a variety of housing types and
prices to partially meet the varying needs of all
ci tizens in' the Region.. II
2.
Remedial Action
As a result of an analysis of' future employment within
Berkshire Lakes, a number of homes affordable by middle
or lower income families should be built as part of this
large project, either on-site or at a nearby location.
3.
Applicant Commitment
The Applicant states;
The costs of the required improvements, proposed
amenities, current land values, permitting and ""
general development expenses will probably pre- ';
clude Berkshire Lakes from being able to accommo-
date low income housing u~its.
..".
AS' the project sponsor is essentially llmaking the
land ready" for builders and other project devel-
opers, an array of possibilities exist. Most
projects will be expected to be built in the
middle income categories, because of the previous
costs mentioned. An opportunity for putting
together gover~ent or privately assisted housing
remains an option for moderate income housing.1
1 ADA, p. 32-9
63
Agenda Item No. 88
October 28, 2008
Page 111 of 193
C.,
G. POLICE PROTECTION
...."~..: '
1. Project Impact
Police protection to Berkshire Lakes will be provided by.
the :follier County Sheriff's Department by radio-dis-
patched patrol cars. In a.May 27, 1982 letter,l the
Deputy Chief fo~ Administration for the Department, Don
Hunter, indicates that the Department, "Should be able
to provide rapid response to the planned development of
Berkshire Lakes within acceptable time frames." Deputy
Chief Hunter further states that an average response
time of three to five minutes should be possible
depending upon time of day and the thoroughfare loading.
At project build out, a total of approximately 7,112
people, would generate 4,125 complaints per year, ca1-
calculated in static 1981 statistics. The letter .
indicates that this would represent four complaints per
shift and would require three additional vehicles and
seven men. The letter concludes that Berkshire Lakes
would not appear to be a significant factor in terms of
impact on the Sheriff's Department in the near future,
and the additional manpower and equipment needs would
be serving other areas of the County in addition to
Berkshire Lakes.
{',:.
'(>?
2. Remedial Action
N/A
3. Applicant Commitment
The ADA indicates no commitment for' on-site police facili-
ties and Berkshire Lakes shall generate sufficient revenues
through ad valorem tax assessments to adequately meet man- .
. power requirements and equipment needs.
I. ADA, Appendix I
\. .:
64
r"l
u
I i
n
[l
fl
r1
H
n
[j
[]
[]
o
o
[]
q
L~
u
'U
U
[1
jJ
U
n
u
A'
n c:_~..
- ......
o
n
o
o
o
o
o
nO
o
a
o
u
f1
U
U~
I.
'.
u
'c'..
n..~
IJ
~ 0
\
ilem No. 88
OctGber 28. 2008
Page 1 ~ 2 of 193
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
1. Project Impact
The applicant has indicated that Berkshire Lakes will ulti~. '
mately contain a variety of recreational and open space oppor-
tunities on as much as 483 acres of the site (44% of the total
development parcel).l Of this amount, some ISO acres will be
for lakes and 75 acres for major rights-of-way.2 The recrea-
tional value of the project lakes will .be mini~al since their
intended function is for stormwater management. They will,
however, possess open space value. The remaining acreage will
include a .golf course, neighborhood parks and natural areas.
Based upon what is being proposed, the project's recreation
and open space allotments will satisfy the state, regional and
county standards for park and open space acreage, and be suffi-
cient to meet the needs of the resident population.
2. Remedial Action
None
3. Applicant Commitment
The applicant is committed to providing a wide range of recrea-
tional amenities within the project. These facilities will be
available only to the residents and property owners of Berkshire
Lakes and their guests, not the general public. There was no
stated commitment as to who would own and maintain individual
recreation facilities.
IBerkshire Lakes ADA, pg. 27-2.
2Ibid.
65
Agenda Item No. 88
October 28, 2008
Page 113 of 193
C",..-".
-..'
,'.:,.'
" ;r. SO'LID WASTE MANAGEMENT.
1 . Proj ect Impact
The applicant estimates by project'buildO~t (20 years) that
Berkshire Lakes will generate an average of, 21 Tons/Day of
domestic solid waste and 7..5 TPD of commercial solid waste.l
Theestirnates are based. on FDER criteria.2
2. Remedial Action
. .
Solid waste co3lection willbep+ovided by a franchised hauler,
Yahl Brothers.. Disposal w~ll'be at the Collier County Landfill.
Robert Fahey, Collier.County. S.olid Waste Director, indicates no
problems are anticipated' serving .the Berkshire Lakes project,
however, he estimates the existing landfill. has .a minimum life.
of ten:years.4 Since the project life o~ Berksh!re Lakes is
twenty years, the Co~ty .sh<;mld be' aware Of/and incorporate
. Berkshire Lakes into their solid waste planning program.
3. Applicant IS commi tment
N/A
- (..,.
; 'r'
. ....--;\....
. ..
I. ADA, p. 24-2
2. FDER. 1976. Solid Waste .Management and Resource Recovery
Technical Assistance Handbook
,I
M
n
o
n
d
n
[]
n
n
n
[]
u
U
[!
j
[]
f.i
b
3. July 5, 1982 Yahl Brothers correspondence. ADA Appendix I []
4. June 25, 1982 Fahey correspondence. ADA Appendix I.
( ".
\:;, ..~ -',"
66
n
L~
pi
lJ
P-
I ~
d
I
I n
In
I
I. nc""
I . ".
j ......
j 0
I []
~
!
! n
!
,[]
[]
[]
U
OC
o
[l
u
n
u
u
U
\.:
r ~.,:
-~
u
,L\genda Item i'~o. 88
Q:tober 28. 2008
?age 114 of 193
J.
VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE/WETLANDS
I. Project Impacts
The existing Berkshire Lakes project site is abundantly vege-
tated. The principle vegetation type found on the site
is pine flatwoods covering 997 acres or 91% of the total
project acreage. The pine flatwoods can be divided into
three associations which generally differ in elevation
and understory characteristics.
The pine flatwoods located on the lower site elevations
(over 416 acres) have understory vegetation types that
are adapted to wet conditions (i.e. cypress). Additionally
the site contains remnant cypress ponds which have been
all but destroyed by fires. Indications are that the
previous vegetation types on this site' were historically
more wetland.in nature and have been severely impacted by
previous extensiye drainage' projects.
According to the ADA only 28 acres of "functional" wet-
lands remain on the site, located in the southern portion
of the project south of Radio Road.l These wetlands occur
as Cypress-Willow ponds and include two ponds {identified
as pond 7 and 8 in the ADA} which are classified as ST
(Special Treatment} areas by Collier County. The appli-
cant has committed to the preservation of all 28 acres of
functional wetlands and to incorporate these areas into
the overall water management system.2
In spite of the extensive amount of drainage activities
of the past and apparent numerous fires, abundant vege-
tation still occurs on'site. -While the ADA does not make
specific commitments to conserve existing native vege-
tation, numerous references are made to the use of "green'
belts "and placing home sites to take advantage of patural
vegetation.
In response to the wildlife portion of this question, the
applicant has stated that a pair of Red-Cockaded Wood-
peckers were observed on the site within the pine flatwcod
area. These birds are listed as Endangered Species.3 The
applicant has stated that a search was conducted to check
for active nest sites, however, none were found.4
1. ADA, pg. 16-1.
2. ADA, pg. 16-2.
3. pritchard, P.C., 1978, Rare and Endangered ~iota of Florida
Vol. 2, Birds
4. ADA, pg. 18-17.
67
Agenda Item No, 88
October 28, 2008
Page 115 of 193
(:
,',.,
I ,
n
n
[l
n
The ADA indicates that an active nest tree is located in '
the Southeast corner of Section 33 adjacent to the Berk-
shir~ Lakes site.l If this tree, and other mature pine '
trees are left intact, it is possible that these wood-
peckers could still occupy the area. It should be noted,
however, that Red Cocaded Woodpeckers select mature pine
trees that are infected ,by a fungus disease, which softens
the heartwood, as nesting trees.2
2. Remedial Action
It is generally the practice of developers, as well as n
forest managers, to eliminate fungus infected trees from
forested sites. The continuation of this practice could
slowly remove available nesting sites for fut~re nefst~ d fl,
for the Red Cocaded Woodpecker and other spec1es 0 b1r s.
'It is therefore recommended that'special attention be given
by the applicant to conserving mature pines, and selected fl
fungus infected pines t.o insure future nesting sites. U
-, c.~
3. 'Applicant' Commitment
The applicant has'committed to preserve on-site functional
wetlands and to incorporate them into the water management
system.
c
1 ADA, pg. 18-17.
2 Pritchard, P.C., 1978 Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida,
Vol 2, Birds, pg. 12.
68
n
.:
[]
n
[J
[]
[]
fiJ
d
u
u
[]
['"
~
.1
J]
p
U
n
~
r~,:.- K.
,.;'.-,
..,....
n
~iI
[]
n
n
u
0
a
ft
p
j
a
u
u
D
U
f;
t1
D
~
"
'l' ."
\<,.;.
n
.....
0
.A.aenoa Item r<~o. gB
- October 28, 2008
Page 116 of 193
- WASTEWATER 'MANAGEMENT
1. Project Impact
The applicant has. estimated that by project completion
(20 years), Berkshire, Lakes will generate an average '
wastewater flow of 1.2 !olGD and a peak flow of 3.1 MGD.l
2. Remedial Action
The applicant,proposes to'construct an interim, on-site ~
package sewage treatment plant in Basin D to, serve:'.the
project's wastewater'needs. In the initial phases 'of the
development an, extendeg aeration process .will be used to
ensure eff1uentmeets secondary standards.. A contact'.
stabilization process will replace the EA process, when
feasible. 2 ' , - ' - '
Eff~u~nt disposai ~uring the initial phases will b~ with
'percolation/evaporation ponds. Spray. irrigation will be
used, when feasible. The'current plan, is to irrigate the
golf ,course only with treated effluent.3 Staff encourages
wastewater reuse.
3. Applicant's' commitment
1. The applicant will commit to wastewater reuse, when
economically feasible l> '(Approximately year 8.) 4" ,>
~
-:
2. The on-site sanitary sewage colle9tion and transmission
facilities shall be dedicated to the county water-sewer
district in accordance with applicable county ordinances
in effect at the time of construction. These facililies '
may, at the county's option, be leased back to the owner
of theon-site sewage treatment facility for operation and
maintenance responsibilities until the development is
connected to the county's central sewer system, and
the on-site treatment facility is abandoned.5
1
2ADA, p. 21-2.
3ADA, p. 21-3.
4Ibid.
SMarch 4, 1983, Sufficiency Report, pg. 23-5.
March 4, 1983, Sufficiency Report.
69
f':::?-,
~-""''l;
"L.
('....
, .;0.
~'4 P ~
l
Aaenda Item (~o,8El
v October 28, 2008
Page 117 of 193
WA'1'ER SUPPLY
1. Projec,t Impact
A. Potable Water
The applicant has estimated that at project completion
(year 20), Berkshire Lakes will require an average of
1.4.77 MGD of potable wa'ter.l The applicant has indi-
cated that potable water will be supplied by the Collier
County Water-Sewer District.2
B. Non-Potable Water
The applicant has estimated at project completion,
Berkshire Lakes will require approximately 2.8 MGD of
non-potable water.3 Thiswa,ter will be used to irrigate
about 321 landscaped acres and tbe demand will be met by
a combination of on-site groundwater withdrawals and the
re-use of treated wastewater effluent (beginning in year
B) .4
Prior to the availability of,adequ~te wastewater efflu-
ent, the golf ,course irrigation water will be supplied
from three on-site wells located-in the northeastern
portion of the project. Average yield will be 1 MGD
from the Tamiami, Aquifer (Zone 1), and this will be
pumped into the lake. system prior to withdrawal for
irrigation.5 ,
Additionally, residential landscaping will require approxi-
mately 1.658 MGD of non-potable water, which the appli- .
cant indicates will be supplied from wells individually
owned by single family homeowners and condominium assoc-
ia tions .6
The seventh project year will represent the time of
greatest demand on the project's on-site groundwater
resources, since this will be immediately prior to the
availability of adequate wastewater effluent. In year
7, approximately 2.1 MGD of non-potable water will be
wi~~drawn on-site to meet irrigation needs.7 Although
1 March 4, 1983, Sufficiency Report. Table 23A.l.
2 ADA, p. 23-9.
3 Sufficiency Report, Table 23B.2.
4 April 15, 1983, SFWMD IAR; p. 3.
5 April 15, 1983, SFWMD IAR, p. 4.
6 Ibid.
7 SUf'ficiency Report, Table 23B.2.
70
c--.
Ii
Ii
rl
n
[]
p
i D
n
n
o
n
n
n
Ul
nl
, .~
L~
[1
j
n
Lll
u
o
u
P
i ,~
J
[]
A.
n, €;'~;'
j ~\........~
. ...v
D
In
.
!
In
[j
,D,crenda Item No, 88
- October 28. 2008
?a;)e 1'8 of 193
B. Non-Potable Water
the SFWMD 'indicates this withdrawal. should have minimal
off-site impacts, they suggest that the shallow aquifer,
may be adversely impacted by migration of higher chloride
water from an area of poor water quality which bisects
the project site (at 60-80 feet).1
2. Remedial Action
A. Potable Water
u
The Water-Sewer District has provided a letter of com-
mitment subject to several conditions, including an
application for service connection, payment of appro-
priate system development and service connection fees,
and the actual availability of water at the time these
first two conditions are met. While the Water-Sewer
District has indicated that it expects to have the
amount of water available necessary to meet the projected
demands of Berkshire Lakes, it will not commit that
amount of water in advance of other developing projects
without the required application and payment of fees.2 '
The SFWMD notes that the Collier County Water-Sewer
District does not have a consumptive Water Use ~ermit
from the SFWMD, al though they currently are revie.wing a'
water use application from the Water-Sewer District.
Presently, Collier County purchases its water from the
City of Naples for distribution to its service area.
With the water use application 'currently under review,
the County is proposing to develop its own wellfield as
an additional source of supply. ,The application has not
yet been certified as complete, so there is no indication
as to when a permit might be issued. ,No other alterna- .
tives for meeting potable water demands, for this project
were considered in the ADA. consequently, SFWMD cannot
confirm that an adequate potable water supply exists to
supply Berkshire Lakes. 3 They indicate, however, that
once the informational adequacy questions are resolved
and the SFWMD is able to complete its evaluation of the
permit application, the extent of available supply for
the Collier County Water-Sewer District can be verified.4
'.':'
[]
o
a
\:~,~.:,-.
n."~'r
u .~~'
D
['?
t;
J
n
u
U.
~
~
1 April 15, 1983, SFWMD IAR, p.4.
2 ADA, Appendix I. August 30, 1983 Correspondence from Berzon.
~ April 15, 19B3, SFW~ID Impact Assessment Report. p. 3.
Ibid., p. 5.
n.~..
LJ
u'<
C'"
~F
U"
.e
t]
71
Agenda Item No, 88
October28, 2008
Page 119 of 193
r"
H
II
B. Non-Potable
n
n
n
C'..
The SFWMD states that insuffici.ent information was pro-
vided.by the applicant to determine "that sufficient
water is available to meet the projected irrigation
needs of the project without causing adverse impacts,
on the quality of the shallow aquifer.nl They indicate
that specific data on aqUifer characteristics and wells
be provided during the SFWMD permitting process.2
3. Applicant's Commitment
A. Potable Water
The internal water distribution system will be deeded lrl
to the Collier County Water Sewer District in accordance
with applicable county ordinances in effect at the time
of construction and prior to activation and connection [I
within the development for service. 3 J
n
U
B. Non-Potable Water
n
u
N/A
u
.;I. .'~..
( ,: ',;
\;;.,.,"
n
[]
n
[n
j
n
u
( ,
.'",__. "w
12 April 15, 1983, SFWMD IAR, p. 5.
Ibid.
3 Sufficiency Report.
[11
M
~
Jl
[f1
U
u
72
Fl
u
t
iA
on
o
I IN REPLY REFER TO:
o
ID
i [-1_
I !
I J
I [1
I J
!
I []
I
,
I
i
!n
III
i ~'"
I a\
i
I [~
I i
I
i
I
1
u
U
I
I u'
i
APPENDIX III: Report of the
South Florida Water Management District
South Florida
Water Manag'ement District
Post Office Box V 3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach. Aorida 33402-
Telephone (305) 68&8800
Aorlda WATS Una 1-800-432-2045
7-126 DRl'
April 15, 1983
Mr. Wayne Daltry, Executive Director
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
2121 West First Street
Fort Myers, FL 33902
Dear Mr. Da1try:
!\oenda Item i'~o, 8B
- O::;tober 28, 2008
?age 120 of 193
John R. Maloy, Execullve Director
~!E(C~wta
APR 19 '98S
S.W."fLORIOA REGIONAC
PLANNING COUNCIl.:'
""'- ~~ ~
.r.,... 4,
.. -.... - . ..- ~".,. .
Enclosed is the officially approved copy of the Districtls Impact
Assessment Report for the Berkshire Lakes project Development of
Regional Impact. The report was approved by the Governing Board on
April 14, 1983.
We appreciated the opportunity to participate in the review process.
If you should have any questions regarding this assessment, please
feel free to contact Susan Coughanour, District DR! Program Managert
or myself.
Sincerely,
/?~
Richard A. Rogerst P.E.
Director
Resource Control Department
RARI j
cc: Mr. Stanley Hole
o
I
IrJ
! n,
1 UI ,
! ~. .
U
[-l Stan~)' W, Hale
Jl Naple&
73
. '
Robert L. Clark, Jr, Robert W, Padrick
Chairman - Fort Lauderdale Vice Chairman - Fori Pierca
J, Neil Gallagher Nathaniel p, Reed John L HlJt\dley Aubrey L. Burnham Cl'.arles L. Crumpton
51. Cloud Hobe Sound Panollee Okeachobee Miam. ShOres
Jeanne Sellemy
Coral Gables
i
!
j-
I
i
i
I
Agenda Item No, 8B
rott"\ ~ ') ""
G''':;,'
. . .1 '~
..:..7,
','
IMPACT'ASSESSMENT REPORT
PREPARED BY
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
MEETING OF
APPROVED BY Sgmr.ll:Ntr.9:soAQr
.' I~ I tft)
"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NAME:
I. D. NO.:
tOGA TI ON :
SIZE:
LAND USE:
OWELLING UNITS:
SQUARE FOOT AGE:
Berkshire Lakes
83-138
Collier County
1,093 acres
Residential/Commercial/Recreational
4,200
375,000 square feet
n
[]
n
n
I ~
BACKGROUND/LAND USE f1
The Berkshire Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) is a 1,093 acre planned '[',]
residential community located east of the City of Naples in Collier County. It is
situated between the Golden Gate Canal and Oavis Boulevard, approximately two miles
east of Airport Road (see Exhibit l). 1-75 and the extension of Santa Barbara
Boulevard. both under construction now, and Radio Road divide the site into six P
parcels. L~
(".
....7.&
. .' .~
......."'t
The Berkshire Lakes DRI master development plan (see Exhibit 2) provides for 335
single family homes, 3~865 multi-family units, 375,000 square feet of commercial
property, and recreational facilities. including an l8-hole golf course. A 20-year
build out period is antiCipated.
