Loading...
Agenda 07/22/2008 Item # 8FAgenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 1 of 513 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PUD2r2006 -AR -9486, Charles S. Faller, III, of FFT Santa Barbara I, LLC and FFT Santa Barbara II, LLC represented by D. Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P.A., requesting a PUD rezone from C -2 and C -4 zoning districts to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) to be known as Freestate CPUD. The 16.8± acre site is proposed to permit 150,000 square feet of commercial development. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard (SR -84) in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider an application to rezone the subject property as noted above and to review staff's findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and render a decision regarding the subject application. CONSIDERATIONS: The subject site is currently undeveloped. This site was also the subject of a rezone petition from Agriculture to the C -2 and C -4 Zoning Districts in 1999. Ordinance No. 99 -19 provides for a 60- foot wide landscape buffer along the west property line with no structure to be located within 125 feet of the west property line. In addition, the maximum building height with the original rezoning is 35 feet. This Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Ordinance proposes a maximum of 150,000 square feet of retail, office, and professional and business service uses. The CPUD document is consistent with the Activity Center #6 of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), which the subject property is totally contained within. The buildings will have a zoned height of 35 feet and an actual height of 45 feet. The landscape buffer along the west property line will be 20 feet wide except for along the well site easement, that buffer will be 15 feet wide. The Conceptual Master Plan in this petition depicts building areas, parking and driveway areas, pedestrian circulation areas, landscape areas and water management areas. The Conceptual Master Plan also shows that 1433± acres will be commercial area and 2.5± acres along the west boundary of the site will be set aside as a preserve area, an area that is contiguous to an existing preserve area on the adjacent property. The site will be accessed by one access point at Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and two access points at Santa Barbara Boulevard. FISCAL IMPACT: The CPUD rezone by and of itself, will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development. However, if the CPUD rezone is approved, a portion of the land could be developed and the new development will result in an impact on public facilities. Page 1 of 9 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 2 of 513 The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay 50 percent of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees and utility fees associated with connecting to the County's water and sewer system. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict), the site is located within Activity Center #6, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict permits the full array of commercial uses allowed in G1 through C -5 Zoning Districts and up to 16 residential units per gross acre may be permitted. In addition, Activity Center #6 is specifically designated as an Activity Center that is eligible for up to 100 percent, or any combinations thereof, of each of the following uses: commercial, residential and /or community facilities. Transportation Element: The Freestate CPUD application is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. The adjacent roadway network is scheduled to have sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the five -year planning period. Davis Boulevard Impacts: The proposed development produces 170 p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips on Davis Boulevard (SR 84) between County Barn Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard, which represents a significant impact of 6.6 percent on the first link. Davis Boulevard (SR 84) has a service volume of 2,575 trips, with a remaining capacity of 568 trips, and is currently at a Level of Service "D" (LOS "D "). The project proposes 85 p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips on Davis Boulevard (SR 84) east of Santa Barbara Boulevard, which represent a significant impact of 5.6 percent. This segment of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) has a service volume of 1,530 trips and is currently over capacity and operating at LOS "F ". However, Davis Boulevard (CR 84) is scheduled for improvements in the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT's) 5 -year work program, and is scheduled for construction in 2011/2012. Davis Boulevard (SR 84) is planned to have available capacity within the 5 -year planning period as improvements to the restricted segment(s) from Santa Barbara Boulevard and Radio Road (CR 856), and from Radio Road (CR 856) to Collier Boulevard (CR 95 1) are made. Page 2 of 9 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 3 of 513 Santa Barbara Boulevard Impacts: The project's proposed impacts on the future Santa Barbara Extension are proposed to be 102 p.m. peak hour trips. Service capacity has not been determined for this proposed 6 -lane divided roadway extension at this time, but the roadway is planned to operate at a minimum of LOS "D" once open. The project proposes 79 p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips on Santa Barbara Boulevard north of Davis Boulevard (CR 84) which represents a significant impact of 2.4 percent. Santa Barbara Boulevard north of Davis Boulevard (CR 84) is currently under construction, and has a service volume of 3,250 trips, with a remaining capacity of 1,865 trips. This segment of Santa Barbara Boulevard is planned to operate at LOS "B" upon completion in mid 2009. The petitioner has provided mitigation in the form of a 100 -foot right -of -way dedication along the CPUD easterly boundary for the future extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard. Therefore, this project can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: The Project as proposed is consistent with the policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME), for the following reasons: Policy 6.1.1: A total of 2.57± acre (15 percent) of the site will be set aside as a preserve area with a conservation easement prohibiting further development. The preserve area is adjacent to the preserve bordering the property in Falling Waters. Selection of preservation areas are consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1. of the COME. Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2: Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required by Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. of the CCME. Agency permits will be required at the time of SDP /Construction Plan submittal. Policy 7.1.2: A listed species and Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) survey was conducted on the property; no listed species, or their signs, were observed on the property during the survey. No Red Cockaded Woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) were observed during the Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) survey process. The property was surveyed for all listed species, including wading birds. The RCW surveys were conducted for one hour after sunrise and ending four hours past sunrise at randomly located observations stations over the entire site. Sufficient time was spent during the RCW survey process to meet Policy 7.1.2 of the CCME and the wading bird survey requirements. Page 3 of 9 Agenda Item No. BF July 22, 2008 Page 4 of 513 Policy 11.1.2: In accordance with Policy 11.1.2 of the CCME, correspondence has been received from the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources (DHR) regarding historical, archaeological, or cultural resources that may be present on the Project. No significant archaeological or historical resources are recorded within the Project area. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed rezone to PUD may be deemed consistent with the applicable elements of the GMP. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT: No affordable housing commitments have been made. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the CPUD document to address any environmental concerns. As noted in the "Environmental Advisory Staff Report," Staff recommends approval subject to the submittal of an Approved Preserve Management Plan and Conservation Easement, a Florida Black Bear Management Plan, a Big Cypress Squirrel Protective Plan, a Big Cypress Squirrel Survey, and a Full nesting and foraging RCW Survey, unless written technical assistance from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) or US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is provided. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) heard this petition on April 2, 2008, and voted unanimously to approve it with the following Staff stipulations 1 thru 4 and with a minor revision to stipulation 5: The following items will be required prior to the SDP approval: 1) Approved Preserve Management Plan and conservation easement 2) Florida Black Bear Management Plan 3) Big Cypress Squirrel Protective Plan The following items will be provided prior to vegetation removal: 4) Big Cypress Squirrel Survey 5) Full nesting and foraging RCW Survey, unless written technical assistance from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) or US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is provided The EAC had also recommended that the word "and" is changed to "or" as stated in stipulation 5 above. The petitioner has added the above stipulations to CPUD Exhibit F "List of Developer Commitments." COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION• The CCPC heard petition PUDZ- 2006 -AR -9486 on June 27, 2008, and they voted unanimously (9 -0) to forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions. The status of each condition within the PUD document is shown in parenthetical italicized text. Page 4 of 9 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 5 of 513 1. The masonry wall shown on the Master Plan shall be extended east along the south property line to a future connection point so that it shall connect to the future Santa Barbara sound wall. (This change has been incorporated into CPUD document Exhibit F "List of Developer Commitments" under 'Landscape" Item 43. and Exhibit C "Conceptual Master Plan.') 2. Phase 1 shall include the buffers and temporary fencing for security purposes as shown on the exhibit earlier at the CCPC meeting. (This change has been incorporated into PUD document Exhibit F "List of Developer- Commitments" under "Planning "Item S.D. and CPUD document Exhibit "Temporary Security Fence.') 3. If the Santa Barbara tum lanes into the project are constructed by Collier County then the petitioner shall reimburse Collier County for the turn lanes. (This change has been incorporated into CPUD document Exhibit F "List of Developer Commitments" under "Transportation " Item 2.C.) 4. In Exhibit A "Permitted Uses" A.1., Group 7996 shall be omitted. (This change has been incorporated into CPUD document Exhibit A "Permitted Uses" Item A.1) Add a general note regarding no outdoor uses except for those submitted by the Developer. (This change has been incorporated into CPUD document Exhibit A "Permitted Uses" Item A.10. and Item 33 where outdoor uses are further defined.) 5. In Exhibit A "Permitted Uses" A.9., Group 6011 shall be omitted. The list of Groups shall be from 6021 to 6099. (This change has been incorporated into CPUD document Exhibit A 'Permitted Uses "Item A.9) 6. In Exhibit A "Permitted Uses" A.10., Group 5813 shall be omitted. (This change has been incorporated into CPUD document Exhibit 'Permitted Uses "Item A.10) 7. In Exhibit A "Permitted Uses" B.1., remove "canopies" as it is a structure, not a use. Add outdoor seating and the same noise exclusions as listed in A.10. (This change has been incorporated into CPUD document Exhibit A "Permitted Uses "Item B.1) 8. In Exhibit A "Accessory Uses" omit B.4. "Temporary sewage treatment facilities." (This change has been incorporated into CPUD document Exhibit A 'Permitted Uses "Item B) 9. Deviation I shall apply only to the first floor, facades facing the preserve of the two southernmost buildings. (This change along with an alternative proposal has been incorporated into CPUD document Exhibit E "List of Requested Deviations " Deviation 1) Page 5 of 9 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 6 of 513 10. In Exhibit F "List of Developer Commitments" under "Utilities" omit I.A. 1 and 2 unless impact fee credits are granted or fair market value is paid for the land. (This change has been incorporated into CPUD document Exhibit F "List of Developer Commitments" Item LA) 11. In Exhibit F "List of Developer Commitments" under "Transportation" add language stating that the Developer may apply for Certificates of Occupancy (as opposed to the stated "Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued "). (This change has been incorporated into CPUD document Exhibit F "List of Developer Commitments" under "Transportation" Item 2.8) 12. In Exhibit F "List of Developer Commitments" under "Environmental' omit the requirement for a Black Bear Management Plan. (This change has not been incorporated into CPUD document. The applicant is prepared to submit the plan) 13. In Exhibit F "List of Developer Commitments" under "Landscape" in reference to the clear trunk heights of the sabal palms, change 10 -foot to 12-foot. (This change has been incorporated into CPUD document Exhibit F "List of Developer Commitments" under "Landscape " Item 4.A.) The petitioner presented PUD Exhibit revisions to the CCPC after the above conditions of approval were made. Additional conditions of approval were made by the CCPC and they are as follows: 14. In Exhibit A "Permitted Uses" Item A.10. and Item B.L the language was revised to add that the seating area shall close at 11:00 p.m. (This change has been incorporated into CPUD document Exhibit A 'Permitted Uses" Item A.10. and Item B.1) 15. In Exhibit E "List of Requested Deviations" Deviation #1 has been revised to include new fagade references, glazing and menu selection options. (This change has been incorporated into CPUD document Exhibit E "List of Requested Deviations" Deviation #1) 16. In Exhibit F "List of Developer Commitments" correct the reference to the County. (This change has been incorporated into CPUD document Exhibit F "List of Developer Commitments Item LA) The applicant has also added language to clarify that the convenience store car wash will be a one stall car wash as was discussed at the CCPC hearing. (This clarification has been incorporated into Exhibit A "Permitted Uses " Item A. 4) The applicant has also included all of the previous stated Staff recommendations from the Staff Report in the CRUD Exhibits. Therefore, those Staff Recommendations are no longer being requested by Staff. Page 6 of 9 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 7 of 513 Staff is in agreement with all of the above recommendations of the CCPC except for the omission of the Black Bear Management Plan, because the Black Bear Management Plan is required by the GMP. However, the applicant is prepared to submit the plan, so no change was made to the CPUD Exhibit by the applicant. A representative from the Falling Waters Home Owners Association read a letter supporting the Freestate CPUD to the CCPC. However, because of the 178 letters of objection that have been received, this petition can not be placed on the Summary Agenda. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site specific rezone from the Commercial Convenience (C -2) and General Commercial (C -4) Zoning Districts to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Freestate CPUD. Site specific rezones are quasi- judicial in nature. As such the burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it consider denying the rezone, to determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below. Criteria for CPUD Rezones: Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall he made only after consultation with the county attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed CPUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. 4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? Page 7 of 9 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 8 of 513 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with CPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. 9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP? 10. Will the proposed CPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested CPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? 12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. Page 8 of 9 Agenda Item No, 8F July 22, 2008 Page 9 of 513 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ( "reasonably ") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed CPUD rezone on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.106, art.II], as amended. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the CPUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. This item is legally sufficient for Board action. (MMSS) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve Petition PUDZ- 2006 -AR -9486 subject to the CPUD document attached to the ordinance of adoption. PREPARED BY: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Page 9 of 9 Page I of 2 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 10 of 513 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: 8F Item Summary: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members: Petition: PUDZ - 2006 -AR -9486 Charles S. Faller, III, of FFT Santa Barbara I, LLC and FFT Santa Barbara II, LLC represented by D. Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates. P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P.A., requesting a PUD rezone from C -2 and C -4 zoning districts to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) to be known as Freestate CPUD. The 16.8 acre site is proposed to permit 150,000 square feet of commercial development. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Meeting Date: 7122/2008 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner Date Community Development 8 Zoning 8 Land Development Review 71212008 4:55:51 PM Environmental Services Approved By Judy Puig Operations Analyst Date Community Development & Community Development 8 7(3!2008 4:31 PM Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. Approved By Nick Casalanguida MPO Director Date Transportation Services Transportation Planning 7/7/2008 4:22 PM Approved By Ray Bellows Chief Planner Date Community Development & Zoning &Land Development Review 71712008 5:59 PM Environmental Services Approved By Community Development& Joseph K. Schmitt Environmental Services Adminstrator Date Community Development & Community Development & 71812008 9:53 AM Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. Approved By Marjorie M. Student - Stirling Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 71812008 11:29 AM Approved By Susan Murray, AICP Zoning & Land Development Director Date Community Development & Zoning & Land Development Review 7/812008 2:51 PM file: / /C: \AgendaTest\Export\1 I I - July% 2022% 202008 \08.%20ADVERTISED %20PUBLIC... 7/15/2008 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 11 of 513 Environmental Services Approved By OMB Coordinator OMB Coordinator Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 7/9/2008 3:29 PM Approved By Mark Isackson Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 7/8/2008 5:04 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 7/9/2008 4:50 PM file://C:\AgendaTest \Export\ 11 I - July %2022% 202008 \08. %20AD VERTISED %20PLTBLIC... 7/15/2008 Co ev County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: HEARING DATE SUBJECT: ACIMV#g2; -2,08 Page 12 of 513 DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION JUNE 27, 2008 PETITION PUDZ- 2006 -AR -9486 — FREESTATE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) APPLICANT /OWNER: Mr. Charles Faller, III FFT Santa Barbara I, LLC and FFC Santa Barbara II, LLC 5307 Randolph Road Rockville, MD 20852 -2121 AGENT: Mr. D. Wayne Arnold Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 REOUESTED ACTION: Mr, Richard D. Yovanovich Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of the subject 16.81 acre site from the C -2 and C -4 Commercial Zoning Districts to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Freestate CPUD. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at the southwestern corner of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and the future extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (See location map on the following page.) FREESTATE CPUD AR -9486 FREESTATE STAFF REPORT 6 -11 -D8 Page 1 of 18 LL r m w (=) — o In C4 0 Z ENm N CL cQ 0 Z z 0 N rmil z 0 0 —j oa ol -4L- Ila Lj L I It -- ----- vYm k- g. gq ILI 9118 voyaws vim modoH4 -1 fit leg Li smu YWIIT/l CL cQ 0 Z z 0 N rmil z 0 0 —j oa ol -4L- Ila Lj L I It -- ----- vYm k- g. gq ILI -1 fit leg CL cQ 0 Z z 0 N rmil z 0 0 —j oa LL CO m � CD 'QN O 4.,t � r T � `=gym c a Q } roaninwaeaan � N � g S a — varmeaw Aevmme nomx.� k � A r 0 0 -- 0 0 xi 0 0 0 0 v- 0�0 0 ©0 0 0 a 0 0 ' a o I e� e O Oil •wine ttasomgsEn - I _ -_ _ � -pQ 6 UAW RW AAR _________ ------------------------ - __ d yy 55$ O R L__- ------------------- _____ ---------------------- w 9C --------------------------------------------------- R w u yy 5g � Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 15 of 513 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject site is currently undeveloped. This site was also the subject of a rezone petition from Agriculture to the C -2 and C -4 Zoning Districts in 1999 as described in Ordinance No. 99 -19 and included as Attachment 3. The Ordinance provides for a 60 -foot wide landscape buffer along the west property line with no structure to be located within 125 feet of the west property line. In addition, the maximum building height with the original rezoning is 35 feet. This Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Ordinance proposes a maximum of 150,000 square feet of retail, office, and professional and business service uses. The CPUD document is consistent with the Activity Center 46 of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), which the subject property is totally contained within. The buildings will have a zoned height of 35 feet and an actual height of 45 feet. The landscape buffer along the west property line will be 20 feet wide except for along the well site easement, that buffer will be 15 feet wide. The Conceptual Master Plan in this petition depicts building areas, parking and driveway areas, pedestrian circulation areas, landscape areas and water management areas. The Conceptual Master Plan also shows that 14.3± acres will be commercial area and 2.5f acres along the west boundary of the site will be set aside as a preserve area, an area that is contiguous to an existing preserve area on the adjacent property. The site will be accessed by one access point at Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and two access points at Santa Barbara Boulevard. Five deviations are being sought as part of this CPUD rezoning petition. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Davis Boulevard (SR 84) then commercial areas of Berkshire Lakes PUD(DRI, a developed residential and commercial PUD East: The future extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard (200 feet of right -of -way), then undeveloped Agricultural zoned land with the proposed commercial portion of Taormina Reserve MPUD, a mixed -use development South: Falling Waters PUD, a multi- family residential PUD West: Falling Waters PUD, a multi- family residential PUD. Approximately 50 percent of the area along the shared property Iine with the Freestate CPUD is within a preserve area. FREESTATE CPUD AR -8468 FREESTATE STAFF REPORT 6 -11 -08 Page 4 of 18 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 16 of 513 Aerial Photo GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict), the site is located within Activity Center #6, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict permits the full array of commercial uses allowed in C -1 through C -5 Zoning Districts and up to 16 residential units per gross acre may be permitted. In addition, Activity Center 46 is specifically designated as an Activity Center that is eligible for up to 100 percent, or any combinations thereof, of each of the following uses: commercial, residential and/or community facilities. The Mixed Use Activity Center also states, in part: "Mixed Use Activity Centers are untended to be mixed -use in character. The actual mix of the various land uses... shall be determined during the rezoning process based on considerations of the factors set -forth in the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict." FREESTATE CPUD AR -9486 FREESrATE STAFF REPORT 6 -11 -08 Page 5 of 18 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 17 of 513 "Mixed -use developments - whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building are allowed. Such mixed -use projects are intended to be developed at a human- scale, pedestrian- oriented, and interconnected with adjacent projects - whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with adjacent properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged. Density is calculated based upon the gross acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed -Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, and is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density is 16 units per acre." The total project acreage is approximately 19.7 acres and lies completely within the Activity Center boundaries. Approximately 2.9 acres is reserved for the future Santa Barbara Boulevard right -of -way. Factors to consider during review of a rezone petition are as follows; • Rezones within Mixed -Use Activity Centers are encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. There shall be no minimum acreage limitation for such Planned Unit Developments except requests for rezoning must meet the requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code. (This project is submitted as a Commercial Planned Unit Development.) • The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, within the Mixed -Use Activity Center and within two road miles of Mixed -Use Activity Center. (The proposed development is located within Activity Center 96. The defined area contains supermarkets, convenience stores, institutional uses and various other retail uses that are consistent with the C -2 and C -5 Commercial Zoning Districts. In addition, the subject site is currently zoned C -2 and C -4.) • Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses. (No market study was submitted with this application nor required by staff, as the site is presently zoned C -2 and C -4. Further, the CPUD Ordinance proposes retail, office, professional and business service uses, most of which are allowed in C -2 and C -4 Zoning Districts.) Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial miles. (There is a variety of existing land uses within Activity Center #6 and inclusive of two radial miles, including commercial, residential single- family, residential multi - family, institutional (e,g, church, school, government uses) and mixed -use.) • Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads. (Project proposes access to Davis Boulevard and the future Santa Barbara Boulevard extension. The Transportation Planning Department will review this petition for adequate road capacity.) FREESTATE CPUD AR -9486 FREESTATE STAFF REPORT 6.11 -08 Page 6 of 18 Agenda Item No. 817 July 22, 2008 Page 18 of 513 Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties. (Comprehensive Planning staff defers the compatibility determination to the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of this petition in its entirety. However, the CPUD Master Plan proposes the commercial component to front along Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard extension. The preservation area is proposed to abut the Falling Waters PUD to the west.) • Natural or man -made constraints. (The site contains some wetlands, which will be preserved.) + Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code (LDC). (Comprehensive Planning defers to the Zoning and Land Development Review Department for this review.) • Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers contained in the LDC. (Comprehensive Planning defers to the Transportation Planning Department for review of access and traffic circulation issues and requirements,) • Coordinate traffic flow on -site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan/master plan indicating on -site traffic movements, access point location and type, median opening locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s), and internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections. (Detailed traffic review is performed by the Transportation Planning Department.) Interconnection(s) for pedestrian, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future adjacent projects. (The project proposes vehicular and pedestrian interconnects between the commercial components of the project, but does not propose any interconnections to the adjacent Falling Waters PUD, which is a fully developed, gated community to which a physical interconnect is not possible.) Conformance with architectural design standards as identified in the LDC, (Exhibit B "Development Standards," provides that standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the Site Development Plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. Further, this review is made by the Zoning and Land Development Review Department staff.) 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. However, staff would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses /densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or FREESTATE CPUD AR -9466 FREESTATE STAFF REPORT 6 -11 -06 Page 7 of 18 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 19 of 513 nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (The CPUD Master Plan depicts access to Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension, also provided in the Project Narrative and Growth Management Consistency document,) Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (Provided for in the GMP narrative, though not fully explained. However, the CPUD Master Plan depicts internal connection between the commercial components.) Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection point with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. (The CPUD does not provide for interconnections with adjoining developments. The only adjacent development is Falling Waters PUD, which is a fully developed, gated community to which a physical interconnect is not possible, given its' development status. This is addressed in the revised Growth Management narrative.) Transportation Element: The Freestate CPUD application is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. The adjacent roadway network is scheduled to have sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the five -year planning period. Davis Boulevard Imuaets: The proposed development produces 170 p.m, peak hour, peak direction trips on Davis Boulevard (SR 84) between County Barn Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard, which represents a significant impact of 6.6 percent on the first link. Davis Boulevard (SR 84) has a service volume of 2,575 trips, with a remaining capacity of 568 trips, and is currently at a Level of Service "D" (LOS "D "). The project proposes 85 p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips on Davis Boulevard (SR 84) east of Santa Barbara Boulevard, which represent a significant impact of 5.6 percent. This segment of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) has a service volume of 1,530 trips and is currently over capacity and operating at LOS "F ". However, Davis Boulevard (CR 84) is scheduled for improvements in the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT's) 5 -year work program, and is scheduled for FREESTATE CPUD AR -9486 FREESTATE STAFF REPORT 6 -11 -08 Page 8 of 18 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 20 of 513 construction in 2011/2012. Davis Boulevard (SR 84) is planned to have available capacity within the 5 -year planning period as improvements to the restricted segment(s) from Santa Barbara Boulevard and Radio Road (CR 856), and from Radio Road (CR 856) to Collier Boulevard (CR 95 1) are made. Santa Barbara Boulevard Impacts: The project's proposed impacts on the future Santa Barbara Extension are proposed to be 102 p.m. peak hour trips. Service capacity has not been determined for this proposed 4 -lane divided roadway extension at this time, but the roadway is planned to operate at a minimum of LOS "D" once open. The project proposes 79 p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips on Santa Barbara Boulevard north of Davis Boulevard (CR 84) which represents a significant impact of 2.4 percent. Santa Barbara Boulevard north of Davis Boulevard (CR 84) is currently under construction, and has a service volume of 3,250 trips, with a remaining capacity of 1,865 trips. This segment of Santa Barbara Boulevard is planned to operate at LOS "B" upon completion later this year. The petitioner has provided mitigation in the form of a 100 -foot right-of-way dedication along the CPUD easterly boundary for the future extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard. Therefore, this project can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: The Project as proposed is consistent with the policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME), for the following reasons: Policy 6.1.1• A total of 2.57} acre (15 percent) of the site will be set aside as a preserve area with a conservation easement prohibiting further development. The preserve area is adjacent to the preserve bordering the property in Falling Waters. Selection of preservation areas are consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1. of the COME. Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2: Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required by Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. of the CCME. Agency permits will be required at the tune of SDP /Construction Plan submittal. Policy 7.1.2: A listed species and Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) survey was conducted on the property; no listed species, or their signs, were observed on the property during the survey. No Red Cockaded Woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) were observed during the Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) survey process. The property was surveyed for all listed species, including wading birds. The RCW surveys were conducted for one hour after sunrise and ending four hours past sunrise at randomly located observations stations over the entire site. Sufficient time was spent during the RCW survey process to meet Policy 7.1.2 of the CCME and the wading bird survey requirements. FREESTATE CPU AR -9486 FREESTATE STAFF REPORT 6 -11 -08 Page 9 of 18 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 21 of 513 Policy 11.1.2: In accordance with Policy 11. 1.2 of the CCME, correspondence has been received from the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources (DI -IR) regarding historical, archaeological, or cultural resources that may be present on the Project. No significant archaeological or historical resources are recorded within the Project area. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed rezone to CPUD may be deemed consistent with the applicable elements of the GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria upon which a favorable determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Sections 10.02.13 and 10,02,13.B.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) and required Staff evaluation and comment. The staff evaluation establishes a factual basis to support the recommendations of staff. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the Staff Report (See Attachments 1 and 2). Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the CPUD Ordinance to address any environmental concerns. As noted in the attached Attachment 3 "Environmental Advisory Staff Report," Staff recommends approval of the following items which are to be provided prior to the SDP approval: 1) Approved Preserve Management Plan and Conservation Easement 2) Florida Black Bear Management Plan 4) Big Cypress Squirrel Protective Plan Staff also recommends approval of the following items which are to be provided prior to vegetation removal: 3) Big Cypress Squirrel Survey 5) Full nesting and foraging RCW Survey, unless written technical assistance form Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) or US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is provided. Transportation Review: Transportation Department Staff has reviewed this petition and the documents that accompany this request, Staff recommends approval with the following conditions which have been included in the Staff recommendations for approval: 1) If the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension is completed prior to application for CO within this CPUD, then payment in lieu of construction shall be required for the turn lanes serving this project prior to application for CO. 2) The petitioner must pay in lieu for any turn lane(s) being constructed as part of the Davis Boulevard improvements within 120 days of the final adoption of this CPUD. Upon approval of the FREESTATE CPUD AR -9486 FREESTATE STAFF REPORT 6 -11 -08 Page 10 of 18 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 22 of 513 payment amount, payment shall be made to the Collier County Transportation Services Division, attention: Laurie Beard. Utility Review: The Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition and has stated that in accordance with the 2005 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update, this project is located within the Collier County Water - Sewer District. The property also occupies an area of vital importance to the continued supply of potable water for the customers of Collier County Water - Sewer District, as is indicated in the 2005 Water Master Plan Update. The project is located 3 miles west of the existing South County Regional Water Treatment Plant (SCRWTP) and is closer to other well sites located in the area. The request for the well site easement (50 feet by 120 feet) is shown on Exhibit "C" "Master Plan" and in Exhibit "F" "List of Developer Commitments." The Utilities Department Staff has requested that the Freestate CPUD required landscape buffers and walls be located outside of well site easement area. Therefore, the development's required 20 -foot wide Type D landscape buffer and 15 -foot wide Type B landscape buffer shall be located outside of the well easement area. In addition, a minimum 20 -foot wide County Utility Easement (CUE) is required from the Davis Boulevard (SR 84) right -of -way to the well site easement. These requests have been added as a stipulation of approval at the end of this Staff Report. Emergency Management Review: The Freestate CPUD is located in a Category 3 hurricane surge zone. The Emergency Management Department has no issues with its approval. Zoning and Land Development Review: Relationship to Existing and Future Land Uses: A discussion of this relationship, as it applies specifically to Collier County's legal basis for land use planning, refers to the relationship of the uses that would be permitted if the proposed zoning action is approved, to the requirement or limitations set forth in the FLUE of the GMP. The proposed uses, as limited in the CPUD Ordinance, are consistent with the GMP, as previously noted. The actual uses proposed, as limited in the CPUD Ordinance, should be compatible with the land uses that have been developed on adjacent tracts. This site is located on the southwest coiner of an Activity Center, and the northwest corner of the Activity Center contains commercial development in the form of a bank, strip center retail and a mini - storage facility. The northwest corner of the Activity Center contains a gas station and a convenience store. The southwest corner of the Activity Center is currently undeveloped Agricultural zoned land with the proposed commercial portion of the proposed Taormina Reserve MPUD, a mixed -use commercial and residential development. To the south of the site is Falling Waters PUD, a residential PUD which is separated from the site by a proposed 20 foot wide landscape buffer containing an 8 -foot high wall with extensive landscape buffering as depicted in CPUD Exhibit G.3.C. The Falling Waters PUD is also located to the west of the site and it will be buffered by another row of trees in addition to the same landscape buffer treatment as is proposed along the south property line along with a 70 to 225 -foot wide preserve area located along approximately half of the property line. This preserve area is contiguous with the existing preserve area located on the Falling Waters side of the property line. FREESTATE CPUD AR -9486 FREESTATE STAFF REPORT 6.11 -08 Page 11 of 1a Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 23 of 513 Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking five deviations from LDC requirements and has provided justification in support of the deviations. The deviations are found in Exhibit E of the proposed CPUD Ordinance. Staff has analyzed the deviation requests and provides the analyses and recommendations below: Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.05.08.C.9.: "Architectural and Site Design Standards" which requires all exterior facades of the outparcel /freestanding buildings to meet the architectural design treatment for primary facades, The alternative would allow building facades which face the preserve and/or the building facades which do not face a public right of way to be considered as non - primary building facades for the purposes of the application of the architectural and site design standards. The only exception to the alternative are those building facades which are above one story and face Falling Waters PUD. Petitioner's Rationale: The proposed Conceptual Master Plan identifies two buildings which are freestanding buildings and have the rear of the building oriented toward the 2.5+ acre native vegetation preservation area that would not be visible from either Davis Boulevard or Santa Barbara Boulevard. The strict reading of the LDC would require the facade of each of the buildings to be treated as a primary building fagade for purposes of architectural and site design standards. Each building is anticipated to be a multi - tenant building where service and loading will occur, with no public access provided from the rear side of the buildings. Providing window glazing, covered entry features, porte- cochere, or other similar architectural design features are not practical or functional where no public access or view of the building will occur. The buildings will be required to provide transitional massing elements, wall plane changes and other requirements for non - primary facades as required by the LDC. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff does not object to the overall concept proposed in this deviation so long as the deviation is limited to the rear facade and first story of the two freestanding buildings that are oriented towards the 2.5 acre preserve. Staff is recommending approval with the stipulation that all of the freestanding /outparcel building facades, except for the two facades that are directly facing the preserve and that are above one story (all floors above the ground floor), are to be treated as primary facades. In compliance with LDC Subsection 10.02.13.A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community." Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.05.08. E.1,: "Architectural and Site Design Standards" which requires that "no more than 80 percent of the off - street parking for the entire project shall be located between any primary facade of the project and the abutting street .., with no single side to contain more than 65 percent of the required parking." The proposal is to allow the Freestate CPUD to locate up to 90 percent of its parking area between a primary fagade and the abutting street, and a single side to contain no more than 90 percent of the required parking and is graphically depicted in CPUD Exhibit C "Conceptual Master Plan." Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation is necessary to permit the CPUD to be developed consistent with the proposed Conceptual Master Plan. The Master Plan has been developed through a coordinated effort involving Collier County Transportation Staff, the South Florida Water FREESTATE CPUD AR -9486 FREESTATE STAFF REPORT 6 -11 -08 Page 12 of 18 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 24 of 513 Management District (SFWMD) and neighboring residents. The access points to the project were established through a negotiated Developer Contribution Agreement, and an approximately 100 -foot wide strip of land, approximately 2.9f acres in size, was provided to Collier County for the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard. The developable area of the site is irregularly narrow due to the request by Collier County and SFWMD to mirror the established preserve area previously established in the Falling Waters PUD. The resulting preserve shape further results in a narrowed development along the newly created Santa Barbara Boulevard frontage. The applicant has presented a conceptual development plan to Staff and the neighboring property owners that demonstrated the proposed building envelopes, parking areas and buffers /preserve areas. This plan orients the public use areas toward both Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard frontages. The resulting Conceptual Master Plan is balanced to address transportation, environmental and neighborhood issues. The only alternative site design would result in additional parking areas to be provided in closer proximity to the neighboring Falling Water's residents, which the applicant does not believe is the best site design with regard to compatibility. Stafj-Analysis and Recommendation: This is a reasonable deviation that has been applied throughout the County, and does not comprise a risk to public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, Staff is recommending approval of this deviation. Deviation # 3 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.03.02. E.3.: "Fences and Walls" which requires a _ wall to reach a maximum height of 8 feet to allow a 10 -foot high walVberm combination. This wall/berm combination shall only be applicable to that portion of the project area adjacent to the proposed Collier County public well easement and is graphically depicted in PUD Exhibit G - "Bnhanced Landscape Buffer." Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation is justified because until the County has determined the type of potable water well facility it will construct on the site, it is unknown whether a masonry wall will be required. This deviation has been requested to permit the County to install a wall and berm combination if necessary to address Subsections 5.03.02.B.9 and 5.03.02.E.3 without the need to seek a PUD amendment. This deviation to construct a wall with vegetation will permit the County to provide protection for future homeowners within the Falling Waters PUD if determined necessary without the cost and delay of applying for a PUD amendment. The deviation would permit installation of a wall at a maximum height of 10 feet or a combined wall/berm combination of 10 feet in height. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Subsection 10.02.13.A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation # 4 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.03.02. E.Z.: "Fences and Walls" which requires provision of a masonry wall when a nonresidential land use is located adjacent to a residential land use to allow a chain link fence. The chain link fence is to be located where an existing 70 to 225 - FREESTATE CPUD AR -9486 FREESTATE STAFF REPORT 8.11 -08 Page 13 of 18 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 25 of 513 foot wide preserve area separates the nonresidential land use, Freestate CPUD from the residential land use, Falling Waters PUD. This chain link fence is graphically depicted in CPUD Exhibit C "Conceptual Master Plan." Petitioner's Rationale: The deviation is justified due to the extensive native vegetation preservation area lying between the subject property and the Falling Waters PUD, which provides buffering in excess of the otherwise required wall. The Freestate CPUD preserve area varies in width from approximately 70 feet in width at its narrowest dimension to over 200 feet near the southern portion of the preserve. When viewed in conjunction with the Falling Waters preserve area, the total combined width of the two preserves exceeds 500 feet. The developer will be providing a solid wall and enhanced buffer along the other portions of the site as shown in the CPUD exhibits. At the Neighborhood Information Meeting, residents of Falling Waters expressed a desire to have fencing provided for security purposes. The combination of solid wall and chain link fencing will address the security concerns, while meeting the intent of the LDC to provide appropriate buffering between land uses. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff has reviewed the request and recommends approval. There are safeguards contained within Exhibit "A" "Permitted Uses" such as limiting outdoor amplified entertainment and not allowing bar areas with outdoor seating. These safeguards, combined with the depth of the preserve area, mitigate for any potential noise and visual issues. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Subsection 10.02.13.A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community." Deviation # 5 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.06.02 CA. "Buffer Requirements" which requires a 20 -foot wide Type D right -of -way landscape buffer along Davis Boulevard to allow an approximately 225 -foot long, 10 -foot wide landscape buffer in this location as depicted on Exhibit G "Enhanced Landscape Buffer." Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation is warranted due to the FDOT recent notice to the applicant that the proposed sidewalk that will be installed along the south side of Davis Boulevard as part of Collier County's portion of the Davis Boulevard widening cannot be located within an easement within the 20 -foot wide landscape buffer as initially planned. FDOT and Collier County now are requesting that the sidewalk be located solely within the right -of -way. In order to accommodate the request and expedite roadway construction, the applicant has been asked to donate the 10 feet of right -of -way necessary for the sidewalk installation. The applicant has proposed to compensate for the loss of linear buffer planting area by providing an additional hedge along the development side of the perimeter wall located along the south and west property lines to soften the appearance of the wall to the public. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff has reviewed the deviation and the Transportation Department has taken right -of -way to complete the Davis Boulevard roadway widening. However, additional right -of -way is needed for a turn lane and a sidewalk. The Transportation Department is requesting this portion of the proposed landscape buffer FREESTATE CPUD AR -9486 FREESTATE STAFF REPORT 6 -11 -08 Page 14 of 18 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 26 of 513 to accommodate the turn lane and sidewalk. The alternative would still allow for the required plant material to be placed in the landscape buffer area. It would be 10 feet wide instead of 20 feet wide. The purpose of a 20 -foot wide landscape buffer at shopping centers such as this is to mitigate for the large expanse of parking area pavement, However, the frontage along Davis Boulevard is the narrower street frontage of the proposed shopping center, The less massive buildings of the proposed shopping center are located along this frontage and the parking lot is not as deep along this street frontage as is along the Santa Barbara street frontage. To mitigate for the loss of this landscape buffer, the petitioner is proposing to add an additional hedge that faces the shopping center parking areas and public right -of -ways along the perimeter wall that separates this development from Falling Waters. (See CPUD Exhibit G "Enhanced Landscape Buffer. ") Staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIMI: Synopsis provided by Linda Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator: The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM at Calusa Park Elementary School cafeteria on October 2, 2007, 5:30 pm. Approximately 70 neighbors attended, as well as the agent's team and county staff. The following remarks, concerns and questions were expressed before the agents /applicant. One neighboring Falling Waters residents stated, "We want a wall between Falling Waters and this development for noise, security and buffering." Mr. Wayne Arnold, agent for the petitioner stated, "We can certainly consider that" A resident of Falling Waters remarked that Falling Waters is gated. However, there are no walls around the gate. Another neighbor stated, "We don't want interconnection." Another resident, "This (proposal) is completely out of character and I'm opposed to anything over single story or high- rise." Mr. Ray McCabe, President of the Falling Waters Home Owner's Association stated, "For the record, only about 20 percent of Falling Waters residents are here right now." Mr. Rich Yovanovich, agent for applicant replied that the CCPC public hearing will be held sometime around January of 2008 and the BCC public hearing will be held sometime around March of 2008. Other concerns that were voiced included noise, hours of operation, and light saturation, Objections were raised towards the proposed 50 foot building height. A comment was made as to whether there would be a "disco or free - standing bar." Mr. Arnold stated there were no plans for any bars. There was also a negative comment regarding deliveries that occur until 1 or 2 in the morning. The agent and the developer made the following commitments: there will be 150,000 square feet of commercial development on approximately 15 acres of land. At the corner intersection of Davis -- Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard there is a commitment to a pharmacy. There will be eating FREESTATE CPUD AR -9486 FREESTATE STAFF REPORT 6 -11 -08 Page 15 of 18 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 27 of 513 establishments, a bank, and offices. There will not be any drug rehabilitation centers on this site. Regarding the heights of the buildings, there will be two, 4 -story office buildings not to exceed 50 feet height and two buildings not to exceed 35 feet height. Regarding the roadways, the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard will be 6 -lanes and have sidewalks. There will be three access points into the development, one from Davis Boulevard and two fiom Santa Barbara Boulevard. These access points will be restricted to right -in and right -out only. The construction of this project will begin in 2008. Mr. Arnold offered to meet with the Falling Waters Master Association Board. The meeting concluded at approximately 6:20 p.m. To date, 178 letters of objection fiom the Falling Waters residents have been received, The objections are primarily to the proposed landscape buffering, building heights and a general appeal to adhere to the standards that were adopted with the 1999 rezoning of the property. That rezoning limited the building heights to 35 feet and no buildings within 125 feet of the western property line, provided for a 60 wide landscape buffer along the western property line, and limited the land uses to C -2 and C -4. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) heard this petition on April 2, 2008, and voted unanimously to approve it with the following Staff stipulations 1 thru 4 and with a minor revision to stipulation 5: The following items will be required prior to the SDP approval: 1) Approved Preserve Management Plan and conservation easement 2) Florida Black Bear Management Plan 3) Big Cypress Squirrel Protective Plan The following items will be provided prior to vegetation removal: 4) Big Cypress Squirrel Survey 5) Full nesting and foraging RCW Survey, unless written technical assistance form Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) or US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is provided The EAC had also recommended that the word "and " is changed to "or" as stated in stipulation 5 above. The petitioner has added the above stipulations to CPUD Exhibit F "List of Developer Commitments." RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ- 2006 -AR -9486 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that the rezoning request from the C -2 and C -4 Commercial Zoning District to CPUD be approved with the following stipulations 1 through 4 and with a stipulation of approval for the revised Deviation I below: FREESTATE CPUD AR -9486 FREESTATE STAFF REPORT 6 -11 -08 Page 16 of 18 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 28 of 513 1) I£ the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension is completed prior to application for CO within this CPUD, then payment in lieu of construction shall be required for the turn lanes serving this project. 2) The petitioner must pay in lieu for any turn lane(s) being constructed as part of the Davis Boulevard improvements within 120 days of the final adoption of this PUD. Upon approval of the payment amount, payment shall be made to the Collier County Transportation Services Division, attention: Laurie Beard. 3) The side of the 8 -foot height west perimeter wall facing towards the Freestate development shall be planted with a single row, 3- gallon, 24 -inch height hedge 3 feet on center. The following shall be provided to the Utilities reviewer prior to PPL /SDP approval: 4) The development's required 20 -foot wide Type D landscape buffer and 15 -foot wide Type B landscape buffer shall be located outside of the well easement area and a 20 -foot wide access easement shall be provided between Davis Boulevard and the well site. In addition, a minimum 20- foot wide County Utility Easement (CUE) is required from the Davis Boulevard right -of -way to the well site easement. Stipulated Approval of revised Deviation 1 which states: All of the freestanding/outparcel building facades, except for the facades that are directly facing the preserve and that are above one story (all floors above the ground floor), are to be treated as primary facades. FREESTATE CPUD AR -9486 FREESTATE STAFF REPORT 6.11 -08 Page 17 of 18 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 29 of 513 PREPARED BY: NANCY H, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPAR ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: �� ` ��2n.ctLocz . �"i • aQC.�,re.22v� -�' ¢�.� -�sr i9 — (o —U 8 MARJOWEM . STUD -NT- STIRLING U DATE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY 6 q Og RAYMC6KD V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW S, AI'CP, DIRECTOR DATE OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: 0 J PH K. SCHMITT ADMINISTRATOR 1 DYFE MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION J4co, J. L' ��% &—, � 6 Z7 - o a MARK 1. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE Tentatively scheduled for the July 22, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting Attachments: 1. Rezone Findings 2, PUD Findings 3. Ordinance 99 -43 FREESTATE CPUD AR -9486 FREESTATE STAFF REPORT 6 -3 -08 Page 18 of 18 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 30 of 513 ATTACHMENT 1 REZONE FINDINGS PUDZ - 2006 -AR -9486 Chapter 10.03.05 1. of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The Comprehensive Planning Department has indicated that the proposed PUD rezone is consistent with all applicable elements of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). 2. The existing land use pattern. As noted in the Staff Report, the subject 16.8 acre parcel is located in Activity Center #6 and has a proposed total of 150,000 square feet of commercial land uses. To the north is Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and then the commercial areas of Berkshire Lakes PUD/DRl. To the east is the future extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard, a 200 -foot right -of -way, then undeveloped Agricultural zoned land with the proposed commercial portion of Taormina Reserve MPUD. To the south and west is Falling Waters PUD, a developed multi- family residential PUD. Approximately 50 percent of the area along the shared property line with the Freestate CPUD is within a preserve area. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The currently approved C -2 and C -4 project boundaries allowing similar commercial uses was deemed to be of sufficient size and did not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts, The proposed CPUD does not change the projects consistency with the FLUE. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed CPUD will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The proposed CPUD does not change the current C -2 and C -3 approved boundaries that were previously deemed to be logically drawn when Ordinance Number 99 -19 was approved. PUDZ- 2006 -AR -9486, FREESTATE CPUD Page 1 of 4 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 31 of 513 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The growth and development trends, changing market conditions, make the proposed CPUD desirable. The rezoning is not necessary, per se, but it does seem appropriate. The proposed CPUD is appropriate, as limited in the PUD Ordinance and the PUD Master Plan based on its compatibility with adjacent land uses. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change should not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood because the existing neighborhood residences are buffered by the location of the preserve area and the proposed wall/berm and landscape treatment. In addition, the development standards and landscaping requirements contained in the PUD document and Staff Recommendations are intended to mitigate any adverse impact to the living conditions in this neighborhood if the proposed rezoning is approved. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The proposed CPUD will not significantly increase traffic over what could be generated under the current commercial zoning. Evaluation of this project took into account the requirement for consistency with the Traffic Element of the GMP and the project was found consistent. Additionally, certain transportation improvements are included in the PUD document and a stipulation is included in the Staff Recommendation. Therefore, the proposed CPUD will not excessively increase the traffic congestion. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Every project approved in Collier County involving the utilization of land for some land use activity is scrutinized and required to mitigate all sub — surface drainage generated by developmental activities. Staff is of the opinion that the subject property will not create a drainage problem. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed development standards and buffer requirements contained in the Preestate CPUD has been determined not to seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. PUDZ- 2006 -AR -9486, FREESTATE CPUD Page 2 of 4 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 32 of 513 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The proposed Freestate CPUD is similar to the previously approved commercial zoning. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that this petition will not adversely affect property values. It should be noted that the value of property is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning, however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination by law is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The development of adjacent properties, in accordance with existing regulations, will not be affected if this PUD rezone is approved. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. The Comprehensive Planning staff has determined that proposed CPUD complies with the GMP. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with said plans are in the public interest. Since the proposed CPUD is similar to the current commercial zoning, the proposed change will not constitute a grant of special privilege. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with its existing zoning. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The proposed CPUD will not change the scale of the project with the needs of the neighborhood. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The proposed CPUD will have similar commercial uses as to what was already approved for the subject site. This petition is consistent with all elements of the GMP, is compatible with the adjacent Iand uses, has adequate infrastructure and to some extent the timing of the action is consistent with all County codes. PUDZ- 2006 -AR -9486, FREESTATE CPUD Page 3 of 4 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 33 of 513 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. While any development of this site would require considerable site alteration, the difference in the degree of site alteration between the current commercial zoning and the proposed CPUD is insignificant. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. A multi - disciplined team responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP has reviewed this CPUD and has found it consistent with the GMP. Staff reviews for adequacy of public services and levels of service determined that required infrastructure meets with GMP established relationships. The proposed CPUD will have no affect upon those conditions. PUDZ- 2006 -AR -9486, PREESTATE CPUD Page 4 of 4 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 34 of 513 ATTACHMENT 2 FINDINGS FOR PUD PUDZ- 2006 -AR -9486 Section 10,02.13.13.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Jurisdictional reviews by County staff support the manner and pattern of development approved and developed for the subject property. Development conditions contained in the proposed Freestate CPUD document give assurance that all infrastructures will be developed consistent with County regulations. The proposed amendment will not adversely impact the approved mitigation measures that assure compliance with Level of Service relationships as prescribed by the GMP. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the CPUD rezone application provide evidence of unified control, 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. The proposed CPUD has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. A more detailed description of this conformity of the proposed amendment is contained in the Staff Report. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As depicted on the CPUD Master Plan, a 2.5 acre preserve along with an enhanced landscape buffer and wall is intended to mitigate any adverse impact on the adjacent residential project. Staff analysis indicates that this CPUD rezone will not adversely impact the PUD's compatibility, both internally and externally, with the proposed and existing uses. PUDZ- 2006 -AR -9486, FREESTATE CPUD Page I of Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 35 of 513 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space proposed for this CPUD rezone is consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Timing or sequence of development in light of concurrency requirements does not appear to be a significant problem as part of the PUD process, but the project's development must be in compliance with applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Ability, as applied in this context, implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, is supportive of conditions emanating from urban development. hrfrastructure is or will be in place in the vicinity and its adequacy will be determined at the time of SDP approval. The proposed CPUD rezone will not adversely impact the ability to accommodate expansion. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this CPUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The development standards in this CPUD are similar to those standards. Five deviations are being sought as part of this CPUD rezone and are discussed in the Staff Report. PUDZ- 2006 -AR -9466, FREESTATE CPUD Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. 8F Attachment 3 July 22, 2008 Page 36 of 513 ORDINANCENO, 99. 19 PROS A -AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER )halo 91 -102, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT MAO= CODE WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVB 6661 ZONING REGULATIONS FOR TIM UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBER 0608N BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY LOCATED ON TITS SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR -84) AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD EXTENSION IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIBR COUNTY, FLORIDA, FROM "E" ESTATES TO "C-4" GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND "42" COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE; PROVIDING FOR STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION n° STIPULATIONS, AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE P" E. DAT '� y� ry C> A _enp WHEREAS, John P. Asher, P.E. of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc."" t Gertrude M Abele, petitioned the Board of County Commissionore to chan1gr9e mining classification of the herein described real property; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: SECTION ONE The zoning classification of the real property as more particularly described by Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, and located in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "B" Estates to "C4" General Commercial with conditions and the Official Zoning Atlas Map Number 0608N, as described in Ordinance 91 -102, the Collier County Land Development Coda is hereby amended accordingly, The herein described real property is the same for which the rezone is hereby approved subject to the following conditions. 1, The petitioner shall reserve the east 100 feet of the property for future right -of -way for the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard The property shall be dedicated to the County upon theirrequest in accordance with Section 2.72.8.1. and any other applicable sections of the Land Development Code. Upon dedication of the right -of-way to Collier County, the petitioner may be eligible to receive impact fee credits, 2. Amu to the proposed development shall be in accordance with the Policy for Accom Management for Arterial and Collector Roadways in Collier County, Resolution No. 92- 442, as it may be amended and per the Florida Department of Transportation requirements. 3. Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1. of the Land Development Code, if; during the course of - site cleating, excavation or other construction activity any historic or emhaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. 1 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 37 of 513 4. The petitioner shall submit an Environmental Impact Statement simultaneously with the submittal of either a preliminary subdivision plat, minor subdivision or site development plan, whichever occurs first, as required by Section 3.8.3. of the Collier County Land Development Code. 5: An appropriate portion of native vegetation shall be retained on site as required in Section 3.9.5.5.4. of the Collier County Land Development Code. 6. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic five) plan for the site, with emphasia on areas of retained native vegetation, shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to Seel site plan/construction plan approval. 7. The required landscape buffer adjacent to the west property boundary shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet wide and shall incorporate existing native vegetation to the greatest extent possible. Where the landscape buffer abuts the adjacent properly to the west, Treat 'W', the Cypress Preserve area, the required landscape buffer may be reduced to thirty (30) feet. The landscape buffer adjacent to the western property boundary (other that; the area where a thirty (30) foot buffer is permitted) shall be developed with a three (3) foot high landscaped berm planted with trees a minimum of ten (10) to twelve (12) feet in height, spaced no more than twenty-five (25) feet on center, and shall be eighty percent opaque within one (1) year. The top of this berm shall be developed with a six (6) foot high masonry The berm/wall combination shall be located as far from the property line as reasonably possible while remaining totally within the sixty (60) foot wide buffer, This wall and berm combination shall not be required where the landscape buffer abuts the adjacentproperty to the west, Tract -Y, the Cypress ]reserve area. 8. The list of permitted uses for this District shall be limited as follows: A. Unless otherwise provided for in this Code, all permitted now in the C-3, commercial intermediate district, B. Auto and Home Supply Stoma (5531). C. Gasoline service stations (no automotive repair, subject to section 2.6.28). D. Building materials, hardware and garden supplies (groups 5231 - 5261). E. Business services (groups 7311 -7352 except 7342 and 7349, 7359 except airplane, industrial truck, portable toilet and oilfield equipment renting and leasing, 7361- 7397 except armored car and dog rental, 7389 except auctioneering, bronzing, field warehousing, salvaging of damaged merchandise, scrap steel cutting and solvents recovery} P. Commercial printing (2752, excluding newspapers). G. Communications (groups 4812 -484I, no communication towers). Ii. Eating and drinking establishments (5812, 5813) excluding bottle clubs, fast food restaurants, drive -in restaurants, grills, hamburger stands, hot dog stands and industrial feeding All establishments engaged in the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for on- premise consumption are subject to the locations! requirements of section 2.6,10. 1. Engineering, accounting, research, management and related services (groups 8711- 8748). I. Group cam facilities (category I and 11, except for homeless shelters); care units, except for homeless shelters; nursing homes; entered living facilities pursuant to 400.402 F.S. and ch. 58A -5 P.A.C.; and continuing care retirement communities pursuant to 651 F.S. and ch. 4 -193 F.A.C,; all subject to section 2.6.26.). K Health services (groups 5051 -8059, 8062.8069, 8071 -8072 and 8092 - 8099). L Miscellaneous repair services (groups 7622 -7641, 7699 except agricultural equipment repair, awning repair, beer pump coil clearing and repair, blacksmith shape, catchbasin, septic tank and cesspool cleaning, ooppersmithing, farm machinery repair, fire equipment repair, furnace and chimney cleaning, industrial truck repair, machinery cleaning, repair of service station equipment, boiler cleaning, tinsmithiag, tractor repair, catchbasin cleaning, engine and automotive repair and sewer cleaning). K Miscellaneous retail (groups 5912 -5963, 5992 - 5999). Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 38 of 513 N. Public or private parka and playgrounds, O. Personal servicas (groups 7215, 1217, 7219 -7261 except crematories and funeral parlors, 72914299). P. Real estate (group 6512}. Q. Social services (groups 5322- 8399, except for homeless shelters and soup kitchens). R. Vocational schools (groups 8243 - 8299). S. Any other general commercial use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses including buildings for retail, service and office purposes consistent with the permitted uses and intent and purpose statement of the district. 9. All structures shall be constructed a minimum of 125 feet from the wadam property boundary. 10. Building heights shall be a maximum of thirty-five (35) feet . 11. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any structure built on the property, the petitioner shall, at his own expense, construct a temporary driveway to County standards, on the subject site within the east 100 feet of the property. This driveway (hall be constructed from the intersection of Davis Boulevard along the site's eastern property boundary and shall provide access to theproperty. Upon the County's request, the petitioner sbali remove the driveway at his expense, cECT1ON TWO: The zoning classification of the real property as more particularly described by Exhibit "B ", attachedhereto and incorporated by reference herein, and located in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "B" Estates to 11C-2" Commercial Convenience with conditions and the Official Zoning Atlas Map Number 0608N, as described in Ordinance 91.102, the Collier County Land Development Code is hereby amended accordingly. The herein described real property is the same for which the rezone is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall reserve the east 100 feet of the property for future right -of -way for the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard. The property shall be dedicated to the County upon their request in accordance with Section 2.7.2.8.1. and any other applicable sections of the Land Development Code. 2. Upon dedication of the right- of-way to Collier County, the petitioner may be eligible to receive impact fee credits. 3. Access to the proposed development shall be in accordance with the Policy for Access Management for Arterial and Collector Roadways in Collier County, Resolution No. 92- 442, as it may be amended and per the Florida Department of Transportation requirements. 4. Pursuant to Section 2225.8.1, of the Land Development Code, if; during the course of site cleating, excavation or other construction activity any historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted, 5. The petitioner shall submit an Environmental impact Statement simultaneously with the submittal of either a preliminary subdivision plat, minor subdivision or Bite development plan, whichever occurs first, as required by Section 3.5.3. of the Collier County Land Development Code. Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 39 of 513 6. An appropriate portion of native vegetation shall be retained on site as required in Section 3.9.5.5.4. of the Collier County Land Development Code. 7. An esotie vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic lice) plan far the site, with emphasis on areas of retained native vegetation, shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to final mite plonfoonatruction plan approval. S. Development of the site shall incorporate a pedestrian interconnection between the subject site and the Failing Waters Development to the south, along the site's southern boundary. 9. The required landscape buffer adjaceut to the south and west properly boundaries shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feat wide and shall incorporate existing native vegetation to the greatest extent possible. Where the landscape buffer abuts the adjacem property to the west, Traot'V, the Cypress Preserve area, the required landscape buffer may be reduced to thirty (30) feet. The landscape buffer adjacent to the western property boundary (other than the area where a thirty (30) foot buffer is permitted) and the landscape buffer adjacent to southern property boundary eball be developed with a three (3) foot high. landscaped berm planted with trees a minimum of ten (10) to twelve (12) feet in hcight, spaced no more theft twenty-five (25) feat on center, and shall be eighty (110) percent opaque within one (1) year. The top of this berm shall be developed with a six (6) hoot high masonry wall. The berm/wall combination shall be located as far from the property line as reasonably possible while remaining totally within the sixty (60) foot wide buffer. This wall and berm combination shall not be required where the landscape buflbr abuts the adjacent property to the west, Tract' V% the Cypress Preserve area. 10. The petitioner shall provide access to the site, at his own expense, by constructing a temporary driveway to County standards, on the subject site within the east 100 feet of the property. This driveway shall be constructed from the intersection of Davis Boulevard along the site's eastern property boundary and shall provide access to the property. Upon the County's request, the petitioner shall remove the driveway at his expense. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this s13Av-- day of 1999, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIP.R TY, FLORIDA BY: P LA S. MAC'RE?, C8AM Attest as to Clfelran's sigeuture only, FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Gila r rh , 4 t M. STIJDENT ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY DR -98-9 REZONE ORDINANCE/ hhymm/99wdIAAe•S OrdMmq Thl, ordinance filed with the Serr tor)• of " - f^ o rim of I Exhibit A R-98-08 Agenda Item No. 8F -jiyty 22, 2008 Page 40 of 513 ABELE PROPERTY REZONE DESCRIPTION BASED UPON WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 174, PAGES 729 AND 730 NORTH 330 FEET OF THE EAST ONB-HALF (B 'h) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE - FOURTH (NE %) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-FOURTH (NE' /,) OF SECTION 9, TOWNSUM So SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONTAINING 5 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD Ezhiblt B R98-08 Agenda, Item No. 8F ,Zuly 22, 2008 ate....... ... PUbe41 of 513 0 ABELE PROPERTY REZONE DESCRIPTION BASED UPON WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 174, PAGES 729 AND 730 SOUTH 964.56 FEET OF THE EAST ONE -HALF (E Vs) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE - FOURTH (NE %) OF THE NORTHEAST ON&FOURTH (NE' /.) OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONTAINING 14.68 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD +C: Ezhiblt B R98-08 Agenda, Item No. 8F ,Zuly 22, 2008 ate....... ... PUbe41 of 513 0 ABELE PROPERTY REZONE DESCRIPTION BASED UPON WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 174, PAGES 729 AND 730 SOUTH 964.56 FEET OF THE EAST ONE -HALF (E Vs) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE - FOURTH (NE %) OF THE NORTHEAST ON&FOURTH (NE' /.) OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONTAINING 14.68 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD MR. FERNANDEZ: You MR. MUTER: Sorry. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: public hearing. Is there COMMISSIONER BERRY: COMMISSIONER CARTER: CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Passes -- opposed? (No response). CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Item #1282 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 42 of 513 February 23, 1999 said one and two on your form. No speaker on this item. I'll close the a motion? Motion for approval. Second. All in favor, please say aye. It passes unanimously. ORDINANCE 99 -19 PETITION R -98 -8 JOHN P. ASHER, P.E., OF COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., REPRESENTING GERTRUDE M. ABELE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "E■ ESTATES TO "C -4" GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR -84) AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD E %TENSION - ADOTPED Okay. The next item is 12(B)2, John Asher, it's a zoning amendment, so I assume that's also quasi judicial, am I right, Mr. Weigel? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yep COMMISSIONER BERRY: You've got to swear. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So all persons wishing to be heard on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn by the court reporter. That's everybody. If members of the public want to speak on this item, you need to stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: By way of disclosure, I have met briefly with Mr. Yovanovich on this and had gotten some correspondence. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have met with all parties involved. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As have I. COMMISSIONER BERRY: As have I. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I met with the developer. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Staff. MS. MURRAY: Good afternoon, Susan Murray, current planning. The petitioner is requesting to rezone the subject property from "E" Estates to C -4 general commercial. The petitioner wishes to limit the list of permitted uses of the C -4 zoning district on the front five acres, and that would be the five acres fronting on Davis Boulevard, and to limit the height of structures to 35 feet on that five acres. The petitioner also wishes to limit the remaining 15 acres to those uses permitted by right in the C -2 zoning district and to subject this portion of the property to the C -2 zoning district development standards. The site has approximately 660 feet of frontage on Davis Boulevard and 1,291 feet of frontage on the future Santa Barbara Boulevard extension, which is a total site area of approximately 20 feet. The future Santa Barbara Boulevard extension will parallel the site's eastern boundary. Page 130 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 43 of 513 February 23, 1999 The site is consistent with the locational criteria for commercial rezoning in that the site is located within the current legally effective boundaries of the activity center surrounding Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard. I do need to make you aware, however, that you have adopted amended activity center boundaries which exclude this site, and if you look at the map, you can see the existing effective activity center boundaries are in yellow, and the adopted new activity center boundaries are in blue, and the subject site is in pink. However, I would remind you that staff and the board are required to evaluate this petition based on its consistency with the effective boundaries which presently include this Bite. Additionally, I want to let you know that the petitioner has presented evidence in the form of a market study analysis which reveals that there is a need for additional commercial land area within the study site. In examining the development patterns and approved zoning districts within the activity center, staff found that a rezoning to strictly commercial will meet the intent of the mixed use nature of the activity center. Specifically, in examining surrounding properties, one finds that a combination of projects approved are strictly commercial -- commercial -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I interrupt? MS. MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm terribly sorry, but just at this time of day, I get less -- MS. MURRAY: Would you like me to just summarize or would you like me to just answer questions? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Questions is fine by me. I actually have a question for Mr. Yovanovich. one of the things that our staff just reviewed, I think, is a little bit different than what you and the homeowners have agreed to, and that's one of the big items, was you were ready to actually split and make that back 15 acres C -2 and the front C -4 with whatever limited uses you -all had come up with, but I wanted to clarify that as opposed to a C -4 or just what the uses of C -2 was my recollection of our discussion. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich representing Gertrude Abele, the petitioner. We have agreed to limit the uses on the back 15 acres to C -2 uses and limit the C -4 uses on the back five acres, however that works out with the commission, whether it's a straight rezone to C -2 on the back 15 and a rezone to C -4 on the front five limited uses, we're comfortable with that, whatever the process the commission wants to go through, but our petition was a C -4 petition on the property, and we've agreed to limited uses on the property, and we have been told we need to come through with the C -4 petition but can agree to limit the uses. I think it's, you know, a different way -- it's a matter of semantics for making it happen, and however we can go forward today, we'll be happy to do it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the discussion you and I had had on Friday on that was, you know, just down the road, should someone want to make a change, it's much tougher to come back and try to go from a C -2 zoning to something higher than that than it is to have a C -4 with limited use, and say, I want to add on this other C -4 use. Page 131 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 44 of 513 February 23, 1999 MR. YOVANOvICH: We've always envisioned having to come back through a public hearing process to change the uses on any of the property. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand, but just the perception, if it is already zoned C -4 and you say, boy, we just want to add one more C -4 use, that perception realistically is a little different than having a C -2 zoned parcel that you say, boy, now we want to add a C -4 use. MR. YOVANOVICH: As long as we can go forward today under the current petition, and if we have to go to a C -2 on the back 15, that's fine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE; Fine. That's all I'm asking far. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Ms. Student is hovering. I don't know if that means that she has a legal issue with that. Do you, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. Madam Chairwoman, there's a problem with absolutely rezoning the back area to C -2, because it was not advertised that way, and if it is not advertised, it is arguably void from the very start, and it wasn't advertised, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE; Well, call me crazy, but it was advertised for a more intense use, C -4, and -- I mean, that's -- this isn't the first time we've done that, it was advertised. It was advertised for a particular use, and we're looking to make that a less intense use. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: When people come in with a PUD and we say, well, you can have your PUD, but you can only have two units an acre or something like that, isn't this similar? MR. WEIGEL: It's similar. There is a distinction, though. I tell you, what we're trying -- what we're saying is that there may be an issue of defensibility here. We would prefer that the County not be stuck defending it if it should be an issue, if you adopt the C -2 that wasn't advertised today. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So, why don't we go forward today, and then if we need to at the end of the day, put this on, you know, re- advertise and add it on the consent agenda at same point with C -2 to confirm it, you know, but today, we can agree what we're going to do. Those people have been in the room all this time listening. COMMISSIONER CONSTANT= : Yeah. So that then the petitioner goes ahead and -- I -- my understanding is he has an opportunity to move forward if we agree to all these other criteria with someone on the front parcel, and that would allow you to move forward and do that, and we get through the legal hurdle in the next three weeks, five weeks, whatever it is you can advertise. MR. WEIGEL: All right, I'll restate then what I think you're looking to do, and that is on the record today get the petitioner to agree to all limitations of a C -2 within the C -4, but it's a C -4, but there's an understanding that this is coming back to rezone to C -2. The petitioner will do the appropriate advertising to do that. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KI8: As a consent agenda item, Rich. Let's just MR. WEIGEL: Well, even though a public hearing can't be considered -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Let's just -- Page 132 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 45 of 513 February 23, 1999 MR. YOVANOVICH: Do I need to go through the whole process again? Am I coming back to the planning board? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: No, no, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: Planning commission, sorry. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Advertise and come to the board, that's it. Surely, that's it. MR. WEIGEL: Ms. Murray, did the planning commission have any discussion regard to a C -2 zoning? I want to see if we can bypass the planning board. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Why don't we let you guys figure that out? MR. YOVANOVICH: We had the same discussion we're having right now on the C -2 uses. That's what we had, the same discussion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let me make it very clear to staff, and Rich already knows this, we need to make that back half C -2 if you're going to get my vote on this. We've got to do a lot of other things, too, but if that's going to be C -4 all the way back, then I'm simply not supportive. So, I'm trying to make sure we do what folks who live here need and accommodate him so he can go forward and do business on whatever he needs to do if they meet all those criteria. MR. WEIGEL: I want to make sure that we've go all the ducks in a row so we can achieve what the board is looking to do here. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So, maybe you want to think this over and give us some advice at the end of the meeting about how we might accomplish -- I mean, at the end of this item about how we might accomplish this instead of us putting you on the spot right this very second. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think we can respond to it now and so we don't have to pull it out, and that is that an advertising has to be done. So it shall be done for a date certain. I would hope you can pick a date certain. Two weeks is a little shy. You probably have to go four weeks in that regard, ten day advertising requirement. Mr. Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner has indicated that there has been a record created over the discussion concerning the C -2 zoning before the planning commission, and I think that's good. I'm glad it's been brought on the record here today. I guess I have nothing further, but I do think that what you're attempting to approve today is not C -2 zoning but limitations in C -4 with C -2 with the expectation that it's going to come back for a C -2 rezone hearing -- summary judgment (sic) -- summary agenda. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will bring back a rezone for the back 15 to C -2 for another public debate to discuss that back 15. I mean, we have committed to C -2 uses on the back 15. I am not withdrawing that commitment. That commitment is there. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So, you'll get us there whatever the procedure is that's necessary. MR. YOVANOVICH: Whatever you tell me I have to do to do that, we will do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's work through all the other issues. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, we'll figure that out. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I'm,sorry, but before we start or go further on this item, I forgot that the court reporter needed a break. She wants to change -- oh, I'm sorry, just a three minute break to Page 133 Agenda Item No. SF July 22, 2008 Page 46 of 513 February 23, 1999 change the court reporters. I see. Let's just pause for just a moment. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Back on the record. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, I would ask just to clarify and maybe for some indulgence on the procedural issue. We're going to have a hearing today and you're going to hear all of the issues from the neighborhood. I don't want them to get a second bite at the apple in two weeks and pull it off the summary agenda because maybe they don't like today's result. And I just don't think we should be put through that process twice. And we're willing to do what we have to do to live up to our commitments and we would request that the -- you know, the residents of Falling Waters do the same. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So we will have to discuss what the parameters of the second public hearing, if it's necessary, will be. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the only concern I have: COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the intent is just to deal with making that C -2 official. As long as we can keep it to that, we will be fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: I am comfortable with that. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. So you had more questions for staff or -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Do we need to hear the rest of the staff report or is everybody familiar enough with this project? Guess we will go to public speakers perhaps. COMMISSIONER CCNSTANTINE: Rich might have -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Is it my turn? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE; You would be first. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, I have handed out a copy of a site plan showing some setbacks on it and some height limitations as well as a copy of Miss Murray's presentation to the Planning Commission, which I would like to enter into the record, discussing the compatibility issues of the property as well as staff's recommendation regarding this petition. I think it's important at this point, one, for me to introduce who my clients are, Ed Abele and Chris Abele are here. They represent their mother, Gertrude Abele, who owns the property and has owned the property since 1964. Blair Foley is the engineer for the project and can answer any technical questions. Also, I think I need to take you through the history of this petition and where we started from and where we are today and how we as petitioners have attempted to make sure that this is a neighborhood - friendly commercial project. Originally the petition was submitted as a straight C -4 rezoning of the twenty -acre parcel. Prior to -- with all of the uses within that property. Prior to meeting with any of the residents and prior to staff issuing their report on our rezone petition, our clients voluntarily agreed to limit their petition to C -4 uses on the front, taking out the more obnoxious uses that are not neighborhood type uses and agreed to limit the fifteen acre parcel to C -2 type uses which are more neighborhood commercial uses. We did that without and prior to staff analyzing the petition or the residents even meeting with us. Page 134 Agenda Item No, 8F July 22, 2008 Page 47 of 513 February 23, 1999 This is something we decided to do because we thought it was more compatible. Staff analyzed our petition and recommended approval of C -4 with limited uses for the entire twenty acres. We conditioned with a few conditions in their recommendation, one of which is they preferred a fifty -foot native vegetation berm in lieu of the land development code requirement of a fifteen foot buffer. We thought that was excessive, but we wanted to show good faith to the neighborhood and agreed to that fifteen foot native vegetation. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, did you say fifteen when you meant to say five -o? MR. YOVANOVICH: I meant to say fifty. I'm sorry, fifty -foot native vegetation along the western boundary of the property, and staff requested a twenty -foot buffer across the southern portion of the property. We agreed to that. It went to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission recommended approval of C -4 on the front, limited uses, and C -2 uses on the back fifteen with a fifty -foot native vegetation buffer. We got a unanimous approval. At the Planning Commission meeting and prior to the Planning Commission meeting, I met with the residents regarding their concerns and explained our petition, explained how we voluntarily would.lirtmit the uses and requested their input as to what other uses they would like to have removed from the petition. we had very good dialogue. They attended the Planning Commission meeting and said we were very close to resolving this and agreed that commercial use is appropriate if we could have -- basically if they don't see it, smell it or hear it, they were fine with that. We have had - CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: That seems like a reasonable request. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And we didn't have any problem with that. And we have met with -- up until this morning, continued to meet with the residents of Falling Waters to try to accommodate what they wanted. What we have agreed to do and offered this morning, and this stays on the table, even though they flatly rejected it, we have agreed to the fifty -foot landscape buffer, slash, berm an the -- fifty -foot landscape buffer and berm combination. The buffer -- and it would be a berm wall that would be twelve feet in height. It would be located in this fifty -foot area. It would go to roughly this line right here (indicating), We would go to just a regular fifty -foot native vegetation because this is a preserve area anyway. We would pick up the wall /berm combination within the fifty -foot buffer at approximately this location (indicating) and go all the way around the property. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: They don't like that idea? MR. YOVANOVICH: They -- the request has been that -- well, they like part of the idea, They like the idea that we will give them the buffer, the berm and the wall combination, but they want that located outside of the fifty -foot native vegetation buffer. And I will tell you at the four -to -one slope that's required to build that, that's essentially a hundred -foot buffer. Code -- code requires fifteen feet in that area. We have also agreed to limit uses that they told us they didn't want to hear. And how we think we meet their goal with our proposal is with the -- the twelve -foot, basically, wall, you're not going to Page 135 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 48. of 513 February 23, 1999 hear what's going on on the property. We will landscape that so you can't see what's going on on the property. We have also agreed not to have a fast food restaurant on that outparcel, which I will tell you we had a contract to sell that property with the fast food parcel coming out on the -- (timing beeper sounded) -- do I get to continue? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: We had a buyer for that outparcel. And my clients have said we will give that deal up. And that deal to my clients is a million dollars that they have agreed to give up to try to work with the residents to be neighborhood friendly. So we think with what we're proposing, you can't see it, you can't hear it, and you won't smell it. So we have agreed to give -- to do those uses, limit the uses, give them that kind of buffering and protection within the area. The concerns we have heard from the residents is they need to have that -- first of all, the fifty -foot native vegetation was not good enough because the native vegetation isn't very good. It's not very sparse. I mean it is very sparse. It's not very thick. When we came to them and said well, let's give you something that's nice and thick, we'll give you the berm and the wall and landscaping and all of that, they wanted to keep the native vegetation for whatever reason, although it's not -- it wasn't good enough for a buffer, for some reason it's good enough now in addition to what they're asking from US. We think that's excessive under what we're proposing to do with this project. We think we have gone above and beyond what any developer has done in Collier County to try to be neighborhood friendly. We have been willing to lose a sale on a piece of the property to meet the residents' concerns. And let me point out that, as you know, anything over the fifteen -foot requirement is lost sales opportunity to our client. We're giving away thirty -five feet at roughly, conservatively, six dollars a square foot around the perimeter of the property. That's not a small amount of money. we're also building a wall which I -- Blair will tell you prices out at about three hundred thousand dollars for the berm /wall combination. We're willing to do that and we're willing to forego a sale, but we cannot give a bigger buffer berm /wall combination than that. I think a buffer wall within a fifty -foot -- within that fifty -foot area is more than adequate. Staff has already said we're compatible with just a native vegetation buffer. The land development code says we're compatible with just a fifteen -foot buffer. We are doing the best we can to realistically and reasonably resolve the issues of the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: How high is the berm you're proposing? MR. YOVANOVICH: it will be twelve foot in height. It will be six feet of earth and six feet of wall. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So you will have fifty feet of vegetation. And let me understand, show me where in the vegetation the wall and berm would be. MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be from -- do you see this green area? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Inside or outside? MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be inside this area (indicating). it will be in the fifty -foot area. And let me point out a couple of things if I might. Page 136 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 49 of 513 February 23, 1999 CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Let me ask you -_ let me get my question answered first. Would the wall and the six feet of berm be on the inside edge of the fifty feet or the outside edge of the fifty feet? MR. YOVANOVICE: Actually, by the time you slope it, it will he probably roughly in the middle. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I see. I see, because of the slope. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a real quick question. And I know, Rich, you want to get a point, but on that same line, isn't the slope -- and I may be mistaken on this -- but isn't the slope generally related to the height of the berm itself, not a combination of the berm and fence? And if that's the case, we're only dealing with three or four times the -- I guess it's four times in this case the width, which is six feet, not at twelve feet. So that's twenty -four rather than forty- eight. When you say gosh, another fifty feet. MR. FOLEY: For the record, Blair Foley. You have to go a certain amount up the apex of the berm and then back down, because berm must remain on the given property. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it's four -to -one in this case; is that correct? MR. FOLEY: That's correct. That's land development code standards. I also just want to throw real quick in there that any berm and wall must be, of course, run through the permitting agencies as far as impacts go and water management issues. But we think we can make it work on the broken scenario here to keep the preserve area intact and work the berm and landscape feature around that and still keep the environmentalists happy and get the water where it needs to go as far as stormwater management. MR. YOVANOvim : And if I can make a couple of other points -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay, MR. YOVANOVICH: -- on the compatibility and the view issue. This building right here is built thirty -two feet from the property line (indicating). There is one window to a bedroom on the first floor and one window to a bedroom on the second floor of that building. That is the view that -- of the property over here. The rest of it on this building is oriented straight across this preserve. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And, Rich, what would the -- how does the height of that building compare to the height of the berm and wall you're proposing? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, with the landscaping, the landscaping would be enough to block the view so you basically don't see the building. Now, obviously, twelve feet is twelve feet. It's a two -story building here (indicating). We have agreed to limit ourselves to thirty -five foot high buildings on the C -4 use, which could go to one hundred, but we're down to -- we're down to thirty -five, which is basically a C -2 height limitation. Further, what happened is the prior developer of this property, not Mr. Yuter, developed this as a horseshoe around a preserve. The closest building to the property line in this horseshoe, which has got the most view which is straight over the preserve, is at least four hundred feet from the property line plus whatever this is, and there's some wetlands issues here so it may be even more. Who knows what that actual buffer will be. Page 137 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 50 of 513 February 23, 1999 But the view issue with the wall and the berm, I just don't see the issue, quite candidly. I don't think we're harming that view whatsoever since you're going to be looking through a preserve area there. And we're being asked and we have agreed to basically rectify the sins of the previous developer because he oriented the property to look at our property. This has been in an activity center for awhile. I don't know what he told these people would be on this property, but we didn't tell these people anything was going to be on that property. We want to work with them. We have agreed to additional buffers so we can be good neighbors. I hope that consideration will be given by the Board on that issue and that we can have a reasonable solution to this -- to this issue so that our zoning can go through, we can provide reasonable, and to the maximum extent possible, buffering between the two properties and we have limited the uses to further assure compatibility. We have done that in good faith. We made that offer today. We left it on the table. We are not trying to punish them because they wouldn't come to the table with us. We have left it on the table. We would like them and we would like the Board to just listen to what we have to say. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One other question, Rich, and then I've got some comments on your things. I do appreciate the fact I know you met with them. I met with them. And everybody's tried anyway even if we're not all in agreement now. On the -- what's the right side but actually the south side of the property, that shows as fifteen feet. I think in your conversation you indicated you would be willing to make that be wider. I know that's a concern because they actually have a park area back there. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have agreed to go fifty feet. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Five -o. MR. YOVANOVICH: And extend the berm wall fifty feet, five -o. So we would do the fifty feet all the way around except for the preserve area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just by way of comment, I tend to agree with you. I think it's probably unnecessary in that preserve area, because there is so much depth to that wood. But on the other when you made the comments about the preserve -- no, where the big -- the four hundred foot, because I agree with what you said there. On either side, I think the reason that they would like the addition to the fifty feet is, you know, you look from here to the back of the room is probably fifty feet. And so when you put it in perspective, you know, if you can see through -- it is a fairly thin strand of trees. It's attractive, but you can see what would be going on on the other side. And I think there is just genuine concern that is there going to be truck traffic? Is somebody's dumpster -- what's there? So I understand their concern and the desire for a berm there as well, because fifty feet just isn't that far. But on virtually every other issue, I appreciate the fact that you -all have met with them because I think adding that fifty -- adding on to the fifteen that's suggested from the county level and adding on to the back and making that C -2, you have been cooperative. I just want to make sure you get appropriate credit for that. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Commissioner, again, that's why we want to add the landscaping to the berm, to further shield -- I mean, any Page 13B Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 51 of 513 February 23, 1999 landscaping we put out there is going to be better than those spindly trees. So it's going to enhance the buffer. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And I guess I have to question whether or not there was -- it was reasonable to expect that you won't be able to see it, smell it or hear it when you're abutting an activity center parcel. If this were residentially zoned and in the comp. plan as residential, then I would understand that you guys don't expect to see anything here. But this is in the activity center and that probably affected your property values when you purchased. So I am not sure if invisible is a fair standard. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I -- I would be remiss to say that another bone of contention was traffic. And they didn't want all of the traffic off of Davis Boulevard and requested that we go ahead and build a driveway down Santa Barbara to basically focus the traffic into the site off of Santa Barbara, and we are willing to do that as well. So we're looking at providing every -- we tried to address every issue they had regarding traffic. And we have agreed that there cant be a loop road, that there will only be driveway interconnects between the two parcels. So we have taken care of, I believe, every issue they have raised in a reasonable way. MR. FOLEY: Just to add to that. Again, Blair Foley for the record. That will be a temporary roadway. In fact, we don't have a final design on the extension and we will do everything we can to make it operable. But we anticipate a two -lane road, twenty -four foot in width, sufficient access point for traffic. However, it will not be a boulevard. I want to make that point clear at this time. It's a temporary roadway. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Mr. Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question for Rich. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One of the things that we were talking about before with the residents was from the west property line on the front parcel, the C -4 parcel, what are our setbacks? MR. YOVANOVICH: Another good point. COMMISSIONER NORRIS; We haven't talked about that. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have not. We have agreed to a building setback of one hundred twenty -five feet, which is, I believe, quite a significant distance from what the code requires to further -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Which is what? MR. YOVANOVICH: A hundred twenty -five feet? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, no. What does the code require? MS. MURRAY: Any parcel abutting a residential would be twenty -five feet. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Twenty -five feet. So it's a hundred feet more than the code requires; is that what you're saying? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: A hundred feet more than required by node? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. And that would be from the property line. It's essentially a hundred and fifty -eight feet or a hundred fifty -seven feet from the building on their property. So we're a hundred and -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, I see what you're saying. Page 139 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 52 of 513 February 23, 1999 CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: From a view perspective, how are they going to be able to see that anyway? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second floor could. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Second floor could conceivably see something. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's also -- that's a bedroom window. That is not the lanai. The lanai is right here. This is a bedroom window and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE! No, I think that's a giant step and, again, you guys, with the exception of the one instance, you have been ve coo erative on working with them on everything. The only -- the only issue is, you know, if you're this close and there's traffic or eighteen wheelers loading in or whatever, I understand that's a concern. And that's I think where the berm idea is coming from, to at least have that if you're on ground level, how we deal with that. That seems to be, and maybe I am mistaken, but from my discussions with the homeowners, that seems to be the only -- the only issue that's left. It looks like you have addressed each of the other ones, because how far away the building was was one. Having the buffer on the back was one. Having access was one. So it appears that is really the only issue we still have that everybody's not in agreement on. MR. FOLEY: If I may add to your concern, commissioner Constantine. As you know it's a four -to -one slope requirement as you add to that buffer. I mean, you start with fifteen. We're up to fifty. We're talking about a tremendous amount of material to be moved in there. And what do you achieve? For every four feet, you achieve one more foot of blocked view, if you will. And as you go into their property -- into Our proposed property, it's four feet, it's eight feet, eight feet. The whole strip of the property, you're talking about a tremendous use potentially. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Eight feet of width gets you two feet of blocked view? MR. FOLEY: That's correct. That's correct. I think it's time we need to recognize at least that impact on the property owner and what future revenue it may generate versus what alternative it is. I mean, is two feet worth, at six dollars a foot, X amount of square feet? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And we're only talking one bedroom window. I mean, that's important to the person whose bedroom window it is. Okay. well, we will hear from public speakers. It looks like it's time to go to public speakers. MR. FOLEY: Could we have an opportunity to rebut, please? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Well, I'm sure we're going to have questions for you before it's over. MR. FERNANDEZ: The first two speakers, Madam Chairwoman, are Ron Yuter, Ronald Yuter and John Rafuse. MR. YUTER: Madam Chairwoman -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. YUTER: -- Commissioners, my name is Ron Yuter. I am the president of the Falling Waters Association and I am also a resident of Falling waters. First of all, I would like to -- it's honestly and truly -- it's kind of unusual, thank the petitioner. He has been unbelievably Page 140 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 53 of 513 February 23, 1999 cooperative. We have basically mitigated almost I would tell you ninety -nine percent of the issues. But it always seems like that last one percent of the issues that we can't.get everybody at the same table at the exact same time. The only -- there's two issues that I would like to bring up, because it's getting late in the day and I don't think you need to hear a summary of all the things that just took place. We are requesting that the petitioner -- excuse me, going over here -- place -- place the wall at phase one, when he constructs the C -4 area, that that wall goes in simultaneously with the development. I think that's an important issue that wasn't mentioned prior to that. And the other issue and the main issue, okay. We can go back and forth and I can take a lot of your time and tell you there's one bedroom here, but there's another building that's being built over here, and all the units over here are really looking over that. And that's my opinion versus their opinion and that's the real crux of the whole issue. We are proposing something on a compromise basis. I would tell you, and I want to thank all of the residents of Falling Waters for taking the time to stay here today. They came off of the first initial blush that we were going to have a hundred -foot clear buffer and we're going to have a fifty -foot high wall, and we're going to have this and that. We all came down to a very realistic, very fine compromise. And I think there's a lot of different ways of resolving issues. We would like, and we're staying very firm on our position, and hopefully you will support our position, that we would like to have natural vegetation of fifty feet. There's lots of ways of mitigating slopes. You can put retaining walls in as a function of dollars and cents. And I am not undermining that position. But when you walk that area, it is very, very thin. Was my predecessor putting the buildings too close to it? Well, we can't change that, okay? They are there, okay? There is a noise factor, There is a smell factor. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question, though? MR. MUTER: Surely. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Didn't -- haven't they already agreed that they would put the berm and the wall in? MR. MUTER: They have. okay. We're having only one issue, okay? The main issue is, will that berm and wall encroach in the fifty -foot area? We're saying here that we would like for this to be fifty foot all the way around, and then whatever the developer would like to do, we would like to have a twelve -foot high earth berm and wall. If you have to go ahead and put retaining walls on each side of it, that's their problem. And I don't mean to be rude about it. I am just trying to simplify the situation. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: 5o you want the -- MR. YUTER: We want to clear undisturbed -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Fifty -foot. MR. YUTER: -- fifty foot of undisturbed. By the way, the one issue that hasn't been brought up, okay, as you can see, this is a preserve area that the previous developer lived by and committed himself. There will be other preserve area probably that they will to have address whether they can mitigate it or not at a later date. Page 141 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 54 of 513 February 23, 1999 We re proposed to go ahead and work with them on that issue. So we're not bringing that up as any issue. But we do believe that over in this area, to this point here and to this point here (indicating), we would like for the Commission to seriously support us in the fifty -foot. That's the only issue. What we're really talking about is fifteen foot worth of distance that they need for additional sloping. CHAIRPERSON MAC IKIE: No, it's not. MR. YUTER: Yes, it is, because they already have to go ahead and do X amount, okay? They're looking to go ahead and center up on this wall and go this way half on the berm and that way. We're looking for them to start here and go that way (indicating). CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Why? MR. YCTER: The larger -- the greater distance that you have between the resident property and the actual distance of the parking area will mitigate towards sound. It will mitigate all the issues of distance solves a lot of things. Will another fifty feet -- fifteen feet help? We believe it will. And that's what we're petitioning you for. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. I just don't think that that's really what you're -- it sounds good the way you describe it, but as I understand the cou:nty's sloping requirements, it can't be done in fifteen feet. MR, YUTER: Oh, yes, it can, okay? I have built many, many -- I have built approximately fifty communities in the State of Florida, CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Help me understand how. Are you an engineer? MR. MUTER: No, but I'm a builder by the school of hard knocks. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. YUTER: That you can put retaining walls up, okay. Blair is an engineer, okay. And I don't want to get into semantics, okay. I think it's a personal situation that we would like the Commission to help the residents of Falling Waters have their dream of privacy of residential. They want to go ahead and be -- have the right.to develop their property that they bought twenty years ago as a certain zoning, okay? (Timing beeper sounded.) I don't want to take much more of your time because I think you get the point. But they can do it within the fifteen feet. They can -- if they encroach another five feet, it will not undermine their effective use of that property. That is the real issue. Will that additional five, ten, fifteen feet ruin the integrity of their commercial zoning? Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: John Rafuse and Chuck Mohlke, MR. RAFUSE: May I? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Certainly, please do. MR. RAFUSE: I think I might be able to clear some of this up. A picture is worth a thousand words. You -all are in -- actually, you gave away your copy, but let me show you. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Before you do, tell us who you are for the record, please. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, tell us who you are. MR. RAFUSE: For the record, John Rafuse. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: John, anything you say needs to be on that microphone, okay? Page 142 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 55 of 513 February 23, 1999 CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Yeah. So don't talk on your way up. If you have something you have to hand to us -- just show it on the visualizer. MR. RAFUSE: It's too big. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: That's okay. Can staff people give him some help there if he needs it? Maybe backing it up some so he can get a bigger picture. MR. FERNANDEZ: Upside down. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And it would be better if we turned it. Thank you. MR. RAFUSE: Just to point out, there are a lot more than just one unit that you -- this is misleading to see these two buildings over here. You're only seeing the most northerly building and the most southerly building on there. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Could you tell us what Lake $ -A is? Is that a small lake there? MR. RAFUSE: This lake right here is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right by Dave's hand. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. I see. MR. RAFUSE: The lake on the left -- the lake on the left over there. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So where he's showing us one building -- oh, okay, that's one building. MR. RAFUSE: That's the building that he shows right there. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I got you. MR. RAFUSE: There's another building coming along here and there's all these homes that come across here. These are the ones he's saying are four hundred feet away -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Right. MR. RAFUSE: -- from a view. I just want to point out that there are numerous examples. You have all got photographs in front of you that show around the county how those buffers just don't work when you don't build them correctly. Let me show you. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Help him zoom in somebody. All right. MR. RAFUSE: See this view right here? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Uh -huh. MR. RAFUSE: That view is taken from across the ponds. Now, as you can see, right over here where I am looking right there, that's the part in question. If they build a berm and wall combination within the fifty -foot vegetative buffer, all of those trees are history. I promise you they're going to be history, because there's gonna -- there will be -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Rich, that's an important point. Are you going to have to take out all of those mature trees in order to get your berm in the fifty -foot? MR. YOVANOVICH: The back? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Those tall pine trees. MR. RAFUSE: Those would be gone if they were to build the wide buffer they're talking about. All we're asking for -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Within the fifty foot? And that's my question. MR. RAFUSE: All we're asking -- this is a difference of ten or twenty feet. It would make everybody happy. Actually, I have the same comment that Ron did. They have been great with working with us. Page 143 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 56 of 513 February 23, 1999 We have boiled this down to one small issue and that's the width of the natural buffer that's out there. And what we want to avoid is this kind of thing here (indicating). If you see this, this is looking down Santa Barbara, looking south. The left -hand side, behind that, was all clear cut for the purposes of commercial development. What we have on the right is where the natural vegetation is. And if I could quote Commissioner Norris, I'm going to paraphrase, a few minutes ago he said he didn't want this county to turn out like Fort Myers and the east coast, And what I am saying to you is, if we want to stop -- if we want to avoid having this on the corners of our intersections (indicating), we need to provide more of that. And all we're asking for is a little more of that natural vegetation and then put up the berm and the wall. I disagree that the berm and the wall is going to stop the view. I have already demonstrated that with the picture that I first put up there that I showed from back here. This shot here already shows you that a twelve -foot wall from this far back -- and I am standing on the ground when I took this. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Explain that photo again because I don't understand how that shows me. MR. RAFUSE: This -- this -- this photo right here is taken -- perhaps if someone went up to that -- why don't you lift that up, Ron? Way down -- I will be right back. That photo -- that photo -- that photo was taken from over here (indicating). Way down here the buildings go around in this horseshoe shape. And I am standing on the ground over here looking straight across. My point is -- my point is that these trees being as sparse as they are, when you put a berm inside that natural vegetative buffer, it's going to go away, and if -- we're all kidding ourselves if we don't think that standing on the ground -- and I am not even up in the second floor of the lanais, which I need to point out are the front porch of all these buildings. This isn't the back of the house. we are going to be looking out the back door -- do I have this up? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: We need to go back to the visualizer, staff, please. MR. RAFUSE: We're going to have this kind of thing in the back there where we're going to see straight through at the undesirable parts of a development. I guarantee you that what we're going to see through those trees after they're gone is we're going to see -- I understand that the setback of the building is a hundred and fifty -eight feet, but when you have a hundred and fifty -eight feet of air, you're still going to see the building, because if the berm is only up twelve feet and you're up on the second story of all those units around the outside, you're going to see over that berm and you're going to see the effects of the lights, the trucks, the development itself. The presence of the commercial development is going to be there in your face. And all we're asking is just to preserve a little bit more of the natural vegetation. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: It makes me think of something, Rich. If the setback doesn't help them, if we gave you in setback relief what they are asking for in additional berm space, would that help the problem? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a function of being able to develop the site. Page 144 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 57 of 513 February 23, 1599 CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: But what I am saying is, if you need another forty -- you need another twenty, thirty, forty feet to do -- MR. RAFUSE: Only twenty. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay, if you need another twenty feet and we reduce the setback by twenty feet, does that net you to the same Place? MR. FOLEY: I have an alternative if I could bring it to the -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Well, answer me first. MR. FOLEY: Well, I think any additional land is an undue hardship on our client. Because I think we have gone far beyond what's required according to your staff as well. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay, what's your alternative? MR. FOLEY: The part that goes in the setback, of course. MR. YOVANOVICH: The parking goes in the setback. The building -- so it is used for parking. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Never mind. MR. FOLEY: I do have a suggestion. I might as well throw it on the table. I don't know if we're getting anywhere with these other issues right now. Mr. Yuter responded regarding a wall, that we could put a wall of X amount of height within the fifteen -foot buffer. We're limited by your own land development code to a six -foot high wall. So regardless of what we could do in fifteen feet, that's really the limit we can do. That's why we had encouraged to do some sort of berming and then put the wall on top. If the trees are a concern, and they are nice, it is a nice view, I would recommend that perhaps we go to a twenty -five foot native buffer and over the balance of the twenty -five feet, which would be the fifty -foot buffer we have on the table, do a smaller berm. We could obtain a three -foot, perhaps, bermed up area and a six -foot wall that would get you like nine feet. And you would have your vegetation and you'd have your wall. That's a combination of both, COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can we -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had actually sketched out something, because when -- a number of the speakers have said well, it's only ten or fifteen feet. And unfortunately it's not. If you do a berm, there are county requirements for what the slope is there that they don't have any control over. So it becomes wider than all of us would like and common sense might dictate. What I had looked at here is sketching out -- I was thinking if it were ten or fifteen feet as opposed to forty -eight feet, is that something you can work on? Just a yes or no, because I am going somewhere with this. If it infringes another ten or fifteen feet as opposed to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Ten feet. Ten feet we can live with as long as that's where it starts and it works back. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm just thinking out loud, so work with me here. But I'm thinking if you've got a four -foot or maybe you go back to a three -foot berm and put your six -foot wall on top of that, then you have got a ten -foot barrier, however -- and it may encroach ten feet, nine feet into -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: What you currently have is developable. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Well, yes, but I was going to say into the natural preserve, however, we may not have to destroy the trees to do that because that slope is getting lower and lower and Page 145 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 58 of 513 February 23, 1999 lower as it goes. So we may be able to maintain the trees, have the slope on that side, only go into the commercial property another ten, twelve feet. I don't know what the measurement comes out to there. But something that doesn't take away your parking lot, doesn't take away any trees. The only thing we don't end up with there is it will be about a ten -foot height instead of a twelve -foot height. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me piggyback on that and ask why -- why is there any reason why we could not issue a height variance on the wall and let them build a higher wall with a lower berm? MR. WEIGEL: I will look over to the development services people to respond to that specifically. COMMISSIONER MORRIS: I know we couldn't do that today because that's not advertised. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're readvertising anyway. MR. WEIGEL: Well, maybe not. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But we could come back with a variance proposal, too. MS. MURRAY; That would have to -- Susan Murray for the record. That would have to come in under a separate petition. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But there's no reason why we couldn't do that, right? MS. MURRAY: That would be up to you -all to make that decision. But they could certainly apply for one. Certainly. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But there's no -- there's no reason to make a big high berm. If what we're after is the ultimate height of the wall, why don't we just build the wall and not tear up the trees doing it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I mean, we would be happy to just build a wall and not do the berm on, you know, the fifty -foot mark, but that's not something that was visually pleasing to the residents. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I think the issue there was not only the visual, but your berm tends to absorb pure sound as opposed to a wall will bounce it off. MR. YOVANOVICH: May I add one extra point? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Let me just -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just have a little problem that the Board of County Commissioners is sitting up here designing a project. I don't believe that we ought to be in that business. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: We made that mistake before. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, I have had the occasion of being down this road before one other time that I recall, and I don't think that's appropriate. I think it's fine to have this public hearing and hear from the residents and all of that kind of concern. But I think at this point in time, we all know what the concern is, and I will ask Mr. Weigel, at this point where can we go and where should we go from here, because I don't think it's appropriate for us to sit here and tell you guys how to do this? If we have got more public speakers, we can certainly hear them, but right now I want some direction from Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: recall that when there's been an been advertised, informs me that, Well, we searched our memory banks and we don't there's a straight zoning change advertised that approval of a different zoning than that which has although I have spoken with Mr. Yovanovich. And he in fact, this pictorial was used before the CCPC in Page 146 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 59 of 513 February 23, 1999 which it shows C -2 for purposes of illustration, not for purposes of rezoning. And so that's not bad. It's actually good in the sense that at least the CCPC has seen that they were attempting to show that although they were generally petitioning for C -4 zoning overall, that they were looking for limited uses, i.e., C -2 type limitations of that which would otherwise be zoned C -4 up there. So I am willing to roll the dice a bit, but not too far. And Mr. Yovanovich has indicated in speaking with his client petitioner that if the Board were to go forward today and do a rezone C -4 and C -2, C -2 being -- call it a lesser included uses of the C -4 generally, the petitioner will indemnify the county should there be a challenge in that regard. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: That's great. MR. WEIGEL: But they need to put it on the record. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will -- we will -- we will fight the fight. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So how about Commissioner Constantine's proposal where each side it appears would-be giving a little? MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me -- and just to give a little more assurance, there's already a berm out there and it's on their property. It's twelve feet in height, so you're going to have a double berm. MR. RAFUSE: No, that's incorrect. That's not -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Doesn't matter. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's already a berm. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Doesn't matter. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Doesn't matter what it is. There's a berm. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Doesn't matter. What do you think about Commissioner Constantine's proposal? MR. YOVANOVICH: It if starts at ten feet, we could -- Blair just told me what we could do is we could go ahead and go with landscaping instead of a wall and make it twenty feet high. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you put -- or something -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, twenty feet high or thirty feet, whatever, MR. FOLEY: If we would commit to an eighty percent opacity over a year at twenty feet high on top of a small berm which might -- forget about the wall all together and have some real thick vegetation in there. It's done all the time. Audubon is a good example of it along Vanderbilt Drive. Nobody can see what's in there. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: That's true. MR. FOLEY: There are a lot of good things we can do. VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Inaudible.) CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Maybe you can tell somebody else what needs to be said. VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Inaudible.) CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: No, air, excuse me. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not talking about not putting nice landscaping in there to replace those trees. I mean, there will be -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Well, I hate to lose the trees. MR. YOVANOVICH: We didn't want to take the trees down in the first place. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I hate to lose those trees. Page 147 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 60 of 513 February 23, 1999 COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can't we start on the basis of keeping the treeline and work out some amenable arrangement to develop a berm wall, ficus hedge, you name it. I'm with Commissioner Berry. I'm not in the design business. And can that piece be brought back and resolved? But the condition is that you protect as much of the natural environment as you can as you start the process. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And I think he's just made his position known. And let`s hear from the rest of the public speakers who have waited as long as they have today. MR. RArusE: I would just like to say I support working with them on the proposal you just made to try and find a solution that would save the majority of the vegetation, give us a natural buffer and do some kind of a landscape. That's all we're looking to do. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Appreciate that. Could you call the next public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Chuck Mohlke and then Ed Abele. MR. MOHLKE: I have no comment. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Mr. Mohlke has no comment. Thank you. The next speaker, Mr. Abele. MR. FERNANDEZ: Ed Abele and then Chris Abele. MR. ED ABELE., For the record, my name is Ed Abele. I am from Clifton Park, New York. I would -- basically, my comments are brief. I think Rich and Blair have articulated our position very well. You have a very attractive community. I can see by the length of your agenda a lot of people want to be here.and we do, too. —` We are very pleased with the staff recommendation. It was basically a culmination and confirmation of our beliefs, so we basically ditto that. And we think the use is very appropriate and very consistent with the development patterns. We would also like to say that we have made a real concerted effort to understand the concerns of Falling Waters, and we -- I turn back -- I would like to think that it was a very friendly relationship and very open and, you know, I would venture to say that, you know, they're going to be our friends. While we may not agree on everything, I think we agree overwhelmingly on most things. I would just like to say that when we came in here, we know it's a lot,easier to get along than not get along. And we relied on our local consultants to really understand what your local convention is. And in that spirit, we have really done our darnedest to try to compromise. One of the things that I would like to say is that we were here since 1964, and twenty years is a long time, but thirty -four years is a longer time. And I just think that's worth mentioning. We held onto this for a long time. We have a lot of confidence in this community as well. The other thing is, I would just like to say that while Falling Waters may act have gotten one hundred percent of what they like, I would think that they got ninety percent of what they like. And the representatives as well as being friendly have been very professional and we appreciate that input. The only other thing I would say is that when you do understand and determine what impacts and considerations there will be, please keep in mind that it's not unilateral, that there is another side of the equation and we are it. And I would just ask you to be fair in that consideration. And just say that when we made the concession on Page 143 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 61 of 513 February 23, 1999 the restaurant, we really walked away from a million dollars. That's a lot of money and that's something I think is just worth reiterating because it is a lot of money. And a separate development, who is interested in developing the Walgreens, had contracted for the full, five acres, and because we are essentially watering down the use, they are no longer interested in that. So that was a tough decision, but it's something that we're comfortable in doing and it's worth reiterating because it's a very, very big dollar amount. And other than that I would just like to thank the board. And if there are any, you know, questions for us later, we're more than willing to cooperate. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ. Final speaker is Chris Abele. MR. CHRIS ABELE: Good afternoon, and I'm Ed's older brother although I look younger. My name is Chris Abele. And in talking with John, and I think in -- and along the line of Mr. Constantine, I think we might have something worked out and I would like to describe it. If we took the buffer and it was sixty foot wide and we started, you know, from that point and worked back towards Falling waters, and we gave a three -foot high earthen berm with a six -foot high masonry wall, and along with that, put mature dense plantings, you know, to the size of, say, you know, ten to twelve foot species, so on top of a three -foot berm, you know, would be fifteen to eighteen feet, something like that, you know, with the county requirements for the sloping, we would basically start from the sixty feet and it would be a twenty -two foot -- we would try.to, you know, for lack of a better word, cheat the sloping to preserve as much of the natural buffer as, you know -- maintain as much of the natural buffer as we could. I think, you know, we would be happy with that and, you know, I get the feeling, you know, Falling Waters' people would be. And I think from a very practical and, you know, I do come from a landscape background, although it's about twelve hundred miles north. I think it would be -- it would be two years from now or a year from now or ten years from now, I think the decision made today would be looked upon favorably. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Wonderful. How wonderful that you were able to work that out. (Audience applause.) CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Are there any other registered speakers? Close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will attempt to craft a motion consistent with what we just said there. First of all that we're going to split the front five acres and the back fifteen into C -4 and C -2. It will actually be C -2 uses, however, we do intend to bring that back in, whatever the minimum advertisement requirement is. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel says we can do it today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me start all over then. The C -4, C -2 split, and the petitioner will indemnify the county for any action that may be forthcoming on that, I believe is what Mr. Weigel had said before. That a fifty -foot -- I'm sorry, sixty -foot now buffer will appear on the west side and a fifty -foot, or are we doing that all the way around on the back side? Okay. So it will be a Page 149 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 62 of 513 February 23, 1999 sixty -foot on both the west and the south sides of the properties. We're looking at a three -foot berm along the edge of that all the way, actually, I am assuming not that middle section, but all the way in the affected areas. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Excluding the preserve section. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. And on that have a six -foot wall. in addition to the six -foot wall then we will have plantings in the ten- to twelve -foot variety. Blair had mentioned before we're looking at something with an eighty percent opacity by the end of the first year; is that correct? One year of growth. And the one other issue I think we had talked about was the hundred and twenty -five foot building setback as well from the property line. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: was there anything else? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Staff, did we miss anything? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only what's already included in the report, and that's the access issues and so on, but that's already all included. MR. YOVANOVICH: The one twenty -five to my understanding is only on the C -4. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. Thank you for that clarification. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that incorporates the transportation improvements that they talked about in their presentation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Is there a second for the motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Just a second to think about it. Do we have everything there? COMMISSIONER NORRIS; Did we miss anything? Is that everything? MR. RAPUSE: The hours of operation. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: That's in there, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we didn't -- we have not agreed to limit our hours of operation. We agreed to give up the fast food. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Let's don't keep going, guys. We have a motion and a second on the floor. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I need a prescription at two a.m., then we'll -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye. (Aye.) CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Motion passes unanimously. Good job. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me say one thing and with all sincerity -- with all sincerity, this is a rare case. Usually we have either someone developing property mad at the homeowners or homeowners mad at -- very rarely do you get two rational, reasonable groups, so I appreciate that. VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Inaudible.) COMMISSIONER CARTER: Madam Chairman, the only other comment I would have is in the spirit of all that you have done, that you have developed this property that the theme that you will carry through will be compatible with Falling Waters so that you have a real uniform Page 150 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 63 of 513 February 23, 1999 look in this community where everybody is very, very proud to be either in the commercial area or the Falling Waters area. MR. RAFUSE: Thank you very much. Item #1207 RESOLUTION 99 -155 ELECTING TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING NON -AD VALOREM SPECIAL ASSESSSMENTS LEVIED ON ELEVEN LOTS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY EAST FROM SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD TO 53"' STREET SOUTHWEST LOCATED IN THE•UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MACIKIE: If you guys could be quiet while you're exiting, we're going to go on to the next item, which is 12 -C -7, which is a resolution for non -ad valorem assessment methodology. Are you the staff on this, Mr. Nino? Who is the staff on this, Mr. Fernandez, 12 -C -7? COMMISSIONER BERRY: What are you doing? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Well, am I -- all those others were continued. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You're absolutely right. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: What are you doing? You're doing what's absolutely right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute. What about 12 -B -47 CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: 12 -B -4 is continued from -- that's right, it was continued today as well. So we are to 12 -C -7. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is the -- the Golden Gate Parkway where the folks decided to create the little taxing district for themselves so they can put utilities in. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You got it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If that's what this is, I will move approval. And you need to close the public hearing as well. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Any there any registered speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: We will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move approval. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye, (Aye.) CHAIRPERSON MACIKIE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Motion passes five, zip without any staff, We did it on our own. Page 151 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WW`W.COLLIERGOV.NET .A1 ®w� nupi a Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 64 of 513 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 403 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: ®, PUD REZONE (PUDZ) ❑ PUD TO PUD REZONE (PUDZ -A) PETITION NO (AR) PUDZ- 2006 -AR -9486 REV: 4 PROJECT NAME FREESTATE CPUD PROJECT NUMBER Project: 2005080017 DATE PROCESSED Date: 8116/07 DUE: 9114107 ASSIGNED PLANNER APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT (S) CHARLES S. FALLER III ADDRESS 5307 RANDOLPH ROAD CITY ROCKVILLE STATE MARYLAND ZIP 20852 TELEPHONE # 301 - 231 -6000 CELL # --------- FAX # 301 - 231 -6356 E -MAIL ADDRESS: CFALLER @FALLERMGT.COM NAME OF AGENT D WAYNE ARNOLD O GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. ADDRESS 3800 VIA DEL REY CITY BONITA SPRINGS STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34134 TELEPHONE # 239 -947 -1144 CELL # - - - - -- FAX # 239 - 947 -0375 E -MAIL ADDRESS: WARNOLD @GRADYMINOR.COM NAME OF AGENT RICHARD D YOVANOVICH, P.A. ADDRESS 4001 NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL, SUITE 300 CITY NAPLES STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34103 TELEPHONE # 239-947-1144 CELL # - _----- _- _ - - -_ -_ FAX #239-947-0375 E -MAIL ADDRESS: RYOVANOVICH @GCILAW COM BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. PUDRe nePetition (Rev 3 -07).da Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 65 of 513 ASSOCIATIONS Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: COUNTRYSIDE MASTER ASSOCIATION INC. MAILING ADDRESS 600 COUNTRYSIDE DR. CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34104 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: CASCADES AT FALLING WATERS. PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC MAILING ADDRESS 2004 CASCADES DRIVE #1 CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34112 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: CASCADES OF FALLING WATERS CONDO ASSOCIATION MAILING ADDRESS 1972 CASCADES DRIVE. #1 CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34112 NAME OF MASTER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ____ ZIP NAME OF CIVIC ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS __- ---- CITY _____ STATE ____ ZIP Disclosure of Interest Information a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership PUDR=oftPaition (Rev 3- 07).dm Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 66 of 513 b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, Fist the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address FFT Santa Barbara 1, LLC 5307 Randolph Road Rockville, MD 20852 -2121 FFT Santa Barbara Il, LLC 5307 Randolph Road Rockville, MD 20852 -2121 Percentage of Ownership Folio No. 00406600606 100% Folio No. 00402520007 100% C. if the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and /or limited partners. Name and Address William Wheeler, Member 5307 Randolph Road Rockviile, MD 20852 -2121 Charles S. Faller, II1, Manager 5307 Randolph Road Rockville, MD 20852 -2121 PUDRezonePetitim (Rev 3 -07)Am Percentage of Ownership 100% Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or FhdMdC(aRQ a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired ® leased n T°F^' of lease 2004 and 2005 yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Date of option: Date option terminates: Anticipated closing date , or h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. PUDR=mPetition (Rev 3 -07).doe Agenda Item No. 8F THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1,L4 LESS THE NORTH 75 FEET THEREOF AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 208 AT PAGE 19. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8 TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8 TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA' THENCE RUN SOUTH 00'59'07 EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, FOR A DISTANCE OF 75.00 FEET' THENCE RUN SOUTH 89'55'30" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED ALSO BEING A POINT 100.00 FEET WEST OF AND PERPENDICULAR WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 8: FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE RUN SOUTH 00'59'07' EAST AND BEING PARALLEL WITH AND 100.00 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 8 FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,294.27 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION .. -------- ...— — , oroAO.nI - u11!cr AI nw- CAI CMIITW I IAIP G(1R A hI CTANr F (lF SF;r 19 FFFT TO THE 1,291.54 FEET TO A POINT 75.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND PERPENDICULAR WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE FOR A DISTANCE OF 564.17 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED, CONTAINING 16.760 ACRES MORE OR LESS. Section /Township /Range 08 150 South /26 East Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book __---- Page #: __------- Property I.D. #: 00406600606 and 00402520007 Metes & Bounds Description: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8. TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF FEET: THENCE RUN SOUTH 89 °55'30" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED ALSO BEING A POINT 100.00 FEET WEST OF AND PERPENDICULAR WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 8: FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE RUN SOUTH 00 °59'07" EAST AND BEING PARALLEL WITH AND 100.00 87 THENCE RUN NORTH 89'48'01" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 565.38 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 8; THENCE RUN NORTH 00 °56'01" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8. FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,291.54 FEET TO A POINT 75.