Currently, the site of the Berkshire lakes DRI is undeveloped and zoned for
agricultural use. It is bordered on the west and north by residential development
and on the south and east by similarly undeveloped areas. According to the
Future land Use Plan of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, the proposed land
use is consistent with the residential designations for this site in the plan. The
majority of the site is designated as medium density residential (0-6.22 units!
gross acre) with the balance of the site designated as low to medium density _
residential (0-4 units/gross acre). Overall project density is 3.84 units/acre.
In May, 1982, the District's Governing Board approved a request for concurrent
processing for this project, subject to several conditions (see Exhibit 3),
one of which was concurrent submission of the Application for Development Approval
(ADA) and the Permit Application for Conceptual Approval. The ADA was received
November 4. 1982 while the permit application was not received until January 6, 1983.
Consequently. the two applications have been reviewed under separate timetables~
and it was necessary to complete the DRI Assessment Report first in order to meet
Regional Planning Council deadlines.
1. SURFACE WATER
(;,e:
The proposed water management plan for Berkshire Lakes is shown in Exhibit 4.
It has been designed to take into account the changes that hav~ occurred in the
original drainage patterns for the' site as a re~ult of the excavation of the
Golden Gate Canal along the northern property line, which lowered groundwater
tables, and the construction of Radio Road (C.R. 856) through the middle of the
74
[1
j
[]
n
u
[]
U
rl
LlJ
U
[f.
j
[]
l~ ~
J1
U~.'
Ii
I
I
I A<-
nlQ""
l ..;;..
f '~;;'i
[J
n
q
L]
u
o
o
o
Dc'
n
rl
lj
u
u
u
U
l~'v '
1JC',
U
fn
U
LI,cenda item i'~o, 88
"October ~8. 2008
PCiJe 122 of 193
"
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
BERKSHIRE LAKES
PAGE 2.
site, which interrupted the natural sheet flow to the south. Basins A through
E will discharge to the north. via a system of swales, culverts. and lakes.
into the Golden Gate Canal. Basin F will use the same type of drainage
system, incorporating several cypress and willow heads already existing on-site,
but will discharge to the south into the Davis Boulevard (S.R. 84) swale
system.
There appears to be no off-site runoff impacts associated with this site.
This is due, in part, to the road and canal construction noted previously.
In addition. the land is very flat and does not show any channelized (natural
or man-made) areas. Therefore, flows in any direction are. at best, minimal.
As a result. it was determined that allowable discharge for the entire 1,093
acre site is approximately 110 cfs peak. Based on the staff's flood routing'
computations, using a basin-by-basin approach, the total discharge into the
receiving bodies is approximately 92 cfs. which is compatible with the allowable
discharge for the site during a 25-year, 3-day design storm.
Various control elevations, ranging from 7.0 feet NGVD to 9.0 feet NGVD, are
proposed within the water management system. The Golden Gate Canal (the
northern property line) is normally maintained at elevation 4.1 feet NGVD. It
should be noted that a rock cap"along with some muck-type soils, supports a
perched water table in this area. Consequently, due to the head diffe,rential ,
between the canal and lake elevations in Basins A-l, B. and C and the possibility
of drainage below the rock cap from the lakes to the canal. it may be difficult
to hold the control elevations proposed for these basins. Should this project
be approved, this issue can be evaluated during the District's permit review
process. ,: .
With regard to the flood protection"capabilities of the proposed systemf road
elevations have been set based on a 25-year~ 3 day storm event and, in all
cases, are at or above the maximum stage produced by this storm.' Building pad
elevations will be at a minimum of 12.4 ft. NGVD, which is consistent with the.
District's criteria (a lOa year 3 day. zero discharge event) and also exceed the
Federal Insurance Administration criteria for this area of Collier County
A number of Best Management Practices (BMpls) have been incorporated into the
system design, including the use of grassed swales and retention/detention
devices. Where V-notch bleeders were impractical, the use of vertical slots
was incorporated to detain the first flush. In addition, where velocities
might create a possible erosion problem, spreader swales are utilized to decrease
velocities and encourage sheetflow.
In summary, based on an analysis of the information provided in both the ADA
and the Conceptual Approval application, staff has concluded that an adequate
drainage system can be developed for the site without creating an adverse impact
on regional drainage patterns or stormwater facilities. A Surface Water Management
Permit will be required prior to commencement of development, if this project is
75
I
J
!
I
! ~-
~;~
~.~...!
("'~
. '~'..
'. ~. ,"
,"
( ,.
Agenda item t~o, 88
October 28. 2008 .
Page 123 of 193
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
BERKSHIRE LAKES
PAGE 3.
n
n
"'1
II
approved by lllcal government. , At that time, as 8- result of the detailed []
design evaluation performed for a construction and operation peMmit. some , "
changes to the proposed drainage system may be necessary to address the issues'
noted earlier in the staff's review of the proposed system. In addition, if fl
the Conceptual Approval currently being evaluated is granted prior to the local tJ
government development ~rder. it should be noted that: (1) no applications for
District construction permits would be accepted until the final development f1
order (not under appeal) 1s issued and (2) the Conceptual Approval is not to L
be construed as an approval of the proposed land use.
2. WATER USE
The applicant has indicated that potable water for the Berkshire Lakes DR!
will be supplied by the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Based on'the
information ~uppli~d in the ADA, the projected demand for potable water of
1.477 MGD, at the end of 20 years appears to be a reasonable demand. In
addition, the projected growth rate of an average of 200 residential units
a year seems reasonable for this area of South Florida. The Water-Sewer
District has provided a letter of commitment subject to several conditions,
including an application for service connection. payment of the appropriate
syste~ development and service connection fees, and the actual availability
of water at the time these first two 'conditions are met. While the District
has indicated that it expects to have the amount of water available necessary
to ~et the projected demands of Berkshire Lakes, it will not commit that
amount of water in advance of other developing projects without the required
application and payment of fees.
It should als~ be noted that curre~tly Collier County does not have a
Consumptive 'Water Use Permit from this District although we do have a water
use application under review. Presently Collier County purchases its water
from the City of Naples for distribution to its service area. With the
application presently in-house for review, the County is proposing to develop _
it~ own wellfield as an additional source of supply. The application has not
yet been certified as complete, so there is no indication as to when a permit
might be issued. No other alternatives for meeting potable water demands for
this project were considered in the ADA. Consequently, District Staff cannot
confirm that an adequate potable water supply exists to supply Berkshire lakes.
Non-potable demands for this project are to be met by a combination of on.site
groundwater withdrawals and the use of treated, wastewater from an on-site
wastewater treatment plant. The applicant has projected total non~potable water
demand to be 2.821 MGO based on the irrigation of about 321 landscaped acres.
However. using the modified Blaney-Criddle method. which assumes a 70 percent
irrigation efficiency (sprinkler efficiency)~ staff has' calculated a non-potable
demand of 2.07 MGD. In, analyzing the potential. impacts associated with the
proposed groundwater withdrawals, though, the applicant1s prOjections were used
rather than the District's~ since those were the amount requested.
76
n
n
[]
n
o
D
o
[]
[]
[]
n
lJj
o
u
n
n
n
n.('":"
I ". .~
,0
I
I n
! n
~ ~!
i t j
,
~
in
e
i ["]
~ f;
(, ~
I
I
ID
I 0
I C';;
! 0 ..
n
u
n
If:
!
u
[~
.~
u
u
[] r'
, \.' '.
U
U
Acenda Item ~~o" 88
~ October 28. 2008
Page 124 of 193
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
BERKSHIRE LAKES
PAGE 4.
Of the total non-potable demand. the applicant proposes to supply 1.163 MGD
from treated wastewater upon the full build out of the project. The treated
wastewate~ is to be phased into use on the 110 landscaped acres of the 149
acre golf course during year eight of the project. Until such time as the
full amount of treated wastewater becomes available. the balance of the
required golf course irrigation demands are to be supplied from three on~site'
wells located in the northeastern portion of the site. Average yield is
expected to be 1 MGD. which will be pumped into the lake system prior to .
withdrawal for irrigation purposes. Zone 1 of the Tamiami Aquifer has been
proposed as the source for these groundwater withdrawals~ with the well depths
50 feet' below land surface. According to the ADA, the remaining 1.658 MGD of
the non-potable water demand will be supplied from wells individually owned by
single family homeowners and condominium associations. Since no specific well
data was provided for any of these wells (after two additional information
requests)~ it was assumed that the source for these wells would also be the
Tamiami Zone 1.
Using available printed data, the applicant found a range of transmissivity
values from 230,000 GPDLft. to 550,000 GPO/ft., with leakance values varying
from .3 to .004 GPD/ft.3, within a 2.5 mile radius of the Berkshire Lakes
site. Exhibit 5 depicts a projected cone of depression based on the applicant's
total. non-potable water demand. It assumes a transmissivity value of 350.000
GPO/ft. and a leakance value of .004 GPD/ft.3, with a constant withdrawal
rate of 2.08MGD, the maximum projected groundwater withdrawal rate' during the
life of the project (Which occurs during year seven prior to the phase-in of
treated wastewater for irrigation purposes). .It should be notecf that seven of
the wells are generalized locations and capacities and are assumed to be the
same depth since no specific well data was provided regarding the source of
supply for the non-golf course, non-potable water demands. Based ona staff
evaluation of the projected cone of depression it appears that there will be
minimal off-site impacts on existing users. Verification of site-specific
aquifer characteristics can be handled through the Water Use Permit review
process. At that time. pOSSible impacts to 'on-site environmentally.sensitive
areas would also be evaluated.
" !
The ADA shows a section of poor quality water (high chlorides) at approximately
60 to 80 feet deep which bisects the project site from the northeast to the
southwest. The applicant has ,stated that the possibil ity of thi,s higher
chloride water migrating laterally or vertically would'be insignificant.
However, based on the staff's assumption that all non-potable groundwater
withdrawals will be made from the Tamiami Zone 1 (due to the absence of data
indicating otherwise), and because of the location of the poor quality water
on the site, staff ;s of the opinion that the water quality in the shallow
aquifer may' be impacted by the possible application of higher saline water.
No other pollution sources were addressed in the ADA.
In summary, based on an analysis of the information submitted in the ADA,
District staff have identified the following concerns with regard to both
potable and non-potable water supply:
77
(,:,
"
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
BERKSHIRE LAKES
PAGE 5.
Agenda Item No, 8B
October 28, 2008 H"',
Page 125 of 193
l '
I '
(1) Due to the status of the Collier County Water-Sewer District Water Use
Application currently in-house for review. the District is unable to
~C?nfirn(at this time whether ,~he Water-Sewer:-..Oistrict will ~ave su.fficient
capacity to meet the long term' potable water demands for the Berkshire
lakes DRI. However, once the informational adequacy questions are
resolved and the District is able to complete its evaluation of the
permit application, the extent of,available supply for ~he Collier County
Water-Sewer District can be v~rified.
(2) Based on the available information with regard to the non-potable water
demands of the Berkshire Lakes DRI, District staff are unable to confir~'
that sufficient water is available to meet the projected irrigation ne~ds
of the project without causing adverse impacts on the quality of the shallow
'aquifer. Since the project site is located within a Reduced Threshold Area,
all water uses greater than 10.000 GPO must apply for an individual Water
Use Pe~it from the District. Due to the poor water quality in the ~ower
zone o~ the aquifer proposed for withdrawals, it is recommended that site
specific data about the aquifer characteristics, including Aquifer
Performance Test results, be submitted with the permit applications. ~n
order to adequately assess the impacts of the proposed 1.658 MGD non-potable
i,rrigation demand of the single-and multi-family areas, additional
information on the locations. depths. and capacities of the proposed
we 115 i $, ,requ ired.
I,
1. ,,""
(~::,
"
I.~
3. VEGETATION/WILDLIFE
The most abund~nt plant community on the Berkshire Lakes proposed dFvelopment
site is'pine flatwoods with over 91 percent (966 acres) of the prop,erty covered
with flatwoods vegetation. Three flatwoods associations are prese1t of which
the south Florida slash pine is the dominant plant species in each, These
associations differ in ground elevations and species composition of the under- .
story vegetation. The pinelands that occupy the higher ground elevations (208
acres) have the more typical flatwoods vegetation. The understory species
-include saw palmetto. fetter bush, and sumac. In the middle elevation flatwoods
(372 acres). the dominant plant species that form the understory vegeta'tion are
wire grass and broom sedges. The pine flatwoods located on the lower elevations
(416 acres) have understory vegetation that is composed chiefly of dwarf cypress.
t"l
e
~
n
n
n
n
n
n
fl
o
U
n
n
u
In addition to the pine flatwoods, several other types of terrestrial
vegetation are also present. These upland area~ are dominated by cabbage r!\
palms, oaks. and melaleucas. The site also contains 28 acres of functional lj
wetlands, located in the southern portion of the site. These wetland habitats
include cypress heads. transitional marsh, willows and ponds. The applicant is
propos ing to incorporate these areas into the water management system for" the' n,
project in their present condition. U
('.'
78
u
fll
~ ~
U
p
, n
U
IR
1 j I
I
,
I"i
1 f (';:i.
.~ ...~,~;
o
n
I
!I n
11:
LLI
10
E
I [1
[]
n
IJ
nQ0~
U
U
U
U
U
U
U/,
\:.",
q
\ U
,
A
-~]
i
J\aenda Item I\J'O, 88
~ October 28, 2008
?age 126 of 193
IMPAct ASSESSMENT REPORT
BERKSHI RE LAKES
PAGE 6.
An inventory of wildl ife species that were observed on the project site,
has been provided by the applicant. The wildlife list includes seven '
species of mammals, thirty-six species of birds, five species of reptiles.
two amphibian species, seven species of fishes, and one invertebrate.
No rare or endangered species of plants were found on the property. The
only endangered animal species that was observed on the project site
was a pair of red-cockaded woodpeckers. It is not anticipated that the
development will impact the woodpeckers.
It should be noted that the project site has been stressed by adjacent
canal and road construction. In addition, the area has been impacted by
drainage, diversion of surface water flows, and the frequent occurrence'of
severe fires. , \
In s~mmary, due to the nature of the vegetation on-site and the aJ\liC. antIs
intention to leave the functional wetlands undisturbed, no adverse
envirpnmental impacts of a regional nature are anticipated.
4. WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL\
No existing wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are current~
accessibie to: the project site. Consequently, the applicant has prop sed
an on-site treatment plant to be located within Basin D and desi9ned'
according to Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (OER) criteria.
Initially percolation/evaporation ponds will be used for effluent disp sal;
beginning in year eight of the project~ when the amount available for se
makes it economically feasible. the treated effluent will be used to Spl ay
irrigate the golf course. District staff support the reuse of treated
wastewater for irrigation purposes provided that all DER regulations "are
I
J
!
Berkshire Lakes is a 1,093 acre plan~ed residential community located east of ~aPles
in Collier County. The proposed master development plan provides for 335 single
. family homes, 3,865 multi-family units. 375,000 square feet of commercial prope\.ty,
and recreational facilities, including an 18-nole golf course. While a request ,for
concurrent processing for this project was approved" by the District's Governing \
Board, ~he two applications were not submitted concurrently and, consequentlY, a'i~
being ;eViewed under two separate timet~bles. \
In reviewing the available data. the staff has concluded that the project could
be d~veloped in such a manner that regional adverse'impacts would not be likely
to occur with regard to drainage, stormwater quality, water-related vegetation
and wildiife, water use, and wastewater effluent disposal. However, it should be
noted that this evaluation invo1 ved only a determination of whether the_ project
would be likely to create adverse regional impacts on the water and environment.
;"~
SUMMARY
,
\
\
i
I
I
{
i
79
-...... -~.~~~.~.~---_._---,.~-_._.__.~._,.._.
(':.-.
.."..,~
.....
I
I
I
!
I
!
I
j
1
I
i
1
I
I
,
I
i
1
i
L-- (:" ~
\r:~,
(~,
. .
Agenda Item No_ 88
October 28,2008
Page 127 of 193
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
BERKSHIRE LAKES
PAGE 7.
Therefore, this evaluation should not be construed as a recommendation. on the
part of the District, to approve this particular land use proposal. In the event
that the subject DRI is approved by local government, attention should be drawn
to the following: '
1. Surface Water Management Pe~its must be obtained prior to the commencement
of development. Modifications to the design may be required as a result
of detailed permit evaluation. Any required changes could be routinely
handled through the District's .regulatory program.
2. The status of the Collier County Water-Sewer District Consumptive Water Use
Permit Application is still pending subject to certification of informational
adequacy. Once a completed application has been evaluated, the District will
. be able to confirm the extent of available supply for the Water.Sewer District
and, hence, the Berkshire Lakes DRI.
3. Since Berkshire lakes ;s located within a reduced threshold area, all non-potable
irrigation water uses greater than'lO,OOO GPD will require an individual Water
Use Permit from the District. Due to the poor water quality in the lower zone
of the aquifer proposed for withdrawals, site-specific data about the aquifer1s
characteristics, including Aquifer Performanc~ Test results, along with the
specific location, depth, and capacity of any proposed wells, should be
submitted with any permit applications in order to document that the aquifer
would have sufficient capacity to meet the demands without creating adverse
impacts. .
In addition, definitive data regarding projected demands for irrigation use
would be required as a part of any appljcation.
This review performed by the District as a contractual consultant to the
Regional Planning Council is intended to provide an overview assessment of
potential ,regional impacts, as indicated in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. This
review does not const; tute, a conceptual revi ew of the proposed project wi th
regard to the District's p~rm;tting authority as provided for in Chapter 373,
Florida Statutes;
80
n
n
rl
n
n
n
I i
n
n
n
u
[]
o
[l
[]
n
LJ
r-n
~
Ji
Ii
[j
U
q
U
n
U
/'
r-
R
I nQ'~
In
I
10
In
it!
!
I
1[1
i
I (1
~ j
!
u
[]
("-,,,:,,
n ',,';:':
n
n
['f1
j
n,,~
iJ
u
!
i
I
I
I
fl" i
U(,' i
D~
I:
~
u
H
U
I\genda Item No, 88
October 28,2008
?age 128 of 193
L
I.
.
"
L...... .C.'. .
..
.
.
.
N
1
..
0,
c
.
.
.
.
.
~ ,..
c.". ~.--::;;
.....".r.' .,
........,.....,.,.,........ta...:
........" ~.~....~
"'M fIN- .,.." ~.'H.I
I
(~.~UNTV
._~.-
...
,
t,
I
I
(;l
c::.
t'
~
','
..,~:i~.
.. l' r
,j' J'
'."~ .-
~ ~;.t:~!;. ,
t
,',
I
C~~LIER
I
I
.
.
i ·
,
I,
....
"
o
00(\
~
CO NTV
.
.
~
((\
-I-
'. .
,:.,t ".: ..;.,~
" I' ".>'
.: ~. 4~ ... ~~'N ~
;',;t",;,t . (:.:.
...:, !?~"..~ -':~,,- .
...
\ ,-
, "
, ,
. {l~' .-
.
Cl
o
........._~. .
n
,
'.'
'"
"
'. :
~,erhshire
1 aaes '
~
LOCA liON MAP Exhibit A
,t".1
~
i _i"';O'....iii; I
,-1._
_ t
,;ov..:;;
EXHIBIT 1
"ON~O[
81
~ Agenda Item No. 88
!
.., Octob,er 28, 2008
. Page \~,~ of 193
i r"7
i w
L. ! !
I (" j I 'lmu n
" ~
i 3OLD'" ,..,t uurr. U." .0 UTf u.rr ,
I ' i,
f .,J, -,-
I .~..or. un r.o..tl fl
I
I -..- ~
j __...e,..
I n
1 _'....0Ill'
I
i .....""'1aI
I n
I
I
! ~
1 .
-
I n
1
1 l B
I
I [l
I j
!
"
ff
I ~
I
n
(,I
" .....
, "
,. []
0
'":. . n
n
p
J
N r~
1
j
Berhshire U
hkcs ~...~_'!!J
. Je .:.r :w- ,t<<"""
(. U
MASTER OEVELOPMENT PLAN ....".'... .,
lI'1.t(Wtf ....t. ~ IQ,\.. ,.". ~
("r".'" -_"'.. ~.-.l ,.....,...:.,
Ellhlblt H ,..,.". .,""" .....IH'
,.'~
EXHIBIT 2 U
82 r
j
f
IA
I n(:,::
o
n
r1
!
U
,[1
r:
P-
IU
i 0
I 0
I DC
! UIl
i ~
I
i [i
li.li
I'
U
,; U
g ,,' ~
i
~
!I
i n
1~ U
Ii
V
tl Ur
f!
.,
(!
~
*
i 0
E
~
~ [J!
~ t.,~
Ii
I ~
~.. U1
I: ~
~ "
r:
~
SouG. Florida Q
Water Management District
Post Office Box V 3301 Gun Club Roao
West Palm Beach. Florida 33402
Telephone (305)6B6-6800
FIOf'lda WA.fS tine 1-800-432-2045
Aqenda Item No, 88
, :Jctober 28. 2008
?age 130 of 193 '
.klM A "'aicY t:.ec~I"" t:lt<ec:w
IN :O:EPl Y REFER TO;.
6A-S-DRI
May 18, I 982
Mr. Frederick Barber
Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soli & Peek, Inc.
1383 Airport Road North
Naples. ~L 33942
RE: BERKSHIRE LAKES DRl
C~~ATED REVIEW/CONCURRENT PROCESSING
Dear .!:1c;;&~{.;tr(
As a tollow-up to the Governing 8oJrd's approvJ1 of your request for Con~urront
Pro(,;ess ing, I hove prepared a summary of the adminl strativa procedures that
will be utilized in the review process:
I) It will be necessary to submit the permit applications and the ADA at tho
same time.
2) The review of the permit application and the ADA (for informational
adequacy) would commence at the same time.
3)' The permit application for surface water management conceptual approval
will be evaluated under the District's regul~tory time-frame (30 days
for informational adequacy, 90 days for evaluation and Governing Board
action) .
4) The data submitted for the permit application must meet the criteria
established in the DIstrict's regulatory rules. The permit applications
must be made on standard District forms.
5) Fo~r permit applications and five ADAs must be submitted.
6) Construction permits would not be Issued for the surface water managemont
systeffi unless local government land use upprov~ls are finalized~
EXHIBIT 3 '
Rc_: ~ CI,,", J' Ro"l!'fl W P.d"e~
Cl"lnl''''','"tr''l - For. L...1-udttra31P. VIet" Chairman -- fort r'~rce
- .-
Sr..,.,rh...."W "it.~
, "",pl('\
^"O'cy l. Burnham CI13rlf;S L Crvln1>lO"
O.eeehor.- MIa"" ~es
.klanl'l4e B<i1l;t1ny
C(>IaI Gal>oes
N.Jltlam,,1 p ~ed
HOlle So..nc
JQ!1n l Hun. 'l"l'
Pa/lOkee
J r..-llw~a'l"'"
51 :: lOud
83
V',.,..
:"';l
. ...~:'
1
~
u
I
I
i
l
,
I
3
!
i
I
!
I
i'
I
~ .-
('~'"
..,:.~.:
"-"~
,I
I
1
i
~
~
1
1
~
i
I
i
t
~
~
!i
~
)
il
~
,
j
j
.I
~
j
!
!
~
!
,
~
I;
,
j
~
i.
t-
(.:'::,....
\:.:", ...
.. ' .
.' .
G
6A-5-DRI
Mr. Frederick Barber
May 18, 1982 \
Page 2 '
\
\
Hopefully this wIll help
regarding the procedure,
JH/Pljp
cc: Mr. Rogers
Mr. Haft
Or. GI eason
~i,"
Agenda Item i\)o, 88
October 28, 2008
Page 131 of 193 f1
n
n
". '.~"
n
n
d
t.
streamllne the process. If you have any questions
p , ea se ca f I me.
SIncerely,
~ \....~
Jf.ANNE HALL
\
ORI P~ogram Manager
E~ecut~ve Office
,
. ..,r'
84
i
n
[1
(]
[]
II
[j
[]
fl1
j
o
[]
u
~ ..
o
u
u
o
IR
I
1[1
I ~
': 0
J. 0
~
1:0
I [f'"
~
~O
~
~
~
~
~p
~iJ
~
~ u
I D
t U'
~ :
~ '
10
~
10,
f ,,-,U
in
f U "-
l '.:
t n' .
(
,
Q." (".r6,. -.1.,1 '0
. ..'.
"'''..''.' .".0
-;.I .....
U:GENO
"-'._'
e.a- BOllllCl*'Y
Flow Wa,
. . .. . ;
$......".. lOw.
C_"'S_.
Conneclor P~.
with_ole
to-
10---1
Bcrh5hirc
I hkcs
WIHER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Elihibit G .
85
/\oenda item tJo, 88
~ October 28 2008
?age 132 of 193
~.8In C
Basin 0
J
@
~s_~
-
---
1a4.Y.dJ
'T.'T
ll.T
...
..7
II.S
11.1
8,e
II..
CDMoI
---- --
1M.1Io4)
7.1J
&.0
8.0
1I.1J
11.0
II.G
11.0
8.0
....,
1<-2
,8'
a
o
t::-,
E-I
..1
pooa
N
r
"" ,.. 4Jto .,."
~
..:".r ... -",
, .lJ"~ A.
_.'io......I. "......., .' ....t.. .'
t............. ..,.. ,-, .._
'~l...... ...~. 1" ._ .."...
EXHIBIT '0
--- ..-.-_.~.._.- .----------.-------""'-"-.----------.-..
I
i
I
~
I
I
I
ij
"
I
i
!
i
I
!
I
i
;
:1 ~~_
,
.....-.
, . . \:' (
, '
. -.." .
~--t,
/.:. -.'
(~~~:l - -
~.~
Agenda Item No. 88
October 28, 2008
Page 133 of 1 f~3 ~,:-rl
. ~
_ 1 t
, ~ I ~
'.\ ~~J
'] ~ 1
t' 1
:, " !'
i II ~ .
. '"I l
---;:;':=f-1. ,J
, I n
i. 1 B
.1,.____
.......---
, t1
" i j
I ;'
~ ,
:"" 'f
!
- _, I
...: ;1 'II .l
. '\.
, , .'
(o.5~/,J ~\ ii' t.
, . \, I,
(,:- I, ,;' "'11,-
, I'.. Ij' .
'--, I :
Ii" ..
p i
d:
~ l
,Ii,' '
l\
..- ~-:------, ::.:..-:-::~....,.,.... ..-'.:_-
./ .f''\.
( -'-... '\ I
ff-t>jt:.cfe..d Cane ar
~"...s:c loll
-2.C>8 f1(;j)
3 l.ud/~ @ ..331/ 1'16D
, WI!!! II $ Ii . 15'tJ' /I1GD .,
,. sc:. e7'r~ 7 -..'::~ J'tl; ~ .1
tD I'. "'- '~ '.. ~,' 1..1 ,:.
_ " ': .' , I
, . \ l ___..t"
'" .....~:.:_._ d:....""':.. --.:......_:..~:._.jU;;...a.......
.-' "
,.
/<: \'"1' .. 1. ,
!' ",
1 \: (',
1 . .
.- ..-: ,.
I "
.. .", L., ~ '
I ,
. .. .-..' .
n
\
i'
(.::.;: .
... ...
..,' ,
.....
+
.
. .
.
.,.::.,:....
.'
. .
. .
33 ......~~
....
,,"
f It ~..?
31'.
f r ".~..,
1'1...".
[J
r
~",.fB~;~ L
....,.' ~ I
---t-V
I ]
~
-
.
y.-; .lIco~f.I.... .... .
# .
~C;+
.
, .
_............t1...-....- ~~.......
... ~ I I: :
li:~
.
~:
.-'. ---
- -
,
I
I
I
/'
~
(' -,
\ ,I.:
;-.- \
C'
I
:
6
BM, I'
'-9
]
I
I
i
I
I
I
-"--'T" .,.,--,-----.-'--...;:-'
. :1
, ~ ~
. -- .. ..
, .. -.-..- 13e.,.tshi r~ L.oJ!.t!..~
SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA
STEADY-STATE: L.Er~KY ARTESIAN AGUIFER
u
4
['"
f
, j
'\
!
I
, \ []
-....'-.-..--[ ~
I to !~
; 11
- ...;..
_~.... ~ ' a.
.... . "
q
~ t~
I U
I
,
---'
<I I
If. . G.!:: ="~ ~-_~
;j. .,p ~"..
.-
.."
6
."
l
~#
/~) r,:.~"'I:'9
.../,........ e.P
'..........r" ( ..q'"
'-;-,.
"r' '\ .
.\.~, /
~
\. .....-..
/;/ ,
~'~~'- ..
MODEL
TRANSMISSIVITY =
LEAKANCE (GPb/FT**3) ~
350000.
. ()0400000
.. I P
.' U~
\, '
,.;..:~.~. "'10:.
",.0;>' ...,.
~.' . j
'i fl~
I j
c,)
NODE SPACING = 1000.00
Withdrawals from Tamiami Zone 1
u..j. . i
.....
,,1'
42'':
....
.. ~-
.. ...... ...-.........
',6
! 2';0000 FEET
'28
'r..ed. edited. and published by the Geological Survey
cl by USGS and USC&GS
..
EXHIBIT 5
[]
.~.- -.... 1
86
Ilgen:ia Item No 88
October 28 2008
Page 134 of '93
Z007 REPORT
DRIIPUD MONITORING FORM
PUD NAME: BERKSHIRE LAKES PUDIDRI
SEcnON 5
SECl10N 32
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH
RANGE 26 EAST
RANGE 26 EAST
APPROVAL DATE: 8/16/83 (ORDINAt'lCE 83-46)
REVISION DATES: 8/6/85 (ORDINANCE 85-35)
12117/85 (ORDINANCE 85-75)
5/6/86 (ORDINANCE 86-21)
0/23/87 (ORDINA.'\!CE 87-82 aT.d 87-83)
6/11/9\ (ORDINAt'lCE 91-.15)
4/15/93 (ORDINAt'\lCE 93-7)
9113/94 (RESOLUTIOK 94-677 and 94-678,
Deveiopment Order 94-3)
0\113/98 (ORDINANCE 98-5)
06/09/98 (ORDINANCE 98-54)
APPLTCAl\!T INFORMATION:
J. Na."Ile and Address of the owner/developer, successor or ass:gns of persons, firms. or other entity responsible for Implementing tbis development order.
BerKsilire Village HOA, Inc.
800 Seagate Dnvc
SUlle 202
Naoles. FL 34103
Berkshire Lakes Master AssociatIOn, lnc.
495 Belville Boulevard
Na les, FL 34104
Shores at BerJ~shire Lakes Master Asso::Jauon
I 7845 BerkshIre Pines DrIve
! Naples, F'~ 34104
I' Berkshire co.mmons, Ine,
2666 Airport Road South
I Na les, FL 34112
I Tousa Bomes, Ine,
! 14001 take Mahogany Boulevarct #2311
i Fort Myers, FL 33907
I
! BenChmark BerkshIre Associacron
14053 Mapie Road
I AmlIerst, NY j4226
(NOTE: If no longer the legal entlty responsible for the Development Order, please provide tile IOforma(lOn reJaUve to who IS said entity.)
PART I LAND USES AUTHORIZED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND AMOUNT COMPLETED.
-1-
Attachment "e"
Aqenda Item No, 88
- October 28, 2008
PaC/e 135 of 193
A. Housing.
(i) No,ofS.F.
(ii) No, ofTwo Family
(iii) No. of3 or More
Multiple Family
B, Commercial (Acres/Sq. Ft.)
(I) General Commercial
(Ii) Offices
(Iii) Hotel
(1 v) Other
C, Industrial (Acres/Sq. Ft.)
0, Other Special Land Use
(1) Sports Arena/Stadium
(Ii) Coli ege
(Iii) Hospital
(Iv) Church
(V) Other
E. Recreational/Ooen Space
(I) Golf Course (# Of Holes)
(Ii) Club House
(Iii) Private Club/Yacht Club
(Iv) Marina
(v) Other Accessory Recreation
Number/Am't
Authorized
4,200 DO's Max,
1,256 DO's; 233.6 AC
N/A
2,944 DO's; 276.4 AC
42.5 Acres; 375000 Sq.Ft.
Yes, Pursuant To Section 5 Of PUD Doc,
Yes, Pursuant To Section 5,02bofPUD Doc,
Yes, Pursuant To Section 5,02bofPUD Doc.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes, Pursuant To Section 5 OfPUD Doc.
Yes, Pursuant To Section 5 Of Pud Doc.
Yes, One 18 Hole Course
Yes, Accessory To Golf Course,
Facility InclmIes Clubhouse,
Pool Area & 3 TelIDis Courts
Yes, A Central Recreational
Facility For Residents Of
Berkshire Lakes Includes
Clubhouse, Pool Area And 3
Tennis Courts.
NiA
-2-
Number/Am't
Constructed
4,141 dwelling units total.
1,237 dwelling units.
2,904 dwelling units.
371,212 square feet total.
204,729 square feet of retail.
37,320 square feet of office.
129,163 square feet of self-storage.
o
o
18 hole golf course constructed.
Complete,
Amenities
Yes, There Are Several Ancillary
Recreation Facilities
Within Individual Mf Tracts \Vhich
Typically Include A
Swimming Pool And Sometimes
Tennis Courts, Also Many If
Homes Have Ac:essory Pools,
PART II INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT COMMITMENTS
Complete,
.lloenda Item No 88
. October 28, 2008
Page 136 of "93
1. Infrastrucmre (On-Site)
A, Sidewalks/Bike Paths
(Provide Details)
B, Sanitary Sewers
C. Potable Water
D, Interim treatment plant
Required
Yes, Sidewalks And Bike
Paths Have Been 100%
And Will Be Complied With,
In Accordance
With Section 8.02, Items A2
And B, And
H,l, Of The PUD Document.
Yes, Sanitary Sewers Have Been
And Will Be
Complicd With In Accordance
With Section 8,02,
Items E2 And F,1-3,
Of The POO Document.
Yes, potable water has
been and wiII be 100%
complied with, in accordance with
Section 8,02, Item E-! And f-1. And 2,
yes, the interim treatment
is operating
in accordance with Section 8,02,
Items B-2 And 3,
And F 1.4 And 5, Of The pun Document
-3-
% Complete/Or
No, of Gross Acres Served
100% completed,
100% completed,
100% completed,
NiA
E. Water management system
F. South Florida Water Management
District and Water Management
G. Street light
H. Other
2. Other (On-site)
A. Energy Conservation
B. Water Conservation
C. Property Owners Association
D. Polling Places
E. Recreation Improvements
F, Park Land Dedication
G. Conservation/Preserve Dedication
F, Hurricane/Shelter
yes, the water management
system is and will! 00%
continue to operate in
accordance with section
8,02, items d,I-11. Of the PUD document.
Submit documentation that this project
has received final acceptance from South
Florida Water Management
yes, street lights are in accordance
with section 8.02, item c,g of the PUD
docum ent.
N/A
Energy Conservation Is
Current And Will Remain
In Accordance With Section 8,02,
Item 1-3. Of The PUD Document.
N/A
Various property owners associations
have been formed
N/A
N/A
YES
YES
Per Agreement Dated 12-21-92,
3173 Sq. Ft.-Berkshire Lakes Clubhouse
2131 Sq. Ft.-Berkshire Park Clubhouse
1040 S,}", Berkshire Lakes Storage Building
-4-
100% completed,
Completed.
100% completed,
Implemented (YES/NO)
Yes,
Yes.
Yes,
Yes, as permitted.
Yes,
Agenda Item No 8B
October 28, 2008
Page 137 of 193
G, Other
3, Off-Site Imorovements
A, Traffic Signalization
B. Roadway Widening
C, Other Roadway
D, Other
2000 S.F, 1\1eirose Gardens Clubhouse
2960 S.F. Partridgc Pointe Clubhouse
Requircd
Yes, Trame Signalization Has
Been Provided In Accordancc
With Section 8,02, C.Z,7-A And 10 of
the PUD Document.
Yes, Roadway Widening Has
Been Provided In Accordance
With Section8,OZ, C.3 of the PUD Document.
Yes, Other Roadway Improvements (Turn Lanes)
Have Been Provided In Accordance \\lith Section
8,02, C,9,I2,19 And 22 Of The PUD Document.
Section 8,02 C.6) Requires That The Developer
Pay Its Fair Share For Upgrading Radio Road
And Santa Barbara Blvd,
From Golden Gate Canal To Davis Blvd,
Section 8,02 C, I I Requires That Primary
Access To The Commercial Tract Shall Remain
Via Internal Roadways;
Secondary Access To/From
Radio Rd, And Santa Barbara Blvd, shail be in
accordance with Ord, 82-91 and the county
reserves the right per ordinance to deny
access should such access adversely impact
roadway capacity on Santa Barbara Blvd,
and/or Radio Rd,
Section 8,02 c, 15 states that
a distance of 180 feet from intersection right-of-way to
curb cut will be required for all primary
access on arterial or secondary roadways
with the exception of the northwest corner of
-5-
Agenda Itom No 88
October 28. 2D08
Page 138 of 193
ComoletedlIneomolete
Completed.
Completed,
Completed,
Completed through the payment of impact fees,
Completed,
Completed,
the intersection of Santa Barbara and Radio
Road which may be less than 180 feet subject
to stipulation # 12 through stipulation # 14 in sec. 8,02 c.
pursuant to the restrictions/stipulations set
forth on section 8.02 c, ] 6), 17),21),23), and 24)
Agenda Item No. 8B
October 28 2008
Page 139 of 193
PART III DEDICA TIONSfRESERV A TIONS OF LAND AND OTHER EXACTIONS REQUIRED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT ORDER
A, Right-of-Way
B. Park Land
(Details And Acreage)
C, ConservationlPreserves
(Acreage Of Details)
D. Utility Easement or
Other Easements
E. Other Special Dedication
or Preservation
F. Other Financial Exaction
(provide Details)
Commitment And Timing
Implementation: % complete
The Developer Has Donated Right Of Way
To The County In Accordance With Section
8.02, Items CA,5 And 18 Of The PUD
Document,
N/A
The Developer Has And Will Continue To
Provide The Retention Of25% Native
Habitat Of TIle Existing Native Vegetation
Of All Future Sf Or Mf Development Parcels.
Easements Shall Be Required At The Time Of
Plat In Accordance With Section 8,02, Items
H, 1-5 Of The PUD Document
N/A
N/A
-6-
Completed Or Incomplete
Provide Evidence that tile dedication
has been fulfilled.
OR. BOOK_, PAGE _ or
PLAT BOOK ---> PAGE_
Completed,
Completed.