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND PERPENDICULAR WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE AFORESAID SECTION 87 THENCE RUN NORTH PUDR=neft ition (Rev 3 -07).dm CONTAINING 16.760 ACRES, MORE OR LESS Size of Property: X ____ft. = Total Sq. Ft. ___—____ Acres 16.8± Address /general location of subject property: The subject property is located in Section B Township SOS Range PUD District (LDC 2.03.06): ❑ Residential ❑ Community Facilities ® Commercial ❑ Industrial ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land use N ROW, PUD Davis Boulevard, Berkshire Lakes PUD. Commercial S PUD Falling Waters PUD E ROW A Santa Barbara Blvd Ext., Vacant undeveloped W PUD Falling Waters PUD Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page). NO Section/Township /Range _______ Lot: Block: ____ Subdivision: Plat Book_____ Page #:______ Property I.D. #: Metes & Bounds Description: REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from the C -2 AND C -4 zoning district(s) to the CPUD. FREESTATE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: VACANT Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Full range of general Commercial land uses, including retail. restaurant, office, business service and banking uses Original PUD Name: PUDR=onePclition (Rev 3- 07).doc Ordinance No.: Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. PUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 10.02.13.31 The Freestate Commercial Planned Unit Development proposes a maximum of 150,000 square feet of commercial land uses on 16.8± acres. A variety of retail, office, professional and business service land uses are proposed to be developed within the CPUD. The property is located on the southwest corner of Davis Boulevard and future Santa Barbara Boulevard. Access to the project is from Davis Boulevard and future Santa Barbara Boulevard. The project is located within Mixed Use Activity Center #6, and the proposed commercial land uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Mixed Use Activity Center concept. The conceptual master plan prepared for the property identifies the proposed building envelope in support of the commercial land uses. The conceptual master plan also identifies proposed points of ingresslegress to the site, landscape buffers, preserve and water management. The proposed development is compatible with surrounding commercial development which also lies within Activity Center #6. 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The subject property is located in the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Sub - district on the Future Land Use Map, which permits a full range of commercial and residential development. The site has access to Davis Boulevard and the future Santa Barbara Boulevard. Urban services are presently available to the property and sufficient capacity exists to serve the proposed land uses. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. The documents submitted with the application provide evidence of unified control and appropriate disclosures are provided in the application. 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. PUDR=ncPeUtion (Rev 3- 07).doe Agenda Item No. 8F The Statement of Compliance located in the CPUD document discusses mbfwsta f'cy with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The proposed commergMihda6s are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Mixed Use Activity Center Sub - district of the Future Land Use Element. The existing commercial zoning has been deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed commercial development is compatible with the surrounding land use pattern. The internal arrangement of the proposed development building setbacks, access points and project buffers are consistent with the Land Development Code and sound planning principles with respect to urban infill development The uses and development standards may be deemed compatible with surrounding development. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. A minimum of 30% of the overall project shall be devoted to usable open space as required by the Land Development Code. Open spaces for this project will include native vegetation preserve, landscape buffers, building landscaping, and water management areas, and are located to minimize impacts to the neighboring Failing Waters PUD, while meeting requirements for open space and water management. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The proposed timing of development will be required to be consistent with the County's concurrency management system in effect at the time development order approvals are granted. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. At the filing date of the zoning application there are no plans to expand the boundaries of the proposed CPUD. The adjacent properties to the west and south are presently developed and occupied. The application includes all properties under the unified control of the applicant 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed CPUD includes development standards and conditions which are consistent with other similar types of commercial planned developments which have been constructed in the urban area of Collier County. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property PUDR=nePedtion (Rev M7).dm Agenda Item No. 8F owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in ordgrJL62& in whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. age 72 o s� Previous land use Petitions on the subject roe : To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? LJ Yes ® No If so, what was the nature of that hearing? --------------------- — ------ -------------------- NOTICE: This application will be considered "open" when the determination of "sufficiency" has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered "closed" when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning for a period of six (6) months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive further processing and an application "closed" through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed "closed" may be re- opened by submitting a new application, repayment of all application fees and granting of a determination of "sufficiency ". Further review of the project will be subject to the then current code. (LDC Section 10.03.05.Q.) PUDR=onePeWion (Rev 3 -07).do Agenda Item No. 8F July ZZ, zuub Page 13 Ul 5 t SUBMITTAL SUFFICIENCY CHECKLIST PUD REZONE or PUD TO PUD REZONE THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPL /CAT /ON PACKET No. of Copies Check here if not required ® 24* Completed Application ❑ ® 24* Pre - Application Meeting Notes ❑ ® 24* Legible Conceptual Site Plan 24" X 36" ❑ ® 1 Conceptual Site Plan 8 %i" X 11" ❑ 224 PUD Document and Master Plan ❑ 01 24" x 36" Master Plan ❑ Z2* Warranty Deed or Contract for Sale ❑ ® 1 * Owner /Agent Affidavit, signed & notarized ❑ ® 4 Environmental Impact Statement or waiver ❑ ® 5* Aerial Photos with Habitat Areas Identified ❑ ® 4 Utility Provisions Statement with Sketches ❑ ® 7 Traffic Impact Statement or waiver ❑ ® 4 Historical Survey or waiver ❑ ❑ 4 Architectural Rendering of Proposed Structures ® 4 Boundary Survey, no more than 6 months old (24" x36 ") ❑ ❑ 4 Copies of State and /or Federal Permits ❑ 4 Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, if applicable ® 1 Electronic Copy of PUD Document & Plans ❑ ® 1 Copy of Letter notifying the U.S. Postal Service of project ❑ ® 2 Addressing Checklist ® Required Fees * One additional copy required if for Affordable Housing As the authorized agent /applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal packag I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may It in the de o�proce g this petition. el AgenAgen p tlpIp Gaut Signature Date PUDR=oneNlition (Rev 3 -07).doc Agenda Item No. 8F my 2.2008 PUDZ- 2006- AR -9404ge 5t4 FREESTATE CPUD Project: 2005080017 Freestate CPUD Date: 8116/07 DUE: 9/14/07 Project Narrative and Growth Management Consistency The Freestate CPUD is a proposed commercial planned unit development located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The vacant 16.8 acre property is presently zoned C-4 and C -2 and the proposed CPUD will consist of up to 150,000 square feet of commercial land uses. The project will have access to both Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard, at locations previously coordinated with Collier County through an approved Developer Contribution Agreement. Approximately 2.9 acres of right -of -way for the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard have been previously dedicated to Collier County. The conceptual master plan proposed for the site demonstrates the conceptual location of the commercial buildings, along with the proposed maximum building height for each building. The master plan also identifies a 2.5 +/- acre native vegetation preservation area, which is located immediately adjacent to the native preservation area of the neighboring Falling Waters PUD. Development standards have been proposed which are consistent with the existing commercial zoning and will result in a compatible land use relationship with surrounding development. The Freestate CPUD is entirely located in the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Center #6) of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Activity Center #6 permits a full range of commercial development, and the Future Land Use Element does not limit the amount of commercial development within the activity center. The Freestate CPUD is consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The project is in compliance with Policy 5.3 of the Future Land Use Element, which requires urban intensity land uses to be located in the Urban Area and contiguous to existing development and infrastructure. The subject site is contiguous to existing urban intensity land uses and infrastructure required to service the commercial development exists at the site. The project is also consistent with Policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element which encourages the use of planned unit developments in order to provide more innovative land development. The Freestate CPUD complies with Future Land Use Element Policies 7.1 and 7.2 by providing access to both Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension, and providing for internal connectivity between development tracts within the project. Pedestrian and /or vehicular interconnection in not possible with the adjacent Falling Waters PUD, as it a developed and gate secured community which has not provided for a potential interconnection to this property. Agenda Item No. SF July 22, 2005 Page 75 of 513 The Freestate CPUD is also consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan. Policy 6.1.1 requires that commercial developments exceeding 5 acres in size must preserve a minimum of 15% of the native vegetation existing on -site. The Freestate CPUD complies with this policy and the 2.5 acre preserve area, meets the minimum 15% native vegetation retention standard. The preserve area also meets the location standards of Policy 6. 1.1 by providing the preserved vegetation adjacent to an off -site preserve area. As proposed, the Freestate CPUD is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. No deviations have been requested from the Land Development Code standards for commercial development. i Prepared by and return to: Gregory L. Urbs ncic, Esq. Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiarni Trail North Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 239435 -3535 File Number. 929.005 Will Call No.: Above This Line For Recording Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 3618980 OR; 3869'V6090F RICORDID in OTTICIAL IICOUS of C011211 Comm, TL 04/I5/2005 at 02:29P1 DIIGHT 1, BROC1, C111I Cogs 1334914.00 RIC 111 27,00 DOC-.70 9359.00 Retn1 GOODLITTI COLIKII IT AL 4001 TAHIAII TR 11300 HAPIHS TL 31103 Warranty Deed This Warranty Deed made this . I a day of August, 2005 between Gertrude M. Abele, Individually and as Trustee(s) under the provisions of that certain Trust Agreement dated January 13, 1999 whose post office address is Beltrone Living Center, 6 Winners Circle #452, Albany, NY 12205, grantor, and FFT Santa Barbara I1, LLC, a Florida limited Liability Company whose post office address is 5307 Randolph Road, Rockville, MD 20852, grantee: (Whencvsr used herein the uu., "grantor" and "grants " e d Wp,ilpt,, rrurnent and the heirs. legal reprcsenntives, and essilns or individuals, and the swcessars and as ism ofcorponti Masses) Witnesseth, that said grantor, for in of the sum of A NO 1100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable considerations to d to d pat i grant the ceipt whereof is hereby aekaowledged, has granted, bargained, and sold to e s d n h ' s and sig forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in CoOier Co is ! o -M See Attached Exhibit "A" n PareelIdenification Numb Nre�st 007 /�0� Subject to: (a) ad valorem y taxes for the yea 06, d subsequent years; (b) zoning, building code and other usused by go a authority; ( c) outstanding oll, gas and mineral Interests of re 0 servations, and easements common to the subdivision, if any. Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. To Have and to Hold, the some in fee simple forever. And the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. PU DZ- 2006 -AR -9486 FREESTATE CPUD Project: 2005080017 Date: 8116/07 DUE REV: 4 9114107 DoublaTssnea In Witness Whereot grantor Signed, sealed/ and delivered in o d' presence: "/ • K Wi essName' Witness Name: Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 OR: 3868 ���e b 07 set grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. State of 'Nt .o L (, L�L- County of ti �r y The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before and as Trustee under the Provisions of that certaiy Tl [, have produced a driver's license as identifx!kq [Notary Seal] GCrtrudi°M. Abele, Individually and a`sTrustee under the provisions of that certain Trust Agreement dated January 13. 1999 clli ' day of August, 2905 by Gertrude M. Abele, Individually � rEd January 13, 1999, who K are personally known or �4eby ;mmjI jil ZLyL-- S MILLIMAN Slate of New York 4992116 CoLfffty aFeb uar ary 18,itk Doubla`nmO Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 OR. 3868 ?09e63035"t EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION The E 112 of the NE 114 of the NE 114 of Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, less the North 75 feet deeded in O.R. Book 208, Page 19, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. ALSO LESS and EXCEPT that portion of the E 112 of the NE 114 of the NE 114 of Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, except the Northerly 75 feet, more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Northeast comer of Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; thence S 00'12'29" E 75 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence S 00'12'29" E 360.00 feet; thence N 89'20'02" W 664.61 feet; thence N 00'09'59" W 360.00 feet; thence S 89'20'02" E 664.35 feet to the Point of Beginning. Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 U 3482690 OR: 3651 PPG: 2455 513 L 3 p 111GOm p In10111cluP0 MM !f cocain MM, n and Qssigm of individuals, and the ' 011i 2113111.11 WITNESSETH that This instrument wu prepared Mile widwor opinion oftitl DDW-f 11 Ei2si.10 DOLLARS ($10.00) and oth dkr rowdics ream b: lets: receipt whereof is hereby Gregory L Udrol3q E% coodidek Colman R Johnson, P A 00DDUM CO11i11ll 1t u Grandee's heirs and assigns fo 4001 Taai®i Tail Monk Suite 300 IDO] 7111111111 ?111 f301 of Collier, State of Florida, to wit: Naples, Florida 34103 Willis IL 34103 See Exhibit "A" (239)435.353S part hereef. . (space above this lime for recording data) WARRANTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED is mach day of July 2004, by GERTRUDE M. ASELE, INDMDUALLY AND eA�S PROVISIONS OF THAT CERTAIN TRUST AGREEMENT DATED , office address is 4 Shaker Drive Albany, NY 12211, as grantor o I" ARA I, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY CO office addr= 53 RaMdpb RoadRoekvi1leMD 20852, as grantee ("Granted' (Whenever used herein din term! Q 1 p and the beiM tonal rcpmentativm and Qssigm of individuals, and the WITNESSETH that r, nsi a a= of TEN AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and oth and valuable coasi on in hand paid by Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby has granted, ed and sold to the Grantee and Grandee's heirs and assigns fo following de= lying and being in the County of Collier, State of Florida, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attach part hereef. . Property m No.: 00402520007 Subject to: (a) ad valorem real property taxes for the year 2004 and subsequent yeses; (b) special assessments levied by governmental authority; (c) zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; (d) outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any; and (e) restrictions, reservations and easements of record. Grantor warrants that the above-described land is not the homestead of the Grantee nor contiguous therew. AND the Grantor henry covenants with Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple-, that Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; and that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. Warranty Deed PUDZ- 2006 -AR -9486 REV: 4 Page I oft FREESTATE CPUD Project: 2006080017 Date: 8116107 DUE: 9/14107 0 Agenda Item Jyo. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 80 of 513 OR; 3651 PG; 2456 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his or her hands and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presenec of* i .mac. j- Name: STATE OF )V w Yor K COUNTY OF "O-rc f The foregoing 4aws Abele, Indvidaafiy aJanuary 13, 1999, (SEAL) ! � MOt� ���po0app{C 16,�OS s wwa,una� ewae.�u rmMw,�,.rr oeeelee GRANTOR: &Zzzw Certrude M, Abele, Individually and as Trustee under the provisions of that certain Treat Agreement dated January 13,1994 )f July, 2004, by Gertrade M. ain Trust Agreement dated or ( ) has Produced My Commission Expires: Warranty Deed Page 2 of 2 f Agenda Iterr1No. 8F July 22, 2o08 Page 81 of 513 OR: 3651 PG: 2457 "t EXHfBff "A" THE PROPERTY The[ Portion of to E 1/2 of do NE 1/e of the NE 1/4 of Sedlm 0, TOWMNp 50 SDUth, Nange 26 Eno, Cower Cony: P"kfa, am" the Nwdwty 75 het, n Pa babdy dwowed as fowowe: Ownww at Oe Nadfnsst smear of Secum 6, Towm* 50 SDuth, Rage 26 East, Cdly CDUMy, Fbdde: Vftl 5 00°]229' E 75A0 het to the Poht of Be➢knkt7 titetlDes O nnr E 360.00 fee4 IOesge N B9'2nr W 664.61 het therge N 00'0459' W 360.00 feet dente S a9'2ow E 6435 fee[ to the Print of BegknYsg. 3 0 PROJECT: Santa Barbara ExtJPro)ect if60091 PARCEL No: (not assigned) Folio No. 00402520010 Parent Tract FOLIO No: 00402520007 ` PrW-" "F,.e.. ,,1, fsprlr! Ellen ,. fttM'�7 -ffice of t1K t 3892236 0 &: 4094 Pb� y 22,, 2008 UMM ID MICTU Illmas of 11"'Ip 82 of 513 1185/2" at IMAM IntlR 1. ma, = 01L1 434117111111 "C in 21.11 DOC "110 3055.51 leta: nww If1if0112n 1A1: 111 tnlIS W slit n,,,, ���''j416ii WARRANTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED made thiday of / . 2006, by, FFT SANTA BARBARA II, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability mpany (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"), post office address is 5307 Randolph Road, Rockville, Maryland 20852, to COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Its successors and assigns, whose post office address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, 34112 (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee "). (Wherever used herein the terms 'Grantor" and "Grantee" include all the parties to this Instrument and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns.) WITNESSETH: That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, aliens, remises, releases, conveys ad confines unto the Grantee, all that certain land situate in Collier County, Florida, to wit: See Attached Exhibit "A" r led herein by reference. Subject to easeme 'on s, an ons of record. This is NOT e o as of th G ntor. Together with all th t n d a d appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise in' F TO HAVE AND TO'({syAD the same in AND the Grantor her enants with sai ee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee sim rth ood right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that h tog fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the a aims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land Is free of all encumbrances except as noted above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written. (Printed Full 'Name) r SANTA BARBARA 11, LLC 1odda LLi�iim%dd JJmiteLiability CCgq /tiny Charles S. Faller, III Manager PUDZ- 2006 -AR -9486 REV: 4 FREESTATE CPUD Project: 2005080017 Date: 8116/07 DUE: 9/14/07 OR: 4094 PG: 4Wa Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 83 of 513 STATE OF COUNTY OF 4 e fore 'i instrument was acknowledged before me thitz:2e day of 2006, by Charles S. Faller, III, as Manager of FFT SANTA BARBARA 11, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company who: is OR rsonally known to me has produced as proof of identity. (affix notarial seal) 4Nota oarr=810 s (Print Name of Notary Public) ooressess as ram m NOTARY PUBLIC 1! __ '•"'""""""'r" . ❑jt ommfssionN (if any): 1"— issbn Expires: is T. WARRANTY DEED Page 2 of 2 OR: 4094 PG. Vty2i 2008 Page 84 of 513 HXMrT "A' f. GALDZSCFVnON The Dist too rod 9f the following dosmW pmd of real pop¢tT The E %of the NB ii of the NR %of Sectlm S. Tbwuhip 50 Soul, Rmp 26 But, Coniw Cemty.pbddylmtheNcrth75f adulled in O.R.Rmk2M. Pege 19. Public kc=& of CoIDec Cmn, Plodde. 8, ot. ri2 Aoenda Item No. 8F .. uy -2 page 85 of 513, AM� We /I, FFT Santa Barbara I. LLC being first duly sworn, depose and say that we /I am /are the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. 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 property owner We /I further authorize O. Grady Minor and Associates. P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich. P.A. to act as our /my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. Signature of Property Owner . EFT .Jan %i UnrAarT1 ti-r- 0 Typed or Printed Name of Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before 2005, by who is personally __— ___, -__as identification. Application For Public Haring For PUD Rezone 6/14104 Signature of Property Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner me this _ day of _beaWJ_VA known to me or has produced (§igKature of Notary Public - Sta of a)r� LORETfA ANN SHULTZ NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MARYLAND My Commission Expires March 17, 2008 (Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) Agenda Item No. 8F July, Za; ZUU8 Rage 8� flf 513' ; ;, We /I, FFT Santa Barbara II LLC being first duly sworn, depose and say that we /I am /are the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. 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 property owner We /I further authorize O Grady Minor and Associates. P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich. P.A. to act as our /my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. ( , 4,6,�I _�C/ Ma efer Signature of Property Owner FFr son 74 DRI -bMrAAL LLC_ Typed or Printed Name of Owner Signature of Property Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner The foregoing i strume_nt as a knowledged before me this day of 2005, by LdLr� who is personally known to me or has produced identification. I Appliontim For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 6114/04 (Sknature of Notary Public -'State orra) LORETTA ANN SHULTZ NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MARYLAND My Commission Expires March 17,200B (Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) PUDZ- 2006 4%R 449juj*, kX FREESTATE CPUD age 87 of 513 Project: 2006080017 Date: 8116107 DUE: 9114107 COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL no undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that they are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record oflimperty commooty known as Folio Numbers 00406600606 and 00402520007 (Street address and City, State and Zip Code) and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The property described herein is the subject of an application for planned unit development (FM) zoning. We hereby designate 0. Gmdv Minor and Amr;Wes. PA and *char([ D Yovanovicli. PA, legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, theme individuals am authorized to legally bind all owners of the property in the comas of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This authority includes, bat is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives will remain the only entity to antha = development activity on the property ty umt] such time as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County. The wxlcmFW recognim the following and will be guided aaondirigly in the pursuit of development of the project 1. The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions placed on the development and all commitmen ts agreed to by the applicant in connection with the planned unit development «aonin& Z 71e legal repramtative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safognmds, and stpuhtiom made at the time of approval of the under plum, oven if the property is sid"uently sold in whole or in part, unless and umnl it new or amended covenant ofuoMW control is delivered ro and recorded by Collier Canty. 3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a 6 1 ue to comply with any tognhmtnnts, coadltiona, or cdbgrmrda provided for in tlro planned unit development process well constitute a violation of the land Development Code. 4. At terms and cooditions of do planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants and restrictions which rim with the hind so as to provide notice to suebsequent owners that an devdopmem activity within the planned omit development must be considmt with those terms and conditions. 5. So long as this covenant is in face, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms, safegverde, and conditions of the planned unit dcvekhpment, seer equitable relief as necessary to compel compliance. The County will not iaehhe permits, aatif' tcatea, or he== to occupy or use any part of tlu planned unit development and the County may amp ongoing construction activity troth the project is brought FF7/s�mr7/�7&m�[x�1.TpeL C " conditions and safeguards o�.t poe im�t de r♦ t owner tiA'ner cxo,/ej S' r4: 1f✓ zr Printed Name STATE OF FG'9 QOr) COUNTY OF COLLIER) e-44,4, S Fa / %rar Printed Name Stwmn to (r affirmed) "^and subscribed before me this A#Aday of �,fim�� 2005 by f hQ Y' leg S, RL' Ier -Lid who is personally known to me or has produced VAF1ii!rx/f • (Name typed PrintAitgl z NOTARY PUBLIC STATE Of MARYIMt) (Serial NuAtWifzmy)Dn Expires March T7, 2008 "'FciTA A.NV SHL'u,_ P _r.� { STATE OF hiAnYtAKV r Sa�.ch 77: 2M3 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 88 of 513 FREESTATE CPUD EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE NORTH 75 FEET THEREOF AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 208 AT PAGE 19. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH D0059'OT' EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, FOR A DISTANCE OF 75.00 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89155'30" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED ALSO BEING A POINT 100.00 FEET WEST OF AND PERPENDICULAR WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 8; FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°59'07" EAST, AND BEING PARALLEL WITH AND 100.00 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 8, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,294.27 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 8; THENCE RUN NORTH 89 4B'01" WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 565.38 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 8; THENCE RUN NORTH 00°56'01" WEST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION B, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,291.54 FEET TO A POINT 75.