Completed,
Agenda Item pJo. 88
October 28, 2008
Part IV MANAGEMENT STUDIES, PHASED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OR OTHER SUBSEQUENT TIMED STUDIES REQUIRED B!YaFnfsO af 193
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
Requirements And Timing of
Subsequent Analvsis
Completed or
Incomplete
A, Special Wildlife Management
Plan
N/A
B, Phased Traffic Study
As part ofthis annual monitoring process. the PUD
Owner(s) is responsible for providing annual traffic
counts to the adjacent roadway network. Following
are three (3) submittal options available to you,
To determine the appropriate option for your property,
contact the Transportation Planning Department
at (239) 774-8!92.
The PUD Owner will contact the Transportation
Planning Department regarding the required
annual traffic counts,
1. Traffic Cuunts. Active l'liDs require a submittal
of an annual trailic count report, signed and sealed by
a Professional Engineer and include data for all access
points to the adjacent roadway network. Collection of
data is to be performed over a 72-hour weekday period,
include 15-minute intervals and turning Movements in
the PM peak two hours which are from 4pm to 6pm,
Traffic count reports must also be submitted in an
electronic format.
2. Payment in Lieu. Active PlJDs may provide a
"payment in lieu" rather than suhmit a report,
Payments in th~ amount equal to the cost to conduct
the required traffic counts as defined by a certified engineer's
estimate are acceptable. In lieu payment checks are to
be made out to the Board of County Commissioners,
3. Waiver. Inactive PUDs or PUDs determined as
huilt-out for traffic purposes may seek a waiver from
this requirement. Waivers are approved by the
Transportation Planning Department prior to
submitting a monitoring report and a documented
copy of the approved waiver must be submlted
as part of the monitoring report,
C. Natural Features And/Or
Native Vegetation
I dentificationlPreservation
Plans
PURSUANT TO SEe, 8_02 H) 3.
Exotic vegetation removal An exotics removal and maintenance program
was started by the property owner,
and was transferred to the master home
owner's association for Berkshire Lakes.
PUD exotics-free Property Owners Assoc, Established For Project
D, OthercProvide Details)
NIA
Agenda Item No 88
October 28 2008
Page 141 of 193
Completed.
Completed.
Part V FOR DRI'S - LIST ALL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS AND PROVIDE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO STATUS OF
COMPLIANCE
Commitments At
Conclusion of Law
~
I. Draina2e/Water Oualitv
DRAINAGE
A. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PERMITS
MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE SFWMD PRIOR
B. THE CONTROL ELEVATION CONCERNS IDENTIFlED
IN THE SFWMD IMPACT ASSESSMENT
REPORT MUST BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT
DURING THE DISTRICT SURFACE
WATER MANAGEMENT PERMITTING PROXIES
WATER QUALITY
A, THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM FOR THIS PROJECT
SHALL IMPLEMENT "BEST MANAGEMENT
"PRACTICES OUTLINED IN THE APPLICATION
PACKET FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL.
B, SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PERMITS SHALL
-8-
Completed, SFWMD Penuit Number 11-00364-S.
Completed through thepennitting process,
Completed through the penniuing process.
Completed, SFWMD Pennit Number 11-00364-S.
BE OBTAINED FROM THE SFWMD,
PRlOR TO THE COMMENCElVrENT OF DEVELOPMENT
C. A..N ON-GOING MAINTENANCE A1\"D MONITORING
PROGRAM THAT REGULARL Y
INSPECTS, MAINTAINS Ai'-1D SAMPLES THE STORM WATER
DRAINAGE SYSTEM SHALL
BE IMPLEMENTED
2, Energy
A, PROVISION OF A BlCYCLEIPEDESTRlAN SYSTEM
CONNECTING ALL LAND USES, TO
BE PLACED ALONG ALL ARTERLA.L COLLECTORS
AND LOCAL ROADS 'W1THfN THE
PROJECT. CONSISTENT WITH COLLIER COUNTY 5T ANDARDS,
B, PROVISION OF BICYCLE RACKS AND/OR STORAGE
F ACILlTIES IN OFFICE AND
COMMERCIAL AREA M'ID IN MUL TI-F AMIL Y RESJDENTIAL AREAS,
C, COOPERATION IN TIlE LOCA rING OF BUS STOPS,
SHELTERS AND OTHER
PASSENGER AND SYSTEM ACCOMMODA nONS V,'HEN
A TRANSIT SYSTEM IS
DEVELOPED TO SERVE THE PROJECT AREA,
D, USE OF ENERGY EFFICIENT FEATURES IN WINDOW DESIGN,
E. USE OF OPERABLE \VTh.'DOWS AND CEILING FANS,
F, INSTALLATION OF ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES AND EQUIPMENT,
G, PROHIBITION OF DEED RESTRlCTlONS OR COVENANTS
THAT WOULD PREVENT OR
UNN'ECESSARIL Y HAMPER ENERGY CONSERV A TlON EFrOR IS,
H, REDUCED COVERAGE BY ASPHALT, CONCRETE, ROCK AND
SIMILAR SUBSTANCES IN STREETS, PARKING LOTS, AND
OTHER AREAS TO REDUCE LOCAL AIR
-9-
Aaenda Item No 8B
~ October 28 2008
F'8ge 142 of '93
Ongoing,
Complete, Bicycle/pedestrian system apparently not provided on
County's plans for Santa Barbara Boulevard 4-lane widening project.
Provided as required by the Land Development Code.
The ueveloper has not been contacted by either Collier Area Transit
or Collier County Public Schools to locate a bus stop on the project
Completed as pemlined.
Completed,
Efficiency upgrades have been made throughout !he years,
Implemented
Implemented as permitted,
TEMPERA TURES AND REFLECTED LIGill AND HEAT.
l. INSTALLATION OF ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING FOR
STREETS, PARKING AREAS, RECREATION AREAS AND
OTHER INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PUBLIC AREAS,
1. SELECTION OF NA TIVE PLANTS, TREES AND OTHER
VEGETATION AND LANDSCAPE
DESIGN FEATURES THAT REDUCE REQUIREMEJ\:'TS FOR
WATER, FERTILIZER,
MATh.'TENANCE AND OTHER NEEDS.
K. PLANTING OF NATIVE SHADE TREES TO PROV1DE
REASONABLE SHADE FOR ALL
RECREATION AREAS, STREETS AND PARKING AREAS.
L, PLACEMENTOFTREESTOPRO~DENEEDEDSHADE
IN THE WARMER MONTHS
WHILE NOT OVERL Y REDUCING THE BENEFITS OF
SUNLIGHT IN THE COOLER MONTHS.
M, PLANTL"IG OR RETENTION OF NATIVE SHADE TREES
FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL UNIT,
N. ORIENT A nON OF STRUCTURES, AS POSSIBLE TO REDUCE
SOLAR HEAT GAIN BY WALLS
AND TO UTILIZE NATURAL COOLING EFFECTS OF TIlE Vi1ND,
0, PROVISION FOR STRUCTURAL SHADING WHEREVER
PRACTICAL \VHENTHENATURAL
SHADING CAI..n~OT BE USED EFFECTIVELY.
P. INCLUSION OF PORCH/PATIO AREAS IN RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
3. Floodolains/Hurricanc Protection
A. THE APPLICANT SHALL USE A MINIMUM FLOOR
ELEVATION OF II FT.
-10-
;\genda Item No. 88
October 28, 2008
Page 143 of 193
Implemented.
Implemented as permitted.
Implemented through the requirements of the LDC.
Canopy landscape materials have been integrated throughout
the project.
Implemented through the requirements of the LDC,
Implemented as practicable.
Canopy landscape materials have been integrated throughout
the project
Implemented as practicable.
Impiemented,
M,8.1. AS REQUIRED BY TI-ffi SF\VlvID OR COLLIER
COUNTY BUILDING CODE,SHOUT THESE REQUIREMENTS
BECOME LESSENED THROUGH REGULATORY
CHANGES, RECOMMENDATIONS B, C, AND D BELOW
SHALL BECOME REQUIREIvIENTS,
B, ON-SITE REFUGE SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED
A TARA TIO OF 20 SQUARE FEET PER PERSON,
C. PROVISIONS SHALL BE IvlADE IN DEEDS AND
COVENANTS THAT TEMPORARY
SHELTER FOR PERSONS LIVING IN GROUND LEVEL
UNITS SI-lALL BE MADE IN BUILDINGS OF MORE THAN
ONe STORY; DESIGNED REFUGE SPACE SHALL BE
LOCATED IN THE INTERIOR HALL WA YS OF UPPER
STORY STRUCTURES OR SIMILARLY PROTECTED AREAS
WITH PROTECTED OPENINGS LEADING DIRECTLY TO THE EXTERIOR,
D. ON-SITE SHELTERS SHALL FULFILL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
* SHEL TERS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND C001STRUCTED TO
WITHSTAND 'W1NDS OF 140 MPH, AND CERTIFIED BY A
PROFESSIOML ENGINEER, LICENSED AND REGISTERED BY THE
STATE OF FLORIDA.
· SHELTERS SHALL BE EQUIPPED \\-1m EMERGENCY PO\VER AND
POTABLE WATER SUPPLIES,
· SHELTERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH AS LITTLE GLASS AS
POSSIBLE AND GLASS SHOULD BE PROTECTED BY SHUITERS OR
BOARDS,
* SHELTERS SHALL PRO'v'IDE ADEQUATE VENTILATION, SANITARY
l' ACILlTlES, ETC,
4, HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES,
A, THE APPLICANT SHALL RECEIVE THE APPROVAL OF
THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT OF
LOCAL GO\'ERl""MEl\J FORE PROCEEDING WITH ANY
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SITE OR POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL srTE, AN IN1TIAL
SITE CLEA.Rn~G PLAN FOR
EACH PHASE SHALL ALSO BE REVIEw'ED AND APPROVED
-11-
Aoenda Item ~jo 8B
- October 28.2008
Page 144 of 193
The hurricane refuge provisions were addressed in Section
8,02(g) of Ordinance 98-5: An agreement was entered into on
December 21,1993, by the Board of County Commissioners and
William T Higgs, President of Coast Communities Corporation,
which specifies the action:; which are recognized as full
compliance and mitigation of the Hurricane Evacuation requirements
of Development Order 83-1, as amended, and the Hurricane
EvtU;uation measw-es of the Berkshire Lakes PUD, as amended by
Ordinance 91-45,
See above response,
Addressed through the platting process,
BY THE APPROPRIATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
B, PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION IN THE AREA WHERE TI-IE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE OR POTEl'.'TIAL
SITE IS LOCATED, AN ASSESSlV1ENT OF SITES AND THEIR
SIGNIFICANCE SHALL BE MADE, IN
ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHALL MEET WITH THE
APPROPRIA TE PERSONNEL A T COLLIER
COUNTY TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE MEASURES
TO BE TAKEN TO CONDUCT THE ASSESSMENT.
C. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES SHALL BE PRESERVED IF FOUND
TO BE OF SIGNIFICANT VALUE
5. TRANSPORTATION
A. THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PAY
FOR THE SIGNALIZATION, TURN LANES AND
OTI-IER IIvIPROVEMENTS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE
COUNTY ENGINEER OF FDOT FOR THE
INTERCESSION OF THE PROJECT'S SOUTHERN ACCESS
ROAD WITH DA VIS BOULEVARD,
THESE IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE IvLa..DE AT THE TIME THIS
INTERSECTION IS FOUND TO
EXCEED LOS "C" , SERVICE LEVEL DETERMINA nON SHALL
BE MADE BY EITHER THE
COUNTY ENGINEER OR THE FDOT.
B, AT SUCH TIME AS DA VIS BOULEVARD REACHES SERVICE
LEVEL C, THE DEVELOPER
REPRESENTING BERKSHIRE LAKES \V1LL FUND A
PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF 1.24 MILES
OF THE COST OF CONS1RUCTION BASED ON TOTAL
BUILDOUT OF THE PROJECT.
DEVELOPER WILL SUPPLY BOND ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE,
NO, OF COPIES REQUIRED: 1
PREPARED BY
c.e. PLANNER: :tiQR!vIA BOONE
-12-
Agenda Item No, 88
October 28, 2008
Page 145 of 193
No evidence of archaeological or historical sites were found
on the project.
No evidence of archaeological or historical sites were found
on the proj cet.
No signalization has been warranted by Collier County.
Implemented through the payment of road impact fees,
~\aenda Item No 88
- October 28 2008
NOTE: Completing the responses directed by this form does not absolve the respondent from answ~ring the questions required of annual monitor~dp'\fttof 193
requirements and statutory requirements in cOImection with DRl's,
BerksJllre Lake, PUDIDRl monJto!lng/kcluedated 12101/06
-:3-
Agenda Item No. 88
October 28, 2008
Page 147 of 193
CORPORATE FORMAT
This instrument was prepared
Without opinion of title by
And afteI recOJding return to:
File Number
(Space above this line for recording data)
CORPORA TE AFFIDA "'1T
8T AlE OF J;::'L.,o ;'< I /) IJ )
COUNTY OF UO 0-1 ER. ) ss:
BEFORE ME, the undersigned officer auth01ized to administer oaths, on this day
personally appeared John J. Agnelli, (Vice President) of Berkshire Commons. me.. a Florida
COlpOI'ation (the "Corporation"), who upon being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1 ' The undersigned is over the age of 18 years, understands the obligations of an
oath, and has personal knowledge of the facts stated herein,
2, The undersigned is the Vice President of the Corp01ation,
3,. The Corporation was formed under the laws of the State of Florida, is
cuIrently in good standing thereunder, and has not been dissolved,
FURTHER AFFIANT SA YETH NAUGH
The foregoing instrument was sworn to, subscribed and acknowledged before me
this 30 day of ~ ,2007 by John 1. Agnelli, (Vice President) of
Berkshire Commons, Inc., a Florida corporation, who M is personally known to me or [ ]
has produced as identification.
~i:W:!.~ Carol Ann Antfe~d
~ "~ Commission # 00524601
Expires June 17,2010
a1jndGd TlO'/ Fait -I",,,,,,... 1.0, 80ll-36S-1019
~~li~~~LD
PIlnted Name:
My Commission Expires: [;/1'7 {It)
L,genda :tem r~JO. ElB
October 28, 2008
F'age 148 of 193
FORM RPM-BSP-ANJ\TUAL REPORT-l
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COlvfMlJ'N1TY AFFAIRS
DIVISION OF COMMUNlTY PLANNING
BUREAU OF LOCAL PLANNING
2555 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
850/488-4925
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL Il\:lPACT
A.l\TNUAL REPORT
Subsection 380.06(18), Florida Statutes, (F.S.) places the responsibility on the developer
of an approved development of regional impact (DRI) for submitting an annual report to the
local government, the regional planning agency, the Department of Community Affairs, and to
all affected pennit agencies, on the date specified in the development order. The failure of a
developer to submit the report on the date specified in the development order may result in the
temporary suspension of the development order by the local government until the annual report
is submitted to the review agencies. This requirement applies to all developments of regional
impact which have been approved since August 6, 1980. If you have any questions about this
required report, call the DRI Planner at (904) 488-4925.
Send the original completed annual report to the designated local government official
stated in the development order with one copy to each of the following:
a) The regional planning agency or jurisdiction;
b) All affected permitting agencies;
c) Division of Community Planning
Bureau of Local Planning
2555 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
850/488-4925
..
I
Agenda Item No, 8B
October 28, 2008
Page 149 of 193
ANNUAL STATUS REPORT
Reporting Period:
August 16, 2005
MonthlDay /Year
to
August 15.2006
MonthlDaylY ear
Development:
Berkshire Lakes
Name of DR I
Location:
Naples
City
Collier
County
Developer: Name:
Power Corporation
Company Name
Address:
2666 Airport Road
Street Location
Naples. Florida. 34112
City, State, Zip
1. Describe any changes made in the proposed plan of development, phasing, or in the
representations contained in the Application for Development Approval since the
Development of Regional Impact received approval. Note any actions (substantial deviation
determinations) taken by local government to address these changes.
Note: If a response is to be more than one sentence, attach as Exhibit A a detailed
description of each change and copies of the modified site plan drawings. Exhibit A should
also address the following additional items if applicable:
a) Describe changes in the plan of development or phasing for the reporting year and
for the subsequent years;
b) State any known incremental DRI applications for development approval or requests
for a substantial deviation determination that were filed in the reporting year and to
be filed during the next year;
')
"-
.l\:Jenda Item No. 88
~ October 28, 2008
?age 150 of 193
c) Attach a copy of any notice of the adoption of a development order or the subsequent
modification of an adopted development order that was recorded by the developer
pursuant to Paragraph 380.06(15)(1), F.S.
Please see the attached Exhibit A.
3
Agenda Item No, 88
October 28, 2008
Page 151 of 193
2. Has there been a change in local government jurisdiction for any portion of the development
since the development order was issued? If so, has the annexing local government adopted a
new DRI development order for the project? Provide a copy of the order adopted by the
annexing local government.
No, there has been no change in local government jurisdiction for any portion of the
development since the development order was issued.
3. Provide copies of any revised master plans, incremental site plans, etc., not previously
submitted.
Note: If a response is to be more than one or two sentences, attach as Exhibit B.
Please reference the response to Question 1 and see the enclosed CD.
4. Provide a summary comparison of development activity proposed and actually conducted for
the reporting year as well as a cumulative total of development proposed and actually
conducted to date.
Example: Number of dwelling units constructed, site improvements, lots sold, acres mined,
gross floor area constructed, barrels of storage capacity completed, permits obtained, etc.
Note: If a response is to be more than one sentence, attach as Exhibit c.
Please see the attached Exhibit C.
5. Have any undeveloped tracts of land in the development (other than individual single-family
lots) been sold to a separate entity or developer? If so, identify tract, its size, and the buyer.
Provide maps which show the tracts involved.
Tract
Buyer
Note: If a response is to be more than one sentence, attach as Exhibit D.
Please see the attached Exhihit D.
6. Describe any lands purchased or optioned adjacent to the original DRl site subsequent to
issuance of the development order. IdentifY such land, its size, and intended use on a site
plan and map.
Note: If a response is to be more than one sentence, attach as Exhibit E.
4
4qendaltem No, 88
. October 28,2008
?age 152 of 193
No lands adjacent to the original DRI site have been purchased or optioned subsequent to
issuance of the development order.
7. List any substantial local, state and federal permits which have been obtained, applied for, or
denied during this reporting period. Specify the agency, type of permit, and duty for each.
Note: If a response is to be more than one sentence, attach as Exhibit F.
No s ubstantiallocal, state and federal permits have been obtained, applied for, or denied
during this reporting period other than the local issuance of Site Development Plan
permits.
8. Provide a list specifying each development order conditions and each developer commitment
as contained in the ADA. State how and when each condition or commitment has been
complied with during the annual report reporting period.
Note: Attach as Exhibit G.
No development order conditions or developer commitments have been complied with
during tltis annual reporting period.
9. Provide any information that is specifically required by the development order to be included
in the annual report.
Not applicable.
10. Provide a statement certifying that all persons have sent copies of the annual report in
conformance with Subsections 380.0(l5) and (18), F.S.
Copies of thi!" annual report, including all exhibits and attachments, have been sent in
conformance with Subsections 380.06(15) and (18), F.S.
Person completing the questionnaire: Dwight Nadeau
Title: Planning Manae:er
Representing: RWA, Inc.
5
Agenda item No, 88
October 28, 2008
Page 153 of 193
Exhibit A
Since the adoption of Development Order 83-1, there have been numerous changes adopted through
Resolutions 85-165, 87-275,91-448,92-676,93-7,94-677, and 94-678. A CD containing these
documents and the associated POO ordinances has been included with this report submission.
In 1998, the development intent was modified through the adoption of Ordinance 98-5 that provided
for self-storage as a pennitted use. The intensity of that land use is six percent of the intensity of
typical retaiI/commercialland uses. Only a fraction of the intensity of this land use should be
considered a reduction in the commercial land use allocation as contemplated in the original
Development Order and PUD ordinance.
6
item r'~o, 88
J2tober 23, 2008
154 of 193
Exhibit C
2007 Commercial Land Use Area Breakdown
NfW quadrant of Santa Barbara Blvd. and Radio Road:
SDP-89-242
Publix shopping center
106,375 S.F.*
Retail
BP-95-8741
SouthTrust Bank (Parcel A)
5,051 S.F.
Office
BP-91-2436
Nations Bank (Parcel B)
6,800 S.F.
Office
BP-OO-31956
Mixed-use building (Parcel C)
Beef 0' Bradys
Domino's Pizza
State-Fann Insurance
Vacant
3,948 S.F. * Retail
1,493 S.P. * Retail
2,840 S.F.*
2,555 S,F.*
Office
Retail
BP-91-3454
Sun Bank (Parcel D)
4,700 S.F.
Office
BP-90-9618
Mobil gas station (Parcel E)
972 S.F.
Retail
BP-04-110577
AmSouth Bank
3,820 S,F.
Office
S/W quadrant of Santa Barbara Blvd, and Radio Road:
SDP-96-57 Winn Dixie shopping center 63,240 S.P. * Retail
10,725 S.F,* Office
BP-97-913 Amoco Gas Station w/car wash 2,600 S.F. Retail
BP-96-1 0074 Laser Car Wash 1,387 S.P. Retail
N/W quadrant of Davis Blvd. and Santa Barbara Blvd.:
BP-90-3858
Colonial Bank
3,384 S.F.
Office
SDP-98-90
Guardian Storage
129,163 S.F.
Self-Storage
BP-04-072479
Catalina Center
12,366 S,F
Retail
BP-05-092080
Davis Retail Center
9.793 S.F. Retail
371,212 S.F.
"': Gross Leasable Floor Area obtained from leasing agent,
7
2007 Residential Land Use Breakdown
Single Family Units
Multifamily Units,
2007 Other Land Use Breakdown
Golf Course
8
Agenda Item No, 88
October 28, 2008
Page 155 of 193
1,237 dwelling units
2.904 dwelling units
4,141
] 8 holes
RWA, Iroe. p",...idtSfll$ dtr.'tl! frJrYO'Jr persona; lfSe.1l3 ;".,~ TI'I;I-
Ink>rmlllWn l~ ~rived from mull~G :;Wl'C~5 'o:1hieh may. In pM.. roQ:
~ ~.urenl,. and be oobldo !hCl' con':ol of RWA, Inc. Th. zreal>
d~p:cte<:! loy thill map ~-e .)lpt~h3IIl:. and aro ntr, nl!Q:!~ri'Y
~e<;Ul"ll.11) 10 WMlyiw.;; 01 englnHfirt9 SUlMeros. A.V'I'A, me. <l:'S$l1me.$
~ Ic~! !espon~ib~r.y forb Jr.fom-aticn contained en (hIE m&p.
1 ~
Z'"tI022.25
I
2JM1QD2.~1
, I
"
,.'
"
,
,
I.'
:w
,
j
,
2ISJOJell,oa
285303611205
I
'2"
..
.
,
..
1
"
:<t5JQJ200119
1
3
.
.
o
o
ci"
,
-.
2-a53021()107
I.
"
..,
I,
1,
I,'
"
..
,
"
I.
"
..
:;;>fi
..
~-;
'.\
11;;_'
$
fl~ ......'2200' {!IJ' .,-'
l,; I ~'\..
~ ~ ..~ 284&t1601ez
~ ~~I ......,..,..
~ n4lou(X)tJe
~ ~
~ f,
~~ -"~"
~ ,.........,
@''"OO
l1ooCJ02.42DO
2e4JOUOO n
7.M:ro1600011
''''''''''G;E
21~r.700-D50
2&44UClJOO .A
2B4CCOOO 16(1
.ro4:lQ~100
I
:ruMDI)(Jo:Zil
Berkshire Lakes DRI/PUD
Multi-Famify/Commercial Parcel
exhibit D
- -
. "'" ...
lal ~.200
IF<OoIt
,GOO
N
A
683IDOD21GS
D\lTAINC
COJ'.:'"SULTJNG
.L'-~ f.L ..L
.1'Q,,~'Vi;<;.e,w,u..,,;
'Civi: FJI~:ta:ti~! 'Slln.0iPlg' f;. M~pp,.,:&:
~l"Jlrt~Ja~~lO.XlOr
R~::'.F'ft"_~ O1fiO ~ l.I)bJ. PlJD
~"Pft(iY_CNr._:ol~~ - ~
..
-
-
Agenda Item N
.. October 28,
Page 157
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE HUMBER 8J-46, WHICH
ESTABLISHED BERKSHIRE LAKES PUD, AS AMENDED, BY
AMENDING THE LAND USE SCHEDULE, SUBSECTION 2.07,
LAND USES, SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, BY
INCREASING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS fOH
R-1 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY USES AND DECREASING
THE MAXIMUM NUMBER Of DWELLING L~ITS FOR R-2
RESIDENTIAL MULTI-fAMILY USES; AMENDING PERMITTED
VARIATIONS OF DWELLING UNITS OF SUBSECTION 2.09,
SECTION II, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, BY DELETING ALL
REFERENCES TO FLEXIBILITY FOR INCREASING OR
DECREASING MA;':IMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS;
AMENDING THE ESTIMATED MARKET ABSORPTION SCHEDULE
OF SUBSECTION 2.10, DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE AND
SCHEDULE, SECTION II, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, BY
INCREASING THE PID,SE III, PHASE IV NID TOTAL NUMBER
OF R-l DESIGNATED DWELLING UNITS AND BY DECREASING ~'1_~'2.1\2S..?6
THE PHASE III I PHASE IV AND TOTAL Nt.,1-lBER OF R-2 "IT J. ..?>~
DESIGNATED DWELLING UNITS; AMENDING SECTION III, ~~ T ~~
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-1, SUBSECTIO!~ J. 02, ~ JUN 1991 '6
MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS, BY INCREASING THE MAXI ~)
NUMBER OF UNITS AND DELETING THE REFERENCE TO .. RECE1Vto J
SUBSECTION 2.08; SUBSECTION J. 04.06, SIGNS AND <;1." Clerk -
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING, BY. ,""DDING A REFERENC ':~ oIlloIrd G~I
TO COLLIER COUNTY SIGN ORDINANCE; AMENDING SECTIO ~~ c~/
IV, MULTI-FAJoIILY RESIDENTIAL R-2, SUBSECTION 4.02,'<010l6~I::Y
MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS, BY DECREASING THE MAXlKUM ~
NUMBER OF UNITS AND DELETING THE REFERENCE TO
SUBSECTION 2.08; SUBSECTION 4.04.06, SIGNS AND
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING, BY ADDING A REFERENCE
TO COLr..IER COUNTY SIGN ORDINANCE; AMENDING SECTION
VIII, GENERAL DEVELOPMF.NT COMMITMENTS, SUBSECTION
8.02 I DEVELOP!olENT COMMITMENTS, BY ADDING P>'RAG~H
G - HURRICANE EVACUATION, BY PROVIDING FOR n
COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL BERKSHIRE LAKES ~
DEVELOPMENT ORDER; AND BY ADDING PARAGRAPH H - ;!
ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS; BY ADDING COLLIER COUNT~
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF ~
STIPULATIONS; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATEu. ~
~ cD
WHEREAS, on August 16, 1983, the Board ot county Commis~one~
ORDINANCE NO. 91- ~
if
~
N
Qt
approved Ordinance Number 83-46, which established the BerKshire Lakes
Planned Unit Development; and
WHEREAS, Ronald L. Hurt of Anchor/American Engin~ering,
representing William T. Higgs, President of Coast Communities
Ccrporation, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
Ccunty, Florida, to amend Ordinance Number 8J-46 by amending the Land
Use Schedule, Section 2.09 Permitted variations of Dwelling Units,
Estimated Market Absorption Schedule, Section III Single-Family
,
Residential "R-1" and Section IV Multi-tamily Residential "R-Z";
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida:
SI:CTION ONE:
Subsection 2.07, Land Uses of Section II, Project Develcpment of
WordS-5~r~eK-~h~o~~h are deleted; words underli~ are added.
. Ot4 11',\ 126
-n
-
r
rn
o
-
-
-
l-'~l:;'IIUa j lei II
October 28,
_ ?age 1580
Ordinance 83-46, the Berkshire Lakes Planned Unit Development, is
hereby amended by increasing the maximum number of dwelling units for
R-l Reaidential Single-family Land Use typps and decreasing tho maximum
nueber of dwelling units for R-2 Residential Multi-family Land Use
types as follows:
2T06
hQ1 LAND USES
Tho following table is a schedule of the intended land use types,
with approximate acreages and total dwelling units indicated. The
arrangement of these land use types is shown on Exhibit "H",
Master Development Plan and Exhibit H-l, Parcel 'F' Master Plan
and Exhibit H-2, Parcel 'A' Master Plan. Minor changes and
variations in design and acreages shall be permitted at final
design to accommodate topography, vegetation and other site
conditions. The specific location and size af individual tracts
and thA assignment of dwelling units thereto shall be submitted to
the Administrator for approval or denial.
The final size of the recreation and open space lands will depend
upon the actual requirements for water management, golf course
layout, roadway pattern and dwelling unit size and configuration.
LAND USE SCHEDULZ
LAND USE TYPE
*1
RE~;IDENTIAL
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
MAXIMUM
NO. CF DWELLING UNITS
R-l Residential Single-family
R-2 Residential Hulti-Family
178.0
525
~
~
JJ4.J3
;,6i'5
CO~~ERCIAL/MULTI-USE
C-l Commercial
42.5
.'
...
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
GC Gold Course
82.5
o (Park/Open Space
/green belts)
176.9
Water Management/Lakes
179.8
Major Right-of-Hay
Total
99.87
1093.9 Acres
4,200
Res idel1t 1al
Dwelling Units
*1 Residential dwelling units may also be provided within tLe C-l
Commercial/Multi-use category provided the total number of
dwelling units does not exceed 4200.
SECTION ThO:
subs~ction 2.09, Permitted variations of Dwelling Units of Section
Words-~~~~e~-~~r~tl~h are deleted; words underlin~d are added.
II U44. r~s~ 127
-
-
-
II, Project Development of Ordinance 83-46, the Berkshire Lakes Planned
unit Development, is hereby amended by deleting all references to
flexibility for increasing or decreasing the maximum number of dwelling
unit. a. tollows:
hoe
2~Qi PERMITTED VARIATIONS OF DWELLING UNITS
All properties designated for residential uses may be developed at
the maximum number ot dwelling units as assigned by Section 2.04,
pr~vided-~ha~-~he-eppliean~-mey-*nerea~e-or-deerea~e-ehe-max*mum~
by-no~-mcre-ehan-~e'T-and provided that the total number of
dwelling units shall not exceed 4200. ~he-Admi"ia~raeor-ahail-be
"o~ified-in-QeecrdQnee-wi~h-Bee~ion-2Te4-of-a~eh-an-inerease-and
ehe-re~~l~in~-ied~eeicn-in-~he-eorreapondin~-residen~*al-land-~~e
~ype.-er-cther-eate9ortea-ao-thae-~he-total-n~mber-of-dwell*n~
~n*ea-ehall-not-exeeed-426eT
SECTION THREE:
Subsection 2.10 Development Sequence and Schedule of Section II,
Project Development of Ordinance 83-46, the Berkshire Lakes Planned
Unit Development, is hereby amended by increasing the Phase III, Phase
IV and Total number of R-1 designated dwelling uni.ts and by decreasing
tha Phase III, Phase IV and Tatal number of R-2 designated dwelling
units as follows:
2..1)9
......12 DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE AND SCHEDULF.
The applicant haa not set "stagos" for the development of the
property. since the property is to be developed over an estimated
20 year time period, any projection of project development can be
no more than an estimated based on current marketing knowledge.
The estimate may, of course, change depending upon future economic
factors. The following schedule indicateu, by YAars. the
estimated absorption of units for the estimated 20 year
development period.
ESTIMATED MARKET ABSORPTION SCHEDULE
DEIiIGNATION
UNIT
PHrt.SE
YEARS
II III IV
6-10 11-15 16-20 TOTAL
290 - l.il. - l.il 525 .2.2Q
810 i699 llQ i:665 !ll.Q. 36';15 ~
I
1-5
R-l.
Dwe:lling units
R-2
Dwe,lling Units
C-l
Bldq.Sq.Ft.XlOOO
GC, (Golf Course)
Acres
235
800
100
100
100
75
82.5
ill 044 f~:;[ 128
Words-strtlek-~h~o~9~ are deleted; words ~~inQg are added.
-3-
375
82.5
-
/\genda !tem N
_ October 28,
?age 1600
-
SECTION fOUR:
Subsection 3.02, Maximum Dwelling Units, Section III,
Single-Family Residential "R-l" of Ordinance 83-4G, the Berkshire Lakes
Planned Unit Development, is hera by amended by increasing the maximum
number ot unit. and delating the reference to Subsection 2.00 a3
tol1olo"s:
3.02 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS
~ maximum number of 525 ~ dwelling units may be constructed in
all of the Single-Family Residential parcelsk-exeept-e~-per~itted
by-eee~*on-2~geT
SECTION FIVE:
Sub.ection 3.04.06, Signs and Minimum Oft-St~eet Parking, Section
III, single-Family Residential "R-l" of Ordinance 83-46, the Berkshire
Lakes Planned Unit Developl~ent, is hereby amended by adding a reference
to the Collier County Sign Ordinance as follo~s:
3.04.06
SIGNS AND MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING:
As may be permitted or requi.n:d by the applicable
Collier County Siqn and Zoning Ordinance~ in effect at
the time a permit is requested.
SECTIon SIX:
Subsection 4.02, Maximum DIoielling Units, Section IV, MUlti-family
Residential ~R-2" ot Ordinance 83-46, the Berkshire Lakes Planned Unit
Development, is hereby amended by decreasing the maximum number of
units and deleting the reference to Subsection 2.08, as follolo"s:
4.02 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS
A maximum number ot ~;6~5 ll2Q dlo"~lling units may be constructed
in all of the MUlti-Family Residential parcels~-e~ee~~-a~
~ermi~~ee-by-6ee~ion-r~ee~
SECTION SEVEN:
Subsection 4.04.06, Signs and Minimum Off-Street Parking, Section
IV, Multi-Family Residential "R-2" of Ordinance 83-46, the Berkshire
Lakes Planned Unit Development, is hereby amended by adding a reference
to the Collier County Sign Ordinance as follo~s:
. U44 Fl',: 129
Words-~~~~eK-~h~o~~h are deleted; words un~erlined are added.
-4-
-
..
Agenda Item N
... October 28,
Page 161 0
4.04.06
SICNS AND MINIMUM orr-STREET PARKING:
As may be permitted or required bv the ~pp~icable
Collier County Sian and zoning ordinance~ 1n effect at
the time a permit is requested.
SECTION EIGHT:
Paragraph C - Hurricane Evacuation, Subsection 8.02, Devel~pment
Commitments, Section VIII, General Development Commitments of Ordinance
83-46, the Berkshire Lakes Planned Unit Development, is hereby ~mended
by providing for compliance with the original Berkshire Lakes
Development Order, as follows:
G. HURRICANE EVACUATION
at ~~e-app~'ean~-shaii-~3e-a-m'nim~m-f~oe~-e~eYQ~io~-as
req~ired-hy-~he-So~~^-Pier'da-Wa~er-Managemen~-B~s~~ie~,
~he-eeiiier-eo~n~y-Wa~er-Hanagemen~-Bepar~men~-er-~he
eoiiier-ee~n~Y-B~i~din9-Bepare~ene-b~~-in-no-easl~-iess
~han-iiTi-f~T-NT6rY7BT--6h~~id-~hese-req~iremen~9-he
iessened-~hro~9h-r~9~ia~ory-ehanges,-reeo~.enda~iens-b,
e,-and-d-he%ow-sha%~-beeome-req~iremenesT
b~ en-eiee-refuge-spoee-sha~~-be-provided-~e-a-raeio-of-~e
sq~are-feet-per-person7
e~ Provisiens-sha~i-be-~ade-in-deed~-~~d-e~venan~~-~hae
eem~orary-she~~er-fer-persen~-iiyin9-i~-gro~~d-ie:vei
~~i~~-~neii-be-~eee-in-b~i%ei~~s-of-mere-~nan-one-seoryt
des~~ned-ref~~e-~~aee-sna~i-be-ioea~ed-in-the-i~t:erier
nQi~way~-of-~~per-~tory-ser~ee~res-er-~imiiariy
proeeeeed-ope~in9s-ieading-direeeiy-eo-~he-exter;:erT
d~ en-~i~e-~nei~ers-~nai~-f~ifii~-~he-foii~win9-eond'tienS~
· She~ters-sha~~-be-desi9ned-and-ee"s~r~e~ed-~o
wiehseand-winds-i+9-~i~e-per-ho~r,-and-eereified-by
a-prefessionai-en9ineerT-i'ee~sed-a~d-re~istered-"y
the-Seaee-of-FioridaT
· Bhe~eers-sha~~-be-eq~ipped-wit~:e~ergeney-power-end
pe~ahie-wa~er-s~~p~ie~-fgeneraeers-and-seorage
eankSr7
· 6he~~ers-shaii-be-eon~er~eeed-~ith-as-iittie-9iass
as-pessibie,-and-9~as~-sho~id-oe-preeeeted-~y
sh~~ters-er-beard~r
· 6heiter-shaii-provide-ade~~ate-venti~Q~'enT
sanitery-faeiiieiesT-and-firs~-~id-eq~ipmen~~
et ~-hemeewners~-as5oeia~io~-shali-be-estabiished-~o
provide-ed~eae'o~-te-reside"t~-eeneerning-h~rrieene
evae~atio~T-she~~ersT-eee7
U prior to the plattinq of ~ire Lakes Unit 7..L-and
within the shortest reasonable time from June 1~ 1991.
the developer and Collier County shall aqree upon
specific hurricane protection and evacuation measures.
This aareement is intended to sati$fy the Collier CO\~
~oard of County commissioners th3t the hurricane
evacuation r,','asures required ~aX~_Q.L_the oriqinal
Words-ser~ek-ehre~gn are deleted; words ~~ed are added.
II 04Aw,: 130
..
..
,A,aenda Item N
... ~ J~tober 28,
, ?age 162
~pproval of the Oerkshire Lakes Develooment-of-Reaional-
~~ct have been either met or adequately mitiqa~
l2l
The above mentioned aareement shall include. at least in
part. provisions for on-site hurricane shelter.
tl
The Oerkshire Lakes Develocrnent Order OJ-1 shall be
amended to include the specific lanauaae and
recuirements o~aid aareement. This lanauaae ....ill be
added to the Develooment Order amendmcn~ ....hich ....as voted
on and approved by the Board of County Commissioners on
June 11. 1991. as soon as said Board approves th~
specific lanauaae. but within the limited time frume fur
~ina a Development Order as required bv Sec~Qll
380.06. Florida Statutes.
SECTION NINE:
Subsection 8.02, Development Commitments, Section VIII, General
Development Co=i tments of Ordinance 8J-46, the Berl:shire Lakes Planned
Unit Development, is hereby amended by adding Subsection 8.02(H),
Additional Commitments, aa follo....s:
lL.. ADDITIOHhL COt"MITMENTS
~ Any olattina which occurs after May 14. 1991 will orovide for
~dewal~g o~ne side or any continuous-LQad with an hDT or
2.000 which aooears as oart of said olat. In additio~
within Berkshire Lakes Unit 6. based on a current (Mnrch.
)991) traffic an~lYsis. a sidewalk sh~ll be installed on one
side of Dartmouth Drive and on one side of Lambton Lane West
hetween Dart~outh Drive and Berwick Place.
~ All excavations oerrnitted ....ithin the ger~shire LaKes PUD will
be subiect to thp. orovisiQDs of Collip.r County Ordinance
88-26. the Excavation Ordinance.
h A..ll future dev~looment oat"cels. ....hether sinqle familY or
~ulti-familv. shall be r~Quired to retain at least
twentY-five percent 125%) of the existinG native veqetation
in existence as of May l~. -U.2..L.
L Zero lot 1 ine house. to.....nhouses, and qrou2 housinq ....ill n:>t
be permitted in Unit 6 and unit 7 of ~;hire Lakes.
~ ~s in Unit 6 shall be platted to provide a mini~um of 6.300
~e feet and 55 feet of frontaae.
~ ~ot sizes in Unit 7 of Ber~~ire LaKes ....ill be Kept at a
rninimLm of 7.200 square feet .....ith ~ minimum .....idth of 70 feet.
These minimum sizes wil1-Pe reflected in the final plat of
~. No subseauent reolattinq ~ay reduce these standards.
SECTION TEN:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon receipt of notice from
the Secretary of State that this Ordinance has been filed ....ith the
Secretary of State.
II U4.4 FIe' 131
Words-~e~~eK-eh~o~~h are deletedi ~ords undeLLL~q are added.
-6-
..
-
f"""\8tJi I-...lCi i .........l. I
October 28,
... Page 1630
PkSSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, this --LLt~ day of
JUtH'
, 1991.
i'
BOkRD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:~;...~k~
Ph RICIA ANNE GOODNIGHT, C AIRPERSON
ATTEST:
JAMES c. GILES, CLERK
SUFFICIENCY:
PDA-91-1
nb/S180
II C44 rl~! 132
Words-~~r~ek-ehro~9n are deleted; words underlined ar~ added.
-7-
.. "
...." ,.
.., ,
----;-::::. - .; .. .,.
Berkshire
lh.1kes
.......... OPUOIT PLAN
IHS7(R OEVEl
J:.~;bj, t'i
N
r
-
-~~~ii7"-;-
1".1
-i~ ~..:~~, ~::."-..
EXHi8;T :z
II
I.. :'
, 'bm NO.8
~nenGa ,,~, 8 200
' '" ''''~tor,er 2, 9
Vv. ~ f 1
Page 1640
. .
I,
.,
.~
.t.'.
.;-
:l.. : 0..
.:,., . .
Agenda Item No, 8
October 28, 20
Page 165 of 19
..
CO,
&.
1\-2
PROJECT SUMMARY
Fl-'
~..2 #.e
11-1
77.. .....
co,
n '-e
Lalla,. c.on....,.,..UOf1
W.,.. l.l~ "8.0 '-c
I\.'W 23,4 loe
Coil eo.....
LIl<it1.....
"5.' loe
TeW"'..
:lJ~ ACt..
.... ......... .... "..........,.
...... ....,.... t. ........
"!
;;
t FilII Aec:"s
:t Rio", T"'rn ".eu. Olll1
~ FilII Ace... I"
RIO"I Tvrn Onlr 0111
l'
.
.c
t:
o
c
L~
c-,
f&
c...." 61,,4.
A I.F.b,11 r..'O'\.lon: Indle,"on elr OCe......
BERKSHIRE LAKES
PARCEL (F' . MASTER PLAN
U.S. HOME CORPORt~:.iCr',
n:r S.fth liar~lI. 8J'I"d. lnto commercii.
lrar:tt .r.d ",e.lntenarJ"" ~'...2.
P.U,o. EXHIBIT 1~-1
II U44 Hc,~ 134
---
-
_'ii'" __,~
........-.......
.......-- ~ ~'-_............-.--_..
--------. - ....._._.~.,-_._"'-._._._----_..
/\qenda Item No, 88
- October 28. 2008
?age166of193
Berk5hlt~e
laHc5
.--..;:
(
I \ . .......-.. -.. ",
-- ,
'L
~... u.. .......--~--.-
---
__ _a-......
a.- "'- '-- _
J
I
I
J
ao.-..___
~._-
1
I
I j
\1 /~--~- 111! ~___ EB_
. --=.- l ::~~.--- -3- :- .
-.-c___ \,.,At(_ ---"'A.
~ ,....~ .... ....~
T_" A__
'T__ Urof'te
a....... 0......,,,,..
C::)......__.
-.......................
=-=-- ~
~
---..-
-==-=-=-..:..-::
-- -- --
~
:. ~
lJ?
C":I
~
,-
~
~
oo:r<
::::;)
II
2.
County ordinance 68-26 repeals and
Ordinances 80-76 and 83-3. Therefore,
the PUD Document to Ordinances 80-26
replaced with Ordinance 88-26.
replaces County
all references in
and 83-3 are hereby
Aqenda Item No.
~ October 28, 20
Page 167 of 1
l~ EEMENT
I, william T. Higgs, of Coast communities, as owner or
authorized agent for Petition PD~-91-1/DOA-91-1, agree to the
following stipulations requested by the Collier County Planning
commission in their public hearing on March 21, 1991.
1. The contradiction between Section 8.13d. and
TranRportation stipulation No. 21 is clarified by
requiring that any platting which occurs after the date of
final approval of this amendment (PDA-91-1) will provide
for sidewalks on one side of any continuous road with an
ADT of 2,000 which appears as a part of said plat. Within
Berkshire Lakes Unit 6, based on a current traffic
analysis, a sidewalk shall be installed on one side of
Dartmouth Drive and on one side of Lambton Lane West
between Dartmouth Drive and BerwiCk Pl~ce.
J. All future development parcels, whether single family or
multi-family, shall be required to retain at leact twenty-
five percent (25\) of the existing native vegetation in
exist~ncc at the time of this approval.
4. The petitioner agrees to exclude zero lot line houses,
townhouses and group housing from the possible permitted
uses for Unit 6 and Unit 7 of Berkshire Lakes.
5. The petitioner agrees to keep lot sizes in Unit 7 of
Berkshire Lakes at a minimum of 7,200 square feet with a
mini~um width of 70 feet. These minimum sizes will be
reflected in the final plat of. Unit 7. No subsequent
replatting may reduce these standards.
. 044 Pl~,~ 136
-1-
~ . . \. ....! . , .:} 11 . ,~', 'I ~. ~.~ ~ . ~ ~ "' ' . r ..
"'IliI. .. .
Aqenda item No, 8
, October 28, 200
?age 168 of 19
~/~
PETITIO~R AGENT ~~~
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS d o+f
DAY
OF
'-n\
G_;^~'-, ).!. '-tI\-~~
NOTARY
, 1991.
SEAL
IIOT,l.RY PUBLIC ST^TI ~. FLORIOA
Iq COHMlSS\CM UP, ,l.PR.<7.\995
BOMOED HIRU GE!lCRAL 116. UlIO.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
~).v),^-M \)~,
REPRESENTATIVE FOR ccpe
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS
cJ d ArL
DAY
OF
)X7t
IrJ~ ,a,'M""'/
NOTARY ,.. ()
, 1991.
SEAL
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
MY (..U_"l~V;\ t.......tl...ilo... 1..._ I~ """,...
"""'D_ ,"Jrrtv ~A'" PU~a "*"".....,......
PDA-91-1jDOA-91-1 AGREEMENT SHEET
md
III 04 4 FF,~ 137
-2-
'II
Agenda item No,
October 28, 2
Page 169 of
STATE OF FLORI~A"
COUNTY OF COLLIcR
I, JAMES C. GILES, Clcrk:of Courts in and for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit. Collier County. Florida, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of:
Ordinance No. 91-45
which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on
the 11th day of June. 1991. during Regular Session.
WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County. Florida, this 13th
day of June, 1991.
'.'1. '. :1 ~,
1(."
JAMES C. GILES
Clerk of Courts r.1nd Cl~:'k
Ex-officio to 9~ard of
t:cou=~;' ,
y: !s!M~ureen Ke~
Deputy Clel'k '
..;.
. . ~,l
" ", I
1m 044 rv:~ 138
.------' ----- ~,--.__._-_._'-
i\cenda item No, 88
'October 28, 2008
Page 170 of 193
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF .COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
UDedlcated to making Florida a better place to caJl home"
CHARLIE CRIST
Govemor
October 9 ~ 2007
THOMAS G. PEl.flAM
ReC~
OCT 1 5 2tI7
Transpoaatlon Services OMatGI
Ms. Claudine Auclair, Principal Planner
Transportation Department
2885 South Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FI34104
Re: Request for Essentially Built out Agreement for Berkshire Lakes Development of
Regional Impact, Collier County (DCA ADA #: 983~OLO -
Dear Ms. Auclair:
The Department of Community Affairs has completed the ,review ofthe proposed
essentially built out agreement for Berkshire Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DR!). The
project involves l,093 acres loc~ted in the vicinity of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Devonshire'
Boulevard, in Collier Cmmty, Florida. Eased on the agreement, the applicant appears to be
seeking an essentially built out status for the project under the provisions of Chapter
380.06(15)(g)3, and 4.b(II), Florida Statutes. The Department's staffhas identified the following
sufficiency questions with the agreement.
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 380.06(l5)(g)3., a "development of regional impact
is essentially buHt out, b that all the mitigation requirements in t.lte development order have been
satisfied, all developers are in compliance with all appJicable tenus and conditions of the
development order except the buildout date, and the amount of proposed development that '
remains to be built is less than 20 percent of any applicable development-of-regional~impact
threshold." Alternatively, pursuant to the provisions of 380.06( l5)(g)4.a, and b(II), a project
could be declared .'essentially built out" if the "state land planning agency and the local
government have agreed in vniting that the amount of development to be built does not create the
likelihood of any additional regional impact not previously reviewed." The information
provided is not sufficient to enable the determination of the eligibility of the Berkshire Lakes
DRI for an "essentially built out" agreement for the following reasons:
1. According to information in the proposed agreement, and the development order, the
DR! was approved for 4,200 residential units, 375,000 square feet of commercial uses
and other an.cilItL1JT uses. The proposed agreement describes the a."nount of
commercial uses that are currently developed and the :amount that remains to be built;
however, it does not address the amount of residential development built and the
<,mount that remains to be built. Please, provide additional information regarding the
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, Fl 32399-2100
Phone: 850-4&8-846S/SUNCOM 278.8466 Fex; 850-921,0781ISUNCOM 291.0781
Weoslte: ~ww,dca,state,fl.us
COMMUNITY PlANNING AREAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONC1:RN ,,",LO OFFICE HQl.lSIIlG AND COMMUNITY OEIIELQI'ME'.NT
Phone: 050.488-235(l1SUNCOM 278-2356 Phone: 305-289-,402 Phon.; 8S0486.7956/SUNCOM 278-7il56
Fox: 850.4ll6-Z309!SUNCOM 216-330\1 Fox: 30S.~9,2<42 ..x; 050-922-5523/SUI4COM 292-9323
Attachment "E"
Agenda Item No, 88
October 28, 2008
Page 171 of 193
Ms. Claudine Auclair~ Principal Planner
October 9, 2007
Page Two
amount and type of development that was approved, the amount that bas been
developed, and the amount that remains to be developed including all the ancillary
uses that were approved and developed. It is upon the receipt of the information
regarding the amount of the development that remains to be built that the Department
and all reviewing agencies will detennme the eligibility of the DRl for an essentially
built out agreement, based on the threshold established in the law above.
2. Infonnation has not been provided demonstrating that aU development order (D.O.)
conditions have been addressed including all required mitigation. Also, itappears
that the DRI consists of multiple parcels and lots which have been sold to various
individual developers. Information has not been provided ,showing that all developers
are in compliance with all applicable terms and conditions of the D.O~, except
buildout date. Please, provide information listing all D.O. conditions and evidence
showing how they have been addressed.
-
3. The agreement describes the number of trips that were attributed to the project when
it was originally approved, and states that the development so far generates less traffic
than the amount that was originally attributed to the DRl. In yiew of this, it is
asserted in the agreement that the development that is yet to be built (only
commercial uses, according to tbe draft proposed agreement) does not create any
likelihood of any additional regional impacts not previously reviewed. However, no
information (in the form oftl'affic analysis and others) is provided demonstrating that
the development that is yet to be built (residential and non-residential uses including
ancillary uses) will not create any additional impacts on regional facilities.
4. As indicated earlier~ it appears that the lots in the project have been sold to various
individuals. No information has been provided demonstrating that all individuals
who own property in the DRI have consented to the proposed essentially built out
agreement request. Please, provide information listing all properties and consent
order from each property owner for the essentially built out agreement request. The,
apptoval from an entity representing all the owners and that has the authority to make'
binding decisions on bebalf of all property owners, will be accepted as well.
Thank you for the opportwlity to review the proposed essentially built out agreement for
Berkshire Lakes DRI. If you have any questions on this matter, do not hesitate to call Bernard
O. Piawah. Interim Regional Planning Administrator, at 850-922-18l O.
};~ ~ $;}~:J
Mike McDaniel
Chief, Comprehensive Planning
MM/bp
cc:
Mr. Daniel Trescott, Southwest Florida Regional PlaJ.1lring Council
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTO~:~~r
INTEROFFICE MEl\'IORANDUl\1 (/ P
c:/' :f"
TO:
Joseph Schmitt, Administrator, CDES
cc:
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Susan Istenes, Zoning & Land Development Review Director
Randall Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director /'(.;[:)
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney, Land Use Section ChieW
FROM:
DATE:
September 12, 2008
RE:
Close-out of the Berkshire Lakes Development of Regional Impact and
Essentially Built-Out Agreement
BACKGROlJND
The Berkshire Lakes DRVDevelopment Order was adopted pursuant to Development Order 83-1
dated August 16, 1983, simultaneous with the Berkshire Lakes Plmmed Unit Development
Zoning Ordnance, Ordinance No. 83-46 which was passed to implement the DRI. The
Berkshire Lakes DRIIPUD development has undergone numerous changes by development order
and ordinance amendment. The existing planned unit development ordinance identifies the
commercial property as 42.5 acres of commercial property at an estimated absorption of 375,000
square feet. Constmction of the Berkshire Lakes DR! has been complete except for the
development of two platted parcels of vacant land located in an area designated as commercial
property in the Berkshire Commons shopping center situated at the northwest comer of the
intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Radio Road. The existing commercial development
includes 204,729 square feet of retail shopping space, 37,320 square feet of general office and
129,163 square feet of self-storage warehouse for a total of371,212 square feet.
C. Lane Wood, Esquire, on behalf of the Power Corporation, has requested that the County
agree that the Berkshire Lakes DRI is essentially built-out and to enter into an agreement
pursuant to the provisions of Section 380.06(l5)(g)(4), F.S. The proposed essentially built-out
agreement ("EBOA") would provide for the build-out of the vacant parcels as well as the
renovation and expansion of an existing Mobil gas station also located within the shopping
center. The developer proposes 14,000 square feet of new office use development and 56,000
square feet of new retail and service use development for the remaining vacant parcels and 3,100
square feet of new retaii and service use to be constructed on the existing Mobil gas station
property. If the Board approves the EBOA, the total development of the project is 315,149
square feet of office and retail and service use and 129,163 square feet of existing self-storage
warehouse development. Under the PUD ordinance, office and retail and service use
development and self-storage warehouse use development fall within the category of commercial
use. The total proposed existing and future commercial square footage is 444,312 square feet.
Attachment "F"
To: Joseph Schmitt, Administrator, CDES
September 12,2008
Page 2
Agenda Item No, 88
October-28, 2008
Page 173 of 193
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
As to consistency with the Growth Management Plan, the existing development is grandfathered
under FLUE Policy 5.10 and the County's Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance No. 90-23. As to the
proposed new development, the Board of County Commissioners could find that the Berkshire
Lakes DRl is grandfathered under FLUE Policy 5.10 and the County's Zoning Reevaluation
Ordinance No. 90-23. The Berkshire Commons shopping center is located within an area
cun-ently designated as urban residential use on the applicable Future Land Use Element maps.
However, under FLUE Policy 5.10, it is entitled to be developed under the applicable zoning
previously assigned to it under Ordinance No. 83-46, as amended. This ordinance assigned a
commercial designation to 42.5 acres of land in the Berkshire Lakes Planned Unit Development.
The Board could make the finding that the 42.5 acres is vested for commercial development and
proceed to amend or clarify Planned Unit Development Ordinance No. 83-46, as amended, to
provide that the estimated absorption schedule of 375,000 square feet is not a maximum.
EBOA PROCESS
Section 380.06(15(g)(4), F.S., provides:
"The project has been determined to be an essentially built-out development of
regional impact tluough an agreement executed by the developer, the state land
planning agency and the local government in accordance with Section 380.032
which will establish the terms and conditions under ,vhich the development may
be continued. Ifthe project is determined to be essentially built-out, development
may proceed pursuant to the 380.032 agreement after termination or expiration
date contained in the development order without further development-of-regional-
impact review subject to the local government comprehensive plan and land
development regulations or subject to a modified development-of-regional-impact
analysis. As used in this paragraph, an "essentially built-out" development of
regional impact means:
(a) The developers are in compliance with all applicable terms and
conditions of the development order except the build out date; and
(b )(1) The amount of development that remains to be built is less
than the substantial deviation threshold specified in paragraph
(19)(b) for each individual category ofland use or for a multi-use
development the sum of all wlbuilt land uses as a percentage of the
applicable substantial deviation threshold is equal to or less than
100%; or
(II) The state land planning agency and local government have
agreed in \Ii,'riting that the amount of development to build does not
create a likelihood of any additional regional impact not previously
reviewed.
2
To; Joseph Schmitt, Administrator, CDES
September 12, 2008
Page 3
""aenda Item !\la, 88
~ October 28, 2008
?age 174 of 193
Under this section, if the Board of County Commissioners, the Department of Community
Affairs and the developer enter into an essentially built-out agreement with the findings that (1)
the developers are in compliance with all applicable terms and conditions of the development
order except the build-out date and (2) the state land planning agency and local government have
agreed in writing that the amount of development to build does not create the likelihood of any
additional regional impact not previously reviewed, then the criteria of Section 380.06(15)(g)( 4),
F.S. is satisfied.
ADDITIONAL REGIONAL IMP ACT
I have been advised of the following:
1. County staff, under the direction of Land Use Section Manager, Ray V. Bellows, together
with assistance from Principal Planner Melissa Zone, has verified compliance with the express
terms and conditions of the Berkshire Lakes DO, subject to the question of consistency with the
GMP as discussed in this memorandum.
2. The Florida Department of TranspOliation ("FDOT") and Collier County Transportation
Division ("CDOT") have confimled that the proposed EBOA will result in no additional impacts
beyond those which were originally approved. In fact, CDOT and FDOT have confirmed that
development under the proposed EBOA will actually result in fewer total trips and less
transportation impact than is already presently allowed under the DRI, as a direct result of the
shift away from almost 130,000 square feet of office and retail and service use development to
less intense self-storage warehouse use development.
3. The land planning agency is willing to enter into the EBGA.
4. The developer is offering a limited build-out period under the proposed EBOA as well as
paY111cnt of an additional $110,000 which was originally requested by the County and agreed to
by the developer before it was discovered that the developer has met all of its commitments
under the DO.
CONCLUSION
Based on the information provided to me and Section 380.06(15)(g)(4), F.S., it is my
recommendation that this project proceed forward to the BCC for review and consideration of
the DRI close-out and adoption of the EBOA agreement with a staff recommendation for
approval. I further recommend that if the developer proceeds forward with its proposed
development, that PUD Ordinance Number 83-46, as amended, be further amended or clarified
to provide that the estimated absorption schedule of 375,000 square feet of commercial is an
estimation and not a maximum threshold.
In forming this opinion, I have relied on factual information provided to me. If the factual
infoffilation is found to be incorrect, then my opinion may have a different conclusion.
Furthem1ore, the conclusions made in this memorandum are particular to t.he facts and law
applicable to the Berkshire Lakes DRllPlJD and should not be applied to other projects or
developments.
3
To: Joseph Schmitt, Administrator, CDES
September 12, 2008
Page 4
,I\genda Item No. 88
October 28, 2008
Page 175 of 193
Please feel free to call me if you have any additional questions.
Attachments:
Letter dated January 8, 2008 to Bernard Piawah, PhD, DCA from Lawrence Massey, FDOT
Letter dated November 14, 2007 to Michael McDaniel, DCA from Kenneth Metcalf, AICP
Memorandum dated March 3, 2008 to Lawrence Massey, FDOT from Kenneth Metcalf, AICP
E-mail dated March 6, 2008 to Bernard Piawah from Lawrence Massey
Letter dated March 7, 2008 to John Agnelli from Claudine Auclair
CP\08-CPS-00858\M emo'JoeSchmitt-BerkshireLakesDRI-091 J 08
4
Agenda Item No, 88
October 28, 2008
?age 176 of 193
_ v'
Florida Department of Trtmsportatiol1
CfLARLIE CRIST
GOVERNOR
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
STEPHANIE C.
KOPELOUSOS
SECRETARY
January 08, 2008
Mr. Bernard Piawah, Ph.D.
Regional Planning Administrator
Department of Community Affairs
Division of Community Planning
2555 Shumard Oaks Blvd,
Ta[(ahassee, FL 32399
RE: Berkshire Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DR!), Collier County DO 98-5 - FDOT
Comments on Built Out Agreement Request
Dear Mr. Piawah:
The Department has reviewed the status of the Berkshire Lakes DRl relative to the applicant's proposed
Essentially Built Out Agreement and offers the following comments! recommendations for your consideration of
the agreement:
The subject property is located along SR 84 in Collier County, Florida. TIle DRl development order DO 98-5
was adopted on August 16, 1983, and amended through II development orders to allow 2,944 multi-family
units, 1,256 single family units, and 375,000 square feet of commercial. Currently the development has built
2,803 multi-family units, 1,297 single family units and 376,414 square feet of commercial as described in
documents submitted with for review. The applicant is requesting, in lieu of the formal NOPC process,
agreement with the site being built out and an allowance to develop an additional 73,100 square feet of
eommercial.
As stated in the applicant's agreement Jetter of November 14t\ 2007 (attached), the applicant wishes to develop
an additional 73,100 sq ft of commercial, consisting of 56,000 sq ft of commercial, 14,000 sq ft of office, and a
3,100 sq ft gas station. Currently, the applicant states that the site has only developed 371,212 sq ft of their
allowed 375,000 square feet of commercial, per Ordinance 98-54, of which 129,163 sq ft was developed as self-
storage. Based on amendments to House Bill 683 Chapter 380, the 129,163 sq ft of self-storage is exempt from
review, allowing for an additional J 32,951 sq ft of commercial development to occur. Therefore, the additional
73,100 sq ft of commercial (requested) is within the allowed 375,000 sq ft of conunercial.
The approved conditions of 375,000 sq ft of commercial will generate 1,298 pm peak hour trips and the
proposed conditions of 315,149 sq ft wi!! generate 1,178 pm peak hour trips, taking reductions for pass-by.
Based on the comparison of the two scenarios, the proposed conditions will generate fewer trips than the
approved conditions. The self-storage was excluded from this comparison, but it should be noted that in the peak
hour the self-storage would only generate 34 trips, and would, therefore, have a negligible impact.
,Agenda Item No, 88
October 28,2008
Page 177 of 193
Mr. Bernard Piawah, Ph,D.
Berkshire Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI), Collier County DO 98-5 - FOOT Comments on Built Out
Agreement Request
January 08, 2008
Page 2 of2
Based on DO 98-5, the applicant is responsible for improvements to SR 84 from Airport-PulHng Road to CR
951 and for the signalization of the Southern Access Road and SR 84 when these facilities exceed LOS "C".
Based on the FOOT 2007 Generalized LOS Tables, SR 84 from Airport-Pulling Road to CR 951 operates at
LOS "F" for all segments. Based on Collier County's Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR), SR 84 form
Airport-Pulling Road to Santa Barbara Boulevard operates at LOS "D", and from Santa Barbara Boulevard to
CR 951 operates at LOS "F" (see attached Table I). Therefore, the required mitigation, as agreed upon in the
development order, has been activated.
It is the Department's contention that the applicant must provide proof that the agreed upon mitigation has been
provided prior to development of the proposed 73,100 sq ft of commercial and prior to finalization of a
Essentially Built Out Agreement. The applicant should be allowed to develop the 73,100 square feet of
commercial, as specified, once mitigation is provided for SR 84. Any development beyond the specified land
uses will require additional analysis and a revised agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional infonnation, please contact me at (239) 461-4300 or
lawrence.massey@dot.state.fl.us.
Sincerely,
~'"
~--- -~ ;.~~~-
//'" 7--~_...
I ---, ---
-- ----
I..---/' ..,....---~ " ---'"
1_--
Lawrence Massey
Growth Management Coordinator
LLMllImlgmb
Attachments
District Doe, Southwest Area Office
2295 Victoria Avenue' Posl Office Box 1030 '" Fort Myers, FL 33902-1030
(239) 461-4300 '" (239) 338-2353 (Fax) '" MS 1-98
wwi..v.dot.state.f1.us
l;genda ltem f"Jo. .S8
October 28, 2008
?age 178 of 193
Greenberg
Traurig
Kennelh a, Metcalf
Tel, 850.222.6891
Fax 860.681,02(17
metcalfk@gtlaw.com
November 14, 2007
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Michael McDaniel
Chief, Bureau of Local Planning
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
ALBANV
Re:
Berkshire Lakes Development of Regional Impact Essentially Built Out Agreement
AMSTEIIDAM
Dear Mike:
ATLANT~
80CA RATON
Thank you for meeting with me on November 9, 2007, to discuss the proposed BOSTON
Essentially Built Out Agreement for Berkshire Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRl) CHICAGO
("Agreement") recently submitted by Collier County. Greenberg Traurig, P.A., is assisting
OAllAS
Power Corporation, the successor Developer of Berkshire Lakes DRI, in processing the
Agreement. Pursuant to our discussion, I am providing this letter to provide supplemental DENVER
information regarding t1e development status and amendment history of the Berkshires Lake FOR. lAUDE~DALE
DRl in order to further support the proposed Agreement. To briefly recap, t.he Agreement LCSANGElES
proposes to allow the buildout of 56,000 square feet of commercial, a 3,100 square foot Mobil MIAMI
Gas Station and 14,000 square feet of office. The Agreement is appropriate in this instance for
four main reasons: NEW /ERSEY
I NEW YOR~
1) Reduced Impact. A significant portion of the commercial use authorized by the DRI I OI1ANGE COUN)Y,CA
Development Order was actually developed as self storage rather than commercial, resulting in I c..LANOO
significantly less impact as compared to 1he original development order;
PHILADELPHIA
2) Self Stora€!e Exemption. HB 683 amended 9380.06(24), F.S., to add paragraph (P) to
exempt self storage from DRI review; PHOENIX
3) Limited Development. The proposed buildout of the commercial and office space does not SlllCONVALL"Y
exceed the 375,000 square foot limit in the Dill Development Order when deducting the self TALLAHASSH
storage space that is now recogm' zed as a distinct use from the commercial and office space due j
TYSONS CORNER
to its lesser impacts; and I
4) Admirdstrative Efficiency. The Developer could file for a Notice of Proposed Change WASHINGTON,o.C.
("NOpe") to extend the build out date less than five years and fonnally recognize the change in WEST PALM BEACH
1"..,,..1 ",,"0 ",,,,,",,,;.f.';~a';~-~ .(:'~~- ~o' -'-~~~;~l '0 ~"lt" ~forage n-e f'!.e-r",t..n a11-"1'og f1..e 'r\,..,r '0 b"
H4..U."'" 1"..&."'.... ""U.~V"'U...1,", \..J.VUi) J.llo,)J.U \"I U.Ul1vj.\.J.La. L ,"'~11 "'l U;:, , lJ.J \o..oU)' UV"," l Ul LI~ L 1,; I WilMINGTON
I ZURICfi
TAL 451439106v5 11/1412007
Greenberg Traurlg, I'A I AttOrneys ill Law 1101 East College Avenue I Post Office Dr~wer 18381 Tallahassee, FL 32302 I www.gtlaw.com
Tei 850.2:22,6891 I fax 850,681,0207
AQenda Item No, 8B
- October 28, 2008
Page 179 of 193
Mr. Michael McDaniel
November 14, 2007
Page 2
declared as Essentially Built Out under ~380.06(15)(g)3, F.S., based on the remaining amount
of un-built development not exceeding 20% of the applicable DR! thresholds. However, the
Agreement provides a more efficient process for achieving the same outcome.
The Developer has worked with Collier County to draft this Agreement to cooperatively
address other conditions of interest to the County, notwithstanding that the DR! is in
compliance with Development Order conditions. In light of the parties working together and to
provide for an efficient regulatory process, we believe this would be an appropriate use of the
Department's agreement authority pursuant to 9380.032 because the purposes and intent of the
DRI program will be effectuated by execution of the Agreement.
Berkshire Lakes DRI Development Order and Application for Development Appr.oval
The Berkshire Lakes DR! Development Order was adopted on August 16, 1983. The
Development Order does not specify a buildout date or expiration date for the Project.
However, the Application for Development Approval ("ADA") references an anticipated build
out period of 20 years or longer, as indicated by the excerpts attached hereto as Exhibit .'A".
While the Developer could debate the applicability of a build out date, we have recognized a
lO-year period .for purposes of this analysis to demonstrate that the DRl would still be entitled
to a five (5) year build out extension. Based on a 20-year period, the build out date would be
deemed to be August 16, 2003. The Developer could therefore file a NOpe and extend the
build out date to August 16, 2008, as a non-substantial deviation pursuant to g380.06(19)(c),
F.S.
The Development Order does not specify the allowable land uses or intensities for the
DRl. However, the ADA indicates in various statements that the DR! could develop up to
4,200 residential units and 375,000 square feet of commercial use as documented by the
excerpts attached hereto as Exhibit "B" which also document that the term commercial was
used broadly and, did not distinguish between commercial and office. As documented in the
Agreement, the actual existing developed intensities include 204,729 square feet of retail
shopping space, 37,320 square feet of general office and 129,163 square feet of self storage for
a total of 371,212 square feet. The Agreement proposes the build out of an additional 56,000
square feet of commercial, 141000 square feet of office and 3,100 square feet of gas station
uses. This results in a proposed build out of 263,829 square feet of commercial (including gas
station) and 51,320 square feet of office use, for a total of315,149 square feet as compared to
the 375.000 square feet of '.commercial" DRI land use allowed by the Development Order
through application of the ADA. Thus, the commercial allocation is well bdow the allocation
allowed by the ADA.
Please note that g380.06{lS)(g)3., F.S., provides that a DRl is deemed Essentially Built
Out if the remaining amount of development to be constructed is less than 20% of all applicable
TAL 451439106v511/1412007
Greenberg Traurig. P,A,
L1,:::enda item r~o, 36
- October :28, 2008
?age 130 of 193
Mr. Michael McDaniel
November 14, 2007
Page 3
DRl thresholds as set forth in g380.0651, F.S. and Rule 28-24, FA.C. The 56,000 square feet
of remaining commercial to be developed is less than 80,000 square feet (20% of 400,000
square feet) and the 14,000 square feet of office is less than 60,000 square feet (20% of 300,000
square feet). Thus, the Developer could file a NOPC to recognize the self storage as a non-
commercial land use in terms of DR! land use classification, reduce the commercial and office
to the proposed build out levels just described and demonstrate as a non-substantial deviation
that the impacts of the self storage use are more than offset by the reduction in commercial use
from 375,000 square feet to the 315,149 square feet proposed for build out. Such a NOPC filed
in conjunction with a NOPC for a 5-year build out extension would result in a non-substantial
deviation and would then allow the Developer to declare the DR! as Essentially Built Out based
on each of the remaining land uses comprising less than 20% of the applicable DR! thresholds.
Impact Analysis
HB 683 amended Chapter 380, F.S., in 2006 to exempt self storage use from DRI
review. However, the impact analysis for a DR! must evaluate DR! land uses as well as
exempt uses in the DR! in detennining regional impacts. The 129,163 square feet of self
storage v.ithin the Berkshire Lakes DR! is exempt as a land use, but has been evaluated in
support of the Agreement. Thus, as referenced in the Agreement, the proposed reduction in
commercial and office uses of 59,851 square feet (375,OOO~3l5,149) would more than offset
the impacts of 329,163 square feet of self storage use, resulting in a 21 % reduction in overall
trips from the DR!. The Agreement documents that self storage generates approximately 5% of
the impact as compared to an equivalent allocation of commercial.
Department Request for Additional Information
The following responses address the Department's specific request for additional
infonnation as set forth in the letter, dated October 9, 2007 to Ms. Claudine Auclair, Principal
Planner;vith Collier County:
1) Clarification of uses and status of development. The supplemental information above
providing the background on the switch out of self storage and reduced commercial addresses
this request. The Agreement also recognizes that limited residential development remains that
would be entitled to build out. The remaining number of residential units is fewer than 100
units out of the total 4,100 authorized by the Development Order.
2) Document compliance with Development Order conditions. Section 2 of the stipulations
\Vit.1in the Agreement confirm that the DRl is in compliance vvith the major infrastructure
conditions. In addition, the Annual lVlonitoring Reports do not indicate any outstanding
compliance deficiencies v,ithin the DRl.
3) Demonstrating A~eement will not result in additional impacts not previously reviewed.
The Agreement documents the reduced trip generation resulting from the proposed build out
TAL 451439105v5 11/1412007
Greenberg Traurig. PA
Agenda Item No, 88
October 28, 2008
Page 181 of 193
Mr. Michael McDaniel
November 14, 2007
Page 4
limitations. As we discussed, this level of documentation is appropriate given the
circumstances.
4) Consent by Other Property Owners. No other non-residential development remains to be
developed that is not otherwise addressed by the Agreement. Limited residential units remain
to be constructed that are specifically addressed by Section 4 of the Agreement which expressly
allows the construction of said units upon request by the land owners, subject to compliance
with the comprehensive plan and land development regulations. This Agreement does not
affect the ability of other property ov.ners to complete the residential units. We believe this is
sufficient to address this concern.
In conclusion, the Agreement is an appropriate instrument to declare the DRl as
Essentially Built Out given the circumstances and considering the limitations and conditions set
forth in the Agreement. In light of this supplemental information, we request that the
Department execute the Agreement as soon as possible as requested by Collier County's letter
dated August 21,2007.
Sincerely,
~MaUe~~
Kenneth B. Metcalf, AICP
Director of Planning
Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
cc: John Agnelli, Power Corporation
Lane Wood, Salvatori and Wood, P .A.
Claudine Auclair, Collier County
TAL 451439106v5 11/14/2007
Greenberg Traurig PA
Agenda Item No, 8B
O~tober 28,2[;08
Page 182 of 193
Table 1
Berkshire Lakes DRI
SR 84 Existing LOS Assesment
R 84 (Davi, Road) LOS Length PK HR County Pk Hr Pk Dir' Capacity & L05
From ITo Std' Miles Lanes AADT1 K' D' PK DIR' 2007 Count Trip Bank TOlal Tables . LOS AUIR' LOS'
iAirprt Pulling Road I Lakewood Boulevard D 0,555 4 30,500 0,113 0,5797 1,998 1,7 60 62 1,822 1810 F 2080 D
Lakewood Boulevard ICDunty Barn Road D 1,691 4 30,500 0.113 0,5797 1,998 1,750 142 1,892 1810 F 2430 D
County Barn Road ISanta Barbara Bouievard Q 0,749 4 32,000 0.113 C ,579 7 2,096 1,730 277 2,007 1810 F 2575 D
Santa Barbara Boulevard IRadiD Road D 1,770 2 14,600 0,113 0,5797 956 1,410 209 1,619 861 F 1530 F
Radio Road ICR 951 D 0.694 ? 74,000 0,113 0,5797 1,572 1.410 209 1,619 861 F 1530 F
Notes
1 Information based on Collier County 2007 Annual Updat~ Jnventor)' Report.
2 AADT, K, an 0 informalion based. on 2006 FOOT Florida Traffic information CD,
3 PK HR PK DIR = AADTx Kx Q,
4 CapacJtres based on (Table 4-8) Clas.s ! Transltionlng area capcac:tjes in the 2007 r:DOT Generalized LOS Tables.
Aoenda Item No, 88
- October 28, 2008
Page 183of193
Greenberg
, Traurig
Memorandum
TO: Lavvrence Massey, FDOT
CC: Claudine Auclair. Collier County
Nick Casalanguida, Collier County
FROM: Kenneth B. Metcalf, Alep, Director of Planning
DATE: March 3,2008
RE: Berkshire Lakes DR! ~ Comparison ofImpact Fees and Proportionate Share to
Support Essentially Built Out Agreement
Introduction
The Berkshire Lakes DRI ("Projecf') is now nearly built out with only one undeveloped
commercial site remaining. In order to reach closure on the DRI, Collier County worked with the
developer of Berkshire L*es to draft an Essentially Built Out Agreement pursuant to
9380.06(15)(g), F .S. One of the requirements for such an agreement is that all conditions of the
development order have been appropriately satisfied. In reviewing the dr"dft agreement, DCA
requested confirmation from FDOT that the transportation conditions set forth in the DR!
development order have been satisfied. In response to this request, we have been working with
County staff and FDOT staff in a cooperative manner to document how the transportation
conditions were met. As we've discussed, the developer paid $5.9 million in impact fees and
donated substantial right of way as the means of complying with the fair share payments required
by the development order. Collier County bas agreed that such payments shall be creditable
toward the DRl obligations as legally required by the courts and Florida Statutes to avoid
duplicative charges. During our meeting on January 31, 2008 and a subsequent conference call on
February 14, 2008, we discussed the methodology for this report in detail and reached agreement
on a fmal set of assumptions that would be used to document that the impact fees and value of the
right of way donations exceed and satisfy the transportation conditions set forth in the development
order. The purpose of this report is to summarize the methodology as agreed upon by the parties
and to present the results, which demonstrate that the developer has satisfied the requirements of
the development order through the payment of impact fees and donation of right of way.
Agreement on Methodology/Assumptions
The methodology presented in this report is consistent vvit11 the agreement reached at our
previous meeting and follow up conference callan February 14,2008. We reach agreement on the
following assumptions for this final report:
TAL 451450855v4 31212001J
.6,oenda item No. 88
'Jdober 28. 2008
?age 184 of 193
To: Lawrence Massey, FDOT
Date: March 3, 200&
Page 2
1) utilize the mid-range, per-mile construction cost estimates provided by FDOT for 1990-91
as set forth in your February 5 email;
2) utilize a 1.65 multiplier to account for the additional costs of right of way, engineering,
eEr and other costs as reported in your February 5, email;
3) credit right of way donations provided by the Developer for Radio Road and Santa Barbara
Boulevard;
4) continue to utilize ADA trip assignments and methodology as previously presented for the
purpose of determining the project's share.
We have agreed to utilize these assumptions in the interest of resolving these issues expeditiously.
We continue to believe that the 1.65 multiplier for right of way and soft costs is excessive and not
appropriate for the early 1990s, recognizing that it was the statewide average for the period from
2000-2005.. While the right of way estimate (19%) appears reasonable and fairly consistent with
the percentages reported for Collier County (15%) for Radio Road, local data confinn that the soft
costs locally were much lower than 46%. We also continue to assert that the plain language oftbe
development order does not require a proportionate share based on right of way and soft costs, but
is rather limited to construction costs only for S.R. 84. Similarly. we do not agree that the fair
share for "upgrading" Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard refers to a share of widening. In
that case, the language would have referred to widening. Statutory construction principles would
give a different meaning to upgrading versus the term widening because both terms are used in
different conditions within the DR! development order. We reiterate these points to emphasize that
the calculations presented in this report should be considered very conservative in terms of
assuming the worst case "fair share costs" for comparison to the impact fees and right of way
donations provided by !he developer.
Right of Way Donation Value
The right of way costs donation values were determined by using the 1995 per square foot
value documented for Radio Road right of way as reported in the County's impact fee study.
Attachment A provides an excerpt from the study, This figure was then reduced by 25% to accotu1t
for administrative overhead associated with the right of way transaction. This resulted in a value of
$1.59 per square root. This value was then discounted at an annual rate of 5% to estimate tbe
values for the target years during which each right of way link was donated, which occurred for
various links between 1986 and 1993. The resulting right of way values are set forth in Table 1
below for Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard.
Table 1. Right of\Vay Donation Values
I Roadway
I Donated Acreage I Year Donated
I Value Per Square I Total Value of
Foot I Donation
Radio Road 1.043 1995 $1.59) $72,238.47
~-..-.._,
PB 21, pp. 68-69 .84 1993 $1.51 I $55,549.50
PB 19, pp. 16-17 .60 1992 i $1.44 I $3/ ,362.26
TAL 451450856v4 3/2/2008
Agenda Item No. 88
October 28, 2008
Page 185 of 193
To: Lawrence Massey, FDOT
Date: March 3, 2008
Page 3
PB 15, pp. 42-43 .71 1988 $1.37 $42,403.55
PB 14, PP 78-80 1.46 1987 $1.30 $82,813.90
Santa Barbara 2.937 1988 $1.37 $175,280.54
Blvd., PB 14~ pp
118-120
PB 14, pp 78-80 6.41 1987 $1.30 $363,309.7
PB 14, pp 50-52 6.47 1986 $1.24 $349,775.48
Total $1.178,733.40
Fair Share Methodology
This calculation of the Project's fair share based on Project volumes has not changed from
the previous submittal. Table 2 utilizesthe Project volumes from the point in time at which each
link of Radio Road and Santa Barbara reached 10,000 ADT, which the ADA utilized for
detepnining when improvements were necessary. Thus, the project volume divided by 10,000
ADT determines the fair share for Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The ADA forecasted
total link volumes and Project trips for 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005. Table 2 shows the year that
each link was forecast to reach the 10,000 ADT-threshold and provides the corresponding Project
volume for that year for the pUrpose of calculating the fair share. Where the target year occurred
between 1990 and 1995, the total link volumes and Project volumes were interpolated as shown in
Table 3. Please note that Santa Barbara does not require interpolation because the segment reached
the 10,000 ADT -threshold in 1990, and project volumes were forecasted for that year. This phasing
approach is consistent with current proportionate share methodology, which calculates
proportionate share based on the project trips for the phase that triggers the need for the
improvement. FDOT accepted this approach at our last meeting.
Table 2: Berkshire Lakes Estimated Fair Share Costs
Total Cost with
Prop Cost! (65%) for RIW and
Road Unk Year Miles Share CL Mile CEI
SR84 n/a 1991 1.24 1 $1,408,000 $2,880,766
Airport Road to
Radio Livingston
Road Road 1991 1 0.246 $1,408,000 $571,507.2
Livingston
Road to Santa
Radio Barbara
Road Boulevard 1993 2 0,4911 $1.4D8.000 $2,281,847
Santa Golden Gate
Barbara Parkway to
Boulevard Radio Road 1990 1.4 0.3367 $1,408,000 $1,095,110
$6,829,232
TAL 4514508S6v4 312/2008
i\oenda item No, 88
- O::;tober 28, 2008
Page i 86 of 193
To: Lawrence Massey, FDOT
Date: March 3, 2008
Page 4
Table 3. Interpolation Calculations Based on ADA
!nterpolation for Radio Road (between Livingston and Airport)
1990 Volume 9535
1995 Volume 11601
1995-1990 volume/S:::: 413.2 per year
Link forecasted to reach 10,000 ADT in 1991 per ADA
1990 Project Volum e for same link 2093
1995 Project Volume for same link 3928
1991 Project Volume:::: 2460
Interpolation for Radio Road (between Livingston and Santa
Barbara)
1990Volume 7482
1995 Volume 11226
1995-1990 volume/5:::: 748,8 per year
Link forecasted to reach 10,000 in 1993 per ADA
1990 Project Volume for same link
~ 995 Project Volume for same link
1993 Project Volume ::::
3219
6040
4911.6
Conclusion
The developer paid $5.9 million in impact fees and provided right of way dedications
valued at $1,178,733 ror a total contribution of $7,078,733. This figure exceeds the fair share
obligation calculated as $6,829,232, which again must be considered a conservatively high
estimate. The Essentially Built Out Agreement also includes an additional $110,000 in contribution
toward various transportation conditions. Based on these findings and the supporting compliance
chart previously provided by our team, we request your support in advising t.~e Department of
Community Affairs that the developer has satisfied its DR! transportation obligations.
TAL 451450856v4 3/212008
. .
. vm
T
-
-
-
,
J'
1."
:<l"
~.:
~.
..
IiI !B~211~!SI151!15~1~~51Iil!~51~~!1
.....
" ..,G' ~iaasaaaiaaaaaaaaaaa:unaaaaaaaaaa
~~. !O~:~
~:.-
{~f" i!i ala!i!~ili!l!a!aliup~aft!i!~i!!tia~
(fit !!! ai~i 91~~~~~~I~~a~!~la9 ~I! I il!i~al
.~~;~: '.~
~,~ 131 aaalllilsatig!l&sii!lai!~!~iI16Ia~
~ ~I !!'!1~15BIII'i~J91~!I~I~~~~I~!!BS
') Is lU mimmmmmnnmmmm
,: ~';.: a: !"! ~III!!!!~! co !!!~!!!~ 0 co... oitll! ~!!!... I
. ...,,~I !.... gilsol.............. ........_..__ ~~fi.._....... it
~..!' ~ I
...' "6'" !i ~~~!!~!!!!~!!~5!~~!9!~!!~!3!!~553
~~tt..t-J' ) ~ ~ IHl fa !i lH ~ Ii S i Ii ~ Ii e Ii e Ii ~ i1 a a iH~ i i i Ii e e ~ iHi
, ~ f 11 eerHHHa~iHUoiSRiaiaiHilaaoo..o~eeaaiaiU~oe
:~!), I i ~ l2
'~l' Ii shlJI HS!!ll 4 SIt!!
:~:;'. . ~ i Il_ 0 i ! I J ~ B f ~ i ~ I. J J J! ! , i III i ~ f'l
~ iSlit51;i1sll:~a!!s!slSI1{ljl'il{
,lii!i~iSiJ!il!if!il=iili!~=il.I!#i
Jlllllllls I ill~llj,1 ~Ifll~ XI!
! ii~i
! If fli~iiii~ IIIJii~ I11II
& 1IIIilllll 1IIIIIIIllliffflilllll
! ~J~~:; . ~
.. .
. " .
c.!
lillOI' fJ52,,'.! 164
Agenda Item No, 8B
October 28, 2008
Page 187 of 193
~
-
==
QO
==
...
..=
I:.l
C'S
t:
<
.,__'~8'____~________~_'__
Ag8nd~ NQfi23
October 28,2008
Pa;)8 188 of 193
bonham_9
Massey, Lawrence [Lawrence,Massey@dot.state,fl,us}
Thursday, March 06, 2008 11 :55 AM
Bernard.Piawah@dca.state,fl.us
AuclairClaudine; CasalanguidaNick; johnA@powercorp.net; C Lane Wood; dhn@consuft-
rwa.com; MetcalfK@gtlaw,com; Limbaugh, Johnny; Walker, Ben; Meares, Frank; Caudill-
Scott, Trinity; Babuji Ambikapathy
FDOT 3-6-08 FINAL APPROVAL of proposed Impacts and Satisfaction of Transportation
Commitments
Attachments: 8erkshireLakes,pdf
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bernard,
Please find the attached letter from the Berkshire Lakes DR! that demonstrates the applicant's fullfillment of the
mitigation requirements of the development order.
With reference to the department's comments of 0 1/08/08 on the applicant's built-out request entitled Berkshire
Lal,es Development of Regional Impact (DRI), Collier County DO 98-5 - FDOT Comments on Built Out
Agreement Req uest, we now conclude that the appl icant has provided sufficient proof that the agreed upon
mitigation has been fully met. Therefore, the department has no further objections to finalization of a Essentially
Built Out Agreement for the Berkshire Lakes DRL
Thank you very much for your assistance with this agreement process.
F~iJf:M-.:'~;:,*~:~~9.~~
~. ..____:> ~.s..... .."",... . .,.1,_ " ,,,":".:.v_.~'" _'~_" . ,
,r4:i'.&.M';4S1:'4.E!~ti ",",,"<,", ')-nh~' ;n'S'Q"" is
~:j'~~~l~~&~j#~;~*;$$.,.~~~: "
Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records,
lfyou do not want your e-mail address released in
response to a pubIic-recordr request, do not send
electronic mail to this entity, Instead, contact this office ~v phone or in writing.
From: AbbottS@gtlaw.com (mailto:AbbottS@gtlaw.com) On Behalf Of MetcalfK@gtlaw.com
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 II :23 AM
To: Massey, Lawrence; ClaudineAuclair@collicrgov.net; NickCasaJanguida@colliergov.net
Cc: johnA@powercorp,net; CL W@salvatoriandwood.com; dhn@consult-rwa.com; MetcalfK@gtlaw,com
Subject: Berkshire Lakes DRJ - Comparison of Impact Fees and Proportionate Share to Support Essentially Built
Out Agreement
This email is provided in response to your request that the BershireLakesmemorandum,datedMarch4,2008,be
revised to include the interpolation for Santa Barbara Boulevard. For clarification, Santa Barbara does not
warrant interpolation. .. The ADA forecasted that Santa Barbara would reach 10,000 ADT by 1990 and also provided
project iink volumes for Santa Barbara for 1990, So, j was abie to divide the project volumes by 10,000 ADT to
determine the proportionate share with no need to interpolate. Whereas with Radio Road, the ADA forecasted those
links would reach] 0,000 ADT between 1990 and 1995, requiring interpolation of project volumes for the target
9/11/2008
Agend~~ ~@.foo
October 28, 2008
Page 189 of 193
year.
I have attached a revised memorandum clarifying this point. Thank you for your professional review in this matter.
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we
inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless
otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (I)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party
any matters addressed herein.
The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is
intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message. To reply to our em ail administrator directly, please send an email tor..Q$.tm:;.~t~r@gt@Y-r:._gQm.
9/11/2008
Aqenda Item No. 88
- October 28,2008
Paae 190 of 193
PROJECT NAME
DATE DEVELOPER
09/14/82 I BRANDON TOWN CENTER
~ Federated Stores Realty, Inc,
097;782 i LAKE NONA
! Lake Nona Corporation
09/29/82 ! OAKSITHE FOREST,THE-
FIRST SECOND
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT TYPE SIZE UNIT TYPE SIZE UNIT
: Hillsborough County I Commercial Office
----L_______'~OOOOOO GSF 0
I Orange County : Residential
I i 735 SF 0
; Lee County ! Residential
!1215SF 0
: Retail
, Source, lnc,
08
LAKE BRANDON , Hillsborough County i Office
Florida Corporate Center, [nc, I i 36601100 GSF
i HEADWAY OFFICE P ARi<--~"'-I' Laud~~dale Lakesci;r Office ---
, Ruden McclusJ..-y etal ' 665000 GSF
BERKSHIRE LAKES ----- - !'c~ili~~c~-;;~;;--' Residential
I !
Sunburst Management Corp,
1983-008
10/12182
1-1l~09 r'10/22l82
! 09 1983-0JOlII/04/82
04 1983-0Il I 11115/82
4200 SF
_..~~_.~~.
, FAIRFIELD FT. GEORGE ISLAl\.'D ; Jacksonville CilV ! Residential
i Fairfield Communities_ lnc_ - : 1410 SF
I SALT SPRINGS RUN Pasco County --'~dcntia1
I Pines Enterpriges. Inc, 2363 SF
08 I J 983-0 12
:___L-.........__.___
I 1/16/82
I'. --12/1 Oi82 'w A TERFORD LAKES
, Waterford Commercial Land Joint
I Vennrre
r-;2!lO/82 T@WSMYRNABEACHMARINA
I I Ponce de Leon Inlet and Port
I I Authority
12115/82 I SOUTHPOINT OFFICE & LIGHT
, INDUSTRIAL PARK
I
, Gate Petroleum Company
.T----~
I Orange Counly
I Ne"-:-S;;';;~; Beach
: Marina
176 SL
I
06
1983-013
, Residential
I 6877 SF
!
06
1983-014
04
1983-015
I Jacksonville Beach I Office
1___ ___ I_I 86000,0 9S~~_~
Pan Samt LUClC Cltl Commcrcial
441000 GSF ,0
10
1983,016
01/3 Jl83
TO\VN CENTRE
RJ'vfC Realty Companies
J
Monday, July 14,2008
AIlA STATUS LIST
Attachment G
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
STATUS
I Approved with Conditions
I A pprov~d with Conditions
,
Approved with Conditions
Approved with Conditions
'0
10
1
,
I Retail
375000 GSF
!
I Approved with Conditions-
NOPC Withdrawn
: Approved with Conditions
[0
; Retail
! 358000 GSF
i
,
i Project Abandoned
i
, Approved with Conditions
--,
1
i
o
-r
10
I
I Approved with Conditions
i
j.------.
I Pending NOPC
I
i
______J:ending ~_OPC
I
Page 33 of 10 I
Agenda Item No, 8B
October 28, 2008
Page 191 of 193
.--
-:::-:~.~,~!t~\:~;~~~:m:
Co'l'lzer County
",-,--~~-.....",,--,..-*"'--..........~...,,--,-~-
Memorandum
To:
Melissa Zone, Principal Planner, Zoning & land Development Review
Department
From:
Beth Yang, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department
Date:
April 28, 2008
Subject:
Future land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review
PETITION NUMBER: DRICLO-2008-AR-13181
PETITION NAME: Berkshire Lakes DRI
REQUEST: This is an application for a DRI closeout. The applicant also requests to
add additional commercial square footage to the remaining vacant land and surplus
parking lying within the commercial areas of the Berkshire Lakes DRI project.
lOCATION: The 1093:t acre site is located on the west side of Santa Barbara Blvd,
between Davis Blvd. (SR 84) and Radio Road (CR 856), on the east and west sides of
Santa Barbara Blvd, between Davis Blvd and 1-75 and north of 1-75, in Section 32 and
33, Township 49 South, Range 26 East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated
Urban (Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, a portion of the site is within a
residential density band and Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center
Subdistrict #6), as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management
Plan.
The 1093:t acre Berkshire Lakes Planned Unit DevelopmenU DRI was approved in 1983
for 4,200 dwelling units and a maximum of 375,000 square feet of commercial
development on 42.5 acres. It was amended in 1994 but the total commercial and
residential intensity did not change. The existing commercial development within the
project thus far consists of a total of 371,212 square feet of space, 204,729 square feet
of which is retail shopping space, 37,320 square feet of which is general office space,
and 129,163 square feet of which is self-storage mini warehouse space (located in
Activity Center #6). The petitioner requests to add additional 14,000 square feet of
1
P,genda Item No, 88
October 28, 2008
Page 192 of 193
newly constructed Office Development, 56,000 square feet of newly constructed Retail
and Service Development and 3,100 square feet of additional retail sales facilities in
connection with the expansion and redevelopment of an existing Mobile Gas Station
Retail Convenience Store on the previously developed commercial property within
Berkshire Commons, all located outside of the Activity Center in the Urban Residential
Subdistrict.
Total Commercial Square Footage:
371,212 SOFT Existing
14,000 SOFT New Office
56,000 SOFT New Retail and Service
3,100 SOFT Additional Retail to existing Mobile Gas Station Expansion
TOTAL: 444,312 SOFT Commercial vs. DRI Cap of 375,000 SQFT
The final commercial square footage is 444,312, which exceeds the maximum square
footage allowed for this particular DRI. In a phone conversation with the applicant's
agent, he stated that the self-storage mini warehouse space should be considered
industrial square footage instead of commercial. However, Industrial uses are not
shown in the DRI Development Order or PUD document and the project does not
qualify under the FLUE for industrial zoning or uses.
The approved 4,200 residential dwelling units are consistent with the Density Rating
System in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The commercial development located
within Activity Center #6 (self-storage mini warehouses and offices) is consistent with
the Activity Center Subdistrict. Most of the DRI's commercial development, located in
the northwest and southwest quadrants of Radio Road/Santa Barbara Blvd., is not
consistent with the Urban Residential Subdistrict in which it lies. However, during
implementation of the zoning re-evaluation program in the early 1990s, this project was
granted an Exemption by virtue of its DRI status. Pursuant to FLUE Policy 5,10, the DRI
is deemed consistent with the FLUE to the extent of Exemption granted. This Exemption
protected the "Non-Conforming" commercial portion of the PUD/DRI from being
downzoned to a consistent, conforming zoning (e,g. low density residential). The
Exemption and Policy 5,10, do not allow for an increase in use intensity, either
commercial acreage or building square feet, beyond that approved in the PUD/DRI at
the time the Exemption was granted,
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land
area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning and Land
Development Review as part of their review of the petition in its entirety.
Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning Staff finds the proposed DRI
closeout that includes commercial square footage increase inconsistent with the Future
Land Use Element.
PET!TION ON CD PLUS
cc: Susan Murray, AICP, Zoning and Land Development Review Department Director
2
Agenda Item No, 8B
October 28, 2008
Page 193 of 193
Randy Cohen, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Department Director
David Weeks, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Department Manager
Ray Bellows, Zoning and Land Development Review Department Manager
3