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND PERPENDICULAR WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE AFORESAID SECTION 8; THENCE RUN NORTH 89°55'30" EAST, AND BEING PARALLEL WITH AND 75.00 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 8, FOR A DISTANCE OF 564.17 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED, CONTAINING 16.760 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Ai3�' k�� te Min 017 05 10, 1 D Call 1 Co. ADDRESSING 941- 9-57249enda July o. 1 July 22, 2D06' 06- 16-15 11:57 MM Bemkt- argineerirg 1 239- 597 -3082 T -687 P0024M9F0i8M ADDRESUNG CNECi 71ST Please complete the following and submit to the Addressing Section for Review. Not all items will atroly to every woiect Hems in bold tune are reauired. 1. Legal description of subject property or properties (copy oflengthy description maybe attached) Q.rc z-kq , lTr 4 yr 1;Z- so- 7_ cl 2. Folio (Property ID) namber(srof above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 3. Street address or addresses (as applicable, if already assigned) Southwest corner Santa Barbara Boulevard & Davis Boulevard 4. Location map, showing exact location of projectisite in relation to nearest public road right -of -way (attach) S. Copy of survey (NEEDED ONLY FOR UNPLATTED PROPERTIES) 6. Proposed project name (if applicable) FallerCwnmercial Center PcyleX .4 ". e- N0-4 abpraYernl 0.-4 kru.r. Amer 7. Proposed Street names @ applicable) N/A 8. Site Developmerrl Plan Number (FOR EXISTING PROJFk- MSPCES ONLY) SDP _ 9. Petition Type (Complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition Type) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ SDPI (SDP Insubstantial Change) ❑ FP (Final Plat) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SIPA (SIP Amendment) ❑ BL (Blasting Permit) ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ ROW (Right -of -Way Permit) ❑ Vegetation/Exotic (Vag. Removal Permits) ❑ EXP (Fxcavation Permit) 19 Land Use Petition (Variance, Conditional Use, ❑ VRSFP (Veg. Removal & Site Fill Permit) Boat Dock Ext., Rezone, PUD rcwne, etc.) ❑ Other - Describe: 10. Projector development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if applicable; indicate whether proposed or existing) 11. Please Check One: ® Checklist is to be Faxed Back ❑ Personally Picked Up 12. Applicant Name David R. Underhill, Jr.. P.E. - Banks En¢., Inc. Phone 597 -2061 Fax 597 -3082 13. Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to farther review by the Addressing Section FOR STAFF USE ONLY Primary Number :5 519070 Address Number Address Number Address Number Approved by . L/. h .n . ,1 /�,fi � r'21,i Date `o - / 7 - D S I- VOM]annOMawma"Ac&"Y 2�>D_AldmceaCkccHirtPUD.Gu PUDZ- 2006 -AR -9486 Aevoed 3.2I -0t PROJECT #2005080017 DATE: 4/4/06 HEIDI WILLIAMS Agenda Item No. 8F STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS e Page 90 of 0103 FOR PUD REZONEREQUEST NAME OF APPLICANT (S) CHARLES S FALLER III ADDRESS 5307 RANDOLPH ROAD CITY ROCKVILLE STATE MARYLAND ZIP 20852 TELEPHONE # 301 - 231 -6000 CELL # 301- 231 -6356 E -MAIL ADDRESS: CFALLER @FALLERMGT.COM ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAILABLE): NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE Section /Township /Range 8 /50 South /26 East Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. #: 00406600606 and 00402520007 Metes & Bounds Description: THE EAST 112 OF THE NORTHEAST 114 OF THE NORTHEAST 114 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA LESS THE NORTH 75 FEET THEREOF AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 208 AT PAGE 19. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: EAST COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY UteCRibtu A> rULLUwx COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8 TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA' THENCE RUN SOUTH 00 59 07 n.... - ---11u n o..n a MICTAKI "C nC 7C An THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED ALSO BEING A POINT 100 00 FEET WEST OF AND PERPENDICULAR WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 8' FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE RUN SOUTH 00 °59'07" EAST AND BEING PARALLEL WITH AND 100.00 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 8 FOR A DISTANCE OF 1.294.27 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 87 THENCE RUN NORTH 89'48'01" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 565.38 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 8• THENCE RUN NORTH 00 °56'01" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8 FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,291.54 AND BEING PARALLEL WITH AND 75.00 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 8. FOR A DISTANCE OF 564.17 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING 16.760 ACRES. MORE OR LESS. I TYPE OF SEWAQE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED t: I applicable system): PUDRmonePeition (Rev 7 -07) COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM a. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM b. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM PROVIDE NAME • d. PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT (GPD capacity)------- ------------- - -- e. SEPTIC SYSTEM • a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 91 of 513 b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM ❑ c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM ❑ PROVIDE NAME d. PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL) ❑ {q :=G,.n*",+Srs*.y ® ❑ Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 91 of 513 X A. WATER -PEAK 33,750 GPD AVERAGE DAILY 22,500 GPD B. SEWER -PEAK 30,750 GPD AVERAGE DAILY 20,250 GPD IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED December 2007 -RAW P Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. NIA - connect to central sewer. If the project is located within the services boundaries of Collier County's utility service system, written notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate to Collier County Utilities the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the at time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. AMACITY FROM p ,T E 'Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre - application meeting, if the project is to receive ,,sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating that there is adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. PUDR=nePetluon (Rev 3 -07) Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 — — — Page-92 cf -593 PUDZ- 2006 -AR -4486 PROJECT #2005080017 DATE: 414106 HEIDI WILLU MS COLLIER COUNTY WAIVER APPLICATION FROM THE REQUIRED HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT DATE SUBMITTED: PLANNER: Ray V. Bellows, Zoning Manaeer PETITION NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH THE WAIVER: (To Be Completed By Zoning end Lend Development Review Staff) PROJECT NAME: Santa Barbara Preserve MPUD LOCATION: (Common Description) Section 8 Townshin50 E Range 26 S Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension SUMMARY OF WAIVER REQUEST: (Properties located within an area of Historical and Archaeological Probability but with a low potential for historical/archaeological sites may petition the Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator or his designee to waive the requirement for a Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment. Once the waiver application has been submitted, it shall be reviewed and acted upon within five (5) working days. The waiver request shall adequately demonstrate that the area has low potential for historical /archaeological sites.) H1.4me Pm mmtion,Forms' 11:31) -04 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 93 of 513 SECTION ONE: APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DATA A. Name of applicant (s) (if other than property owner, state relationship such as option holder, contract purchaser, lessee, trustee, etc.): Charles S. Faller, III Mailing Address: 5307 Randolpb Road. Rockville MD 20852 Phone: (301) 231 -6000 FAX: 301 - 231 -6356 B. Name of agent(s) for applicant, if any: D. Wayne Arnold Mailing Address: O. Grady Minor and Associates P.A., 3800 Via Del Rev Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Rey Phone: (239) 947 -1144 FAX: 239- 947 -0375 C. Name of owner(s) of property: FFT Santa Barbara L LLC and FFT Santa Barbara Mailing Address: 5307 Randolph Road Rockville MD 20852 Phone: (301)231 -6000 FAX: 301-231-63 56 Note: If names in answers to A and/or Bare different than name in C, notarized letter(s) of authorization from property owner (C) must be attached. Hisirnic Prc:plxLLinnrrnttns'1 V3�iUJ Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 94 of 513 SECTION TWO: SUBJECT PROPERTY DATA (Attach copy of the plat book page (obtainable from Clerk's Office at the original scale) with subject property clearly marked.) A. Legal description of subject property. Answer only 1 or 2, as applicable. Within platted subdivision, recorded in official Plat Books of Collier County. Subdivision Name: Plat Book Page Unit Block Lot Section Township Range 2. If not in platted subdivision, a complete legal description must be attached which is sufficiently detailed so as to locate said property on County maps or aerial photographs. The legal description must include the Section, Township and Range. If the applicant includes multiple contiguous parcels, the legal description may describe the perimeter boundary of the total area, and need not describe each individual parcel, except where different zoning requests are made on individual parcels. A boundary sketch is also required. Collier County has the right to reject any legal description, which is not sufficiently detailed so as to locate said property, and may require a certified survey or boundary sketch to be submitted. B. Property dimensions: Area: square feet, or 19.71 acres Width along roadway: 664± feet along Davis Boulevard Depth: 1291± feet C. Present use of property: Undeveloped D. Present zoning classification: C -2 and C -4 HiMmic Pr" Iion+orms'I I i3l) N Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 95 of 513 WAIVER CRITERIA Note: This provision is to cover instances in which it is obvious that any archaeological or historic resource that may have existed has been destroyed. Examples would be evidence that a major building has been constructed on the site or that an area has been excavated as a quarry. The Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator may seek counsel of the chairman of the Historic and Archaeological Preservation Board when it is not completely evident that the site is without archaeological or historic value. A. Waiver Request Justification. Interpretation of Aerial Photograph The aerial identifies surrounding land uses which have been developed with_ out having evidence of historical or archeological artifacts. 2. Historical Land Use Description: 1 Land, cover, formation and vegetation description: 4. Other: B. The Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator or his designee may deny a waiver, grant the waiver, or grant the waiver with conditions. The official decision regarding the waiver request shall be provided to the applicant in writing. In the event of a denial of the waiver request, written notice shall be provided stating the reasons for such denial. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator or his designee regarding a waiver request may appeal to the Preservation Board. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Preservation Board regarding a waiver request may appeal that decision to the Board of County Commissioners. HiAm c PnaatiutroNFormd l p1t)'04 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 96 of 513 SECTION FOUR: CERTIFICATION A. The applicant shall be responsible for the accuracy and completeness of this application. Any time delays or additional expenses necessitated due to the submittal of inaccurate or incomplete information shall be the responsibility of the applicant. B. All information submitted with the application becomes a part of the public record and shall be a permanent part of the file. C. All attachments and exhibits submitted shall be of a size that will fit or conveniently fold to fit into a legal size (8 '' /2" x 14') folder. U IM � �►.� Printed Name of Applicant or Agent C. Dean Smith. P.E. -TO BE COMPLETED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION- SECTION FIVE: NOTICE OF DECISION The Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator or designee has made the following determination: Approved on: 2. Approved with Conditions on: By: (see attached) 3. Denied on: By: (see attached) Historic PwsrnationlFormnQ 1i3!04 LL W m C) 0"— Z N C N � N T� — � m � � d C N Q Y h� g � e eiY el uil■ ~ kill Y wx, oout£r�FO �I� s 6 s a -eC'k W 3 »^ a a� pF 1 $ T e W J sI U i I CONCEPTUAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT REPORT for Santa Barbara Reserve MPUD Collier County, Florida March 2006 Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. Civil Engineers ■ Land Surveyors ■ Planners 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 (239) 947 -1144 (239) 947 -0375 (Fax) Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 98 of 513 0 /0 c. Wean smite, i' �. Registered F,ngiaeer No. 44147 _ RTROJ - PLANNING DOMSANTA BARBARA RESERVE MPUD (FMPUD)1WMREP0RT.D0C FMPUD i Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 99 of 513 CONCEPTUAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT REPORT SECTION I SITE INFORMATION A. Location Sketch (Item I -1) Provided as part of the master plan. B. Aerial Photograph (Item I -2) Provided. C. Wetlands The site is currently undeveloped. There are wetlands on site. Please refer to the environmental supplement provided SECTION II PROJECT INFORMATION A. Project Description (Items IMA and II -113) This project is a mixed -use planned development on 20t acres of land located in Section 8 Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The project will be developed for a maximum of 264 residential dwelling units and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses (estimated to be 35,000 square feet retail and 15,000 square feet of office). The site is currently vacant. B. Topographic map is included (Item 11-2). See boundary survey. C. The drainage map is included. (Item II -3). Provided as part of the master plan. F:\PROI - PLANNING DOCSVSANTA BARBARA RESERVE MPUD (FMPUDyWMREPORT.DOC FMPUD 7 D. Water Elevation (Item II-4a). 1. Estimated Wet Season Water Table= 9.0'N.G.V.D. E. F. SECTION III Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 100 of 513 2. The water table was determined by the following method. (Item I1-4b). The preliminary water table was estimated using soils classifications and adjacent SFWMD permitting. 3. No water resource related systems will be affected by this project. (Item 11- 5). 4. This project lies within Flood Zone X, no minimum finish floor elevation established (Item II -6). FIRM Panel Number 415. Percolation (Item II -'n N/A Water Withdrawals (Item II -8) The project will utilize central water system for potable water from Collier County Utilities. Irrigation of common areas will be by groundwater withdrawal permitted through South Florida Water Management District. MASTER PLAN A. Master Paving, Grading and Drainage Plans (Item III -1) Provided as part of the master plan. B. Drainage Plan Details (Item 111 -2) Provided as part of the master plan. C. Receiving Body List (Item 111-3) Lely Canal Basin via Santa Barbara Boulevard right -of -way. 4 F:�PROJ- PLANNING DOMSANTA BARBARA RESERVE MPUD (FMPUD)MMREPORT.DOC FMPUD • C J Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 101 of 513 D. Construction Techniques (Item III-4) Construction and stabilization of the perimeter berms first will eliminate off-site water quality impacts. We proposed to fill the site and direct stormwater runoff to the on -site lake. No dewatering is proposed. E. Legal Reservations (Item III -5) Water management facilities shall be placed within easements and rights -of -way and dedicated to the appropriate entity. F. Affected Facilities (Item III-6) No water resource related facilities will be affected. SECTION IV SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS A. Facilities 1. Existing (Item IV -1). The site has no existing water management facilities. 2. No facilities have been previously approved or permitted by SFWMD (Item IV -2). 3. Proposed Facilities (Item IV -3). The proposed surface water management system shall serve the project The site shall consist of 1 drainage basin. This basin shall contain a wet detention area for stormwater treatment Runoff from all areas of the site will be conveyed to the wet detention area, which will discharge via a control structure to the east into the Santa Barbara Boulevard right -of -way. 4. Facility Details (Items IV -5, IV-6, IV -7, IV -8, IV -9 and W -10) a. No exfiltration trench is proposed. b. Discharge Structure Table. A single catch basin/water control structure is proposed. Please see: conceptual plan. B. Acreage Item N -12) F:\PRO) - PLANNING DOCSVSANFA BARBARA RESERVE MPUD (FMPUD) \wMREPoRT.DOC FMPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 102 of 513 Basin No. I TOTAL AREA 20.0 R/W RESERVATION 2.9 NET DEV. AREA 17.1 PAVEMENT 4.1 BUILDINGS 4.4 LAKE 1.0 PRESREVE 2.5 OTHER PERVIOUS 5.1 C. . Water Quality (Item IV -13) Off-site water quality (Item IVA 3B) Calculations Basin No. 1 For first inch: F' x '/12. x 17.1 acres = 1.43 Be. ft. For 2.5" times percent impervious (all area units in acres) Site Area: 17.1 - (4.4 +1.0) = 11.7 Ac. Impervious Area: 11.7 — 7.6 = 4.1 Ac. % Impervious = 4.1/11.7 = 0.350 2.5" x % impervious = 2.5" x 0.350 x (17.1 — l.0) x 1 "/12" = 1.17 ac. ft. Required wet detention = 1.43 ac. ft. E. Soil Storage (Item IV -13c) Average depth to water table = 3'. S (from table C -III -1) = 4.95 Site wide soil storage = S x pervious/site jo F:IPROI- PLANNING DOCSISANfA BARBARA RESERVE MPUD (FMPUD)1WMREPORT.DOC FMPUD L_J u Agenda Item No, 8F July 22, 2008 Page 103 of 513 Basin No. 1 4.95" x 7.6/ 17.1 = 2.20" F. Allowable Discharge (Item IV -14) The allowable discharge is computed by using the allowable discharge rate of 0.06 cis per acre per Collier County ordinance 2001 -27 Basin No. 1 Allowable discharge = 0.06 cfs/acre x 17.1 acres = 1.03 CFS FTRO) - PLANNING DOCS\SANTA BARBARA RESERVE MP[JD (FMPUD)1WMREPORTDOC FMPUD Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: 25yr3day Date: March 21, 2006 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 104 of 513 Page 1 Project Name: Santa Barbara Reserve Reviewer: CDS Project Number: FMPUD Period Begin: Jan 01, 2000;0000 hr End: Jan 16, 2000 ;0000 hr Duration: 360 hr Time Step: 0.2 hr, Iterations: 10 Basin 1: Entire Project Method: Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph Rainfall Distribution: SFWMD - 3day Design Frequency: 25 year 1 Day Rainfall: 8.9 inches Area: 17.1 acres Ground Storage: 2.2 inches Time of Concentration: 1 hours Initial Stage: 9 ft NGVD Stage Storage (ft NGVD) (acre -ft) -- - - - - -- --- --- - -- 9.00 0.00 9.50 0.50 10.00 1.32 10.50 4.03 11.00 7.37 11.50 11.35 12.00 16.16 12.50 22.00 13.00 28.35 13.50 34.70 Offsite Receiving Body: Offsite Time Stage (hr) (ft NGVD) --- --- - -- -- - - - - -- 0.00 8.00 480.00 8.00 Structure: 1 From Basin: Entire Project To Basin: Offsite Structure Type: Gravity Weir: None Bleeder: Circular, Invert Elev - 9 ft NGVD, Diameter a 0.42 ft Default Coefs: Weir Coef = 0.6, Orifice Coef = 0.6 Pipe: Diameter - 2 ft, Manning's n = 0.012, length - 200 ft US Invert Elev - 7 ft NGVD, DS Invert Elev - 6 ft NGVD, no flap gate Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (acre-ft) == - =-- a=te ift NGVD) ==-= me (ft NGVD) 0.00 0.00 =--- --- - 0.00 -- tee----- 0.00 0.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 S.DO 4.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 8.00 5.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 8.00 6.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 O.DO 9.00 8.00 8100 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 8.00 9.00 0.49 0.01 0.00 0.00 9.00 8.00 10.00 0.54 0.04 0.00 0.D0 9.00 8.00 11.00 0.60 O.OB 0.00 0.00 9.01 8.00 12.00 0.65 0.12 0.00 0.00 9.02 8.00 13.00 0.70 0.15 0.00 0.00 9.03 8.00 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 105 of 513 Caseade 2001 Version 1.0 • File: 25yr3day Date: March 21, 2006 Page 2 I 11 Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (acre -ft) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) 14.00 0.76 0.19 0.0D 0.00 9.04 8.00 15.00 0.B1 0.22 0.01 0.00 9.06 8.00 16.00 0.67 0.25 0.01 0.00 9.08 8.00 17.00 0.92 0.28 0.02 0.00 9.10 8.00 18.00 0.97 0.30 D.03 0.01 9.12 8.00 19.00 1.03 0.33 0.04 O.DS 9.14 8.00 20.00 1.06 0.35 0.06 0.01 9.17 8.00 21.00 1.14 0.37 0.08 0.02 9.19 8.00 22.00 1.19 0.39 0.10 0.03 9.21 B.00 23.00 1.25 0.41 0.12 0.04 9.24 8.00 24.OD 1.30 0.43 0.14 0.05 9.26 8.00 25.00 1.38 0.59 0.17 0.06 9.29 8.00 26.00 1.46 0.67 0.20 0.07 9.33 8.00 27.00 1.54 0.71 0.24 0.09 9.37 8.00 28.00 1.62 0.75 0.28 0.12 9.41 8.00 29.00 1.69 0.78 0.32 0.14 9.45 8.00 30.00 1.77 0.81 0.35 0.17 9.48 8.00 31.00 1.85 0.83 0.37 0.20 9.51 8.00 32.00 1.93 0.86 0.38 0.23 9.54 8.00 33.00 2.01 0.88 0.40 0.26 9.56 8.00 34.00 2.09 0.90 0.41 0.30 9.59 8.00 35.00 2.17 0.92 0.42 0.33 9.61 8.00 36.00 2.25 0.93 0.44 0.37 9.64 B.00 37.00 2.33 0.95 0.45 0.40 9.66 8.00 38.00 2.41 0.97 0.46 0.44 9.69 8.00 39.00 2.4B 0.96 0.47 0.48 9.71 8.00 40.00 2.56 1.00 0.48 0.52 9.74 8.00 • 41.00 2.64 1.01 0.50 0.56 9.76 8.00 42.00 2.72 1.02 0.51 0.60 9.79 8.00 43.00 2.80 1.03 0.52 0.64 9.81 8.00 44.00 2.B8 1.04 0.53 0.69 9.84 B.00 45.00 2.96 1.06 0.54 0.73 9.87 B.00 46.00 3.04 1.07 0.55 0.78 9.89 8.00 47.00 3.12 1.07 0.56 0.82 9.92 8.00 48.00 3.20 1.08 0.57 0.87 9.94 8.00 49.00 3.28 1.18 0.58 0.92 9.97 8.00 50.00 3.37 1.22 0.59 0.97 10.00 8.00 51.00 3.48 1.41 0.60 1.01 10.01 8.00 52.00 3.60 1.58 0.60 1.D6 10.03 8.00 53.00 3.75 1.98 0.61 1.11 10.04 B.OD 54.00 3.93 2.47 0.62 1.17 10.07 8.00 55.00 4.16 3.01 0.63 1.22 10.10 8.00 56.00 4.41 3.57 0.64 1.27 10.14 8.00 57.00 4.72 4.25 0.66 1.32 10.19 8.00 58.00 5.09 5.24 0.68 1.38 10.25 8.00 59.00 5.59 7.01 0.71 1.44 10.33 8.00 60.00 9.D3 44.08 0.76 1.50 10.59 8.00 61.00 10.02 25.81 0.69 1.57 11.00 8.00 62.00 10.48 14.16 0.94 1.65 11.19 8.00 63.00 10.76 8.17 0.96 1.72 11.30 8.00 64.00 11.03 5.83 0.98 1.80 11.36 8.00 65.00 11.19 3.84 0.99 1.89 11.39 8.00 66.00 11.35 3.11 0.99 1.97 11.42 8.00 67.00 11.51 2.84 1.00 2.05 11.44 8.00 68.00 11.67 2.74 1.00 2.13 11.46 8.00 - 69.00 11.77 2.14 1.00 2.22 11.47 8.00 70.00 11.68 1.92 1.01 2.30 11.48 8.00 71.00 11.99 1.84 1.01 2.38 11.49 8.00 72.00 12.10 1.81 1.01 2.46 11.5D 8.00 73.00 74.00 12.10 12.10 0.67 0.25 1.01 1.01 2.55 2.63 11.50 11.50 8.00 8.00 75.00 12.10 0.09 1.01 2.72 11.49 8.00 76.00 12.10 0.03 1.00 2.80 11.48 8.00 77.00 12.10 0.01 1.00 2.88 11.47 8.00 78.00 12.10 0.00 1.00 2.96 11.46 8.00 79.00 12.10 0.00 1.00 3.05 11.45 8.00 80.00 12.10 0.00 1.00 3.13 11.44 8.00 I 11 Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: 25yr3day Date: March 21, 2006 Agenda Item No- 8F July 22, 2008 Page 106 of 513 Page 3 Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (acre -ftl e� (ft NGVD) �sssa11.43 (ft NGVD) 81.00 ~12.10 0 00 s_ 0.99 3.21 8.001 82.00 12.10 0.00 0.99 3.29 11.42 8.00 83.00 12.10 0.00 0.99 3.37 11.41 8.00 84.00 12.10 0.00 0.99 3.46 11.40 6.00 85.00 12.10 0.00 0.98 3.54 11.39 8.00 86.00 12.10 0.00 0.98 3.62 11.38 8.00 87.00 12.10 0.00 0.98 3.70 11.37 8.00 88.00 12.10 0.00 0.98 3.78 11.35 6.00 89.00 12.10 0.00 0.97 3.86 11.34 8.00 90.00 12.10 0.00 0.97 3.94 11.33 8.00 91.00 12.10 0.00 0.97 4.02 11.32 8.00 92.00 12.10 0.00 0.97 4.10 11.31 8.00 93.00 12.10 0.00 0.97 4.18 11.30 8.00 94.00 12.10 0.00 0.96 4.26 11.29 8.00 95.00 12.10 0.00 0.96 4.34 11.28 8.00 96.00 12.10 0.00 0.96 4.42 11.27 8.00 97.00 12.10 0.00 0.96 4.50 11.26 8.00 98.00 12.10 0.00 0.95 4.58 11.25 8.00 99.00 12.10 0.00 0.95 4.66 11.24 8.00 100.D0 12.10 0.00 0.95 4.74 11.23 8.00 101.00 12.10 0.00 0.95 4.81 11.23 8.00 102.00 12.10 0.00 0.94 4.89 11.22 8.00 103.00 12.10 0.00 0.94 4.97 11.21 8.00 104.00 12.10 0.00 0.94 5.05 11.20 8.00 105.00 12.10 0.00 0.94 5.13 11.19 8.00 106.00 12.10 0.00 0.94 5.20 11.18 8.00 107.00 12.10 0.00 0.93 5.28 11.17 8.00 106.00 12.10 0.00 0.93 5.36 11.16 B..00 109.00 12.10 0.00 0.93 5.43 11.15 8.00 110.00 12.10 0.00 0.93 5.51 11.14 8.00 111.00 12.10 0.00 0.92 5.59 11.13 8.00 112.00 12.10 0.00 0.92 5.66 11.12 8.00 113.00 12.10 0.00 0.92 5.74 11.11 8.00 114.00 12.10 0.00 0.92 5.82 11.10 8.00 115.00 12.10 0.00 0.91 5.89 11.09 6.00 116.00 12.10 0.00 0.91 5197 11.08 8.00 117.00 12.10 0.00 0.91 6.04 11.07 BAD 118.00 12.10 0.00 0.91 6.12 11.06 8.00 119.00 12.10 0.00 0.91 6.19 11.05 B.00 120.00 12.10 0.00 0.90 6.27 11.04 6.00 121.00 12.10 0.00 0.90 6.34 11.03 8.00 122.00 12.10 0.00 0.90 6.42 11.02 8.00 123.00 12.10 0.00 0.90 6.49 11.01 8.00 124.00 12.10 0100 0.89 6.56 11.01 8.00 125.00 12.10 0.00 0.69 6.64 11.00 8.00 126.00 12.10 0.00 0.B9 6.71 10.98 8.00 127 -00 12.10 0.00 0.89 6.78 10.97 8.00 128.00 12.10 0.00 0.68 6.86 10.96 8.00 129.00 12.10 0.00 0.8B 6.93 10.95 8.D0 130.00 12.10 0.00 0.88 7.00 10.94 8 -00 131.00 12.10 0.00 0.87 7.08 10.93 8.00 132.00 12.10 0.00 0.87 7.15 10.92 8.00 133.00 12.10 0.00 0.87 7.22 10.91 8.00 134.00 12.10 0.00 0.87 7.29 10.90 8.00 135.00 12.10 0.00 O.B6 7.36 10.89 8.00 136.00 12.10 0.00 O.B6 7.43 10 -88 8.00 137.DO 12.10 0.00 0.86 7.50 10.87 8.00 138.00 12.10 0.00 0.86 7.56 10.86 8.00 139.00 12.10 0.00 0.85 7.65 10.84 8.00 140.00 12.10 0.00 0.85 7.72 10.83 8.00 141.00 12.10 0.00 0.85 7.79 10.62 8.00 142.00 12.10 0.00 0.84 7,86 10.61 8.00 143.00 12.10 0.00 0.84 7.93 10.80 8.00 144.00 12.10 0.00 0.84 8.00 10.79 8.00 145.00 12.10 0.00 0.84 8.06 10.78 B.DO 146.00 12.10 0.00 0.83 8.13 10.77 8.00 147.00 12.10 0.00 0.83 8.20 10.76 8.00- Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 107 of 513 Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 . File: 25yr3day Date: March 21, 2006 page 4 Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) - =�12.10� (cfs) -60.00 (cfs) (acre -ft) (ft NGVD) (£t NGVD) 148-OD 0.83 8.27 10.75 8.00 149.00 12.10 0.00 0.83 8.34 10.74 8.00 150.00 12.10 0.00 0.82 8.41 10.73 8.00 151.00 12.10 0.00 0.82 8.48 10.72 B.00 152.OD 12.10 0.00 0.82 8.54 10.71 8.00 153.00 12.10 0.00 0.81 B.61 10.70 8.00 154.00 12.10 0.00 0.81 8.68 10.69 8.00 155.00 12.10 0.00 0.81 8.74 10.66 8.00 156.00 12.10 O.DO 0.81 8.81 10.67 8.00 157.00 12.10 0.00 0.80 8.88 10.66 B.00 158.00 12.10 0.00 0.80 8.94 10.65 8.00 159.00 12.10 C.00 0.80 9.01 10.64 8.00 160.00 12.10 0.00 0.80 9.08 10.63 8.00 161.00 12.10 0.00 0.79 9.14 10.62 8.00 162.DO 12.10 0.00 0.79 9.21 10.61 8.00 163.00 12.10 0.00 0.79 9.27 10.60 8.00 164.00 12.10 0.00 0.78 9.34 10.59 8.00 165.00 12.10 0.00 0.78 9.40 10.58 8.00 166.00 12.10 0.00 0.78 9.47 10.57 8.00 167.00 12.10 0.00 D.78. 9.53 10.56 8.00 168.00 12.10 0.00 0.77 9.59 10.55 8.00 169.DO 12.10 0.00 0.77 9.66 10.54 8.00 170.00 12.10 0.00 0.77 9.72 10.53 8.00 171.00 12.10 0100 0.76 9.7B 10.52 8.00 172.00 12.10 0.00 0.76 9.85 10.52 8.00 173.00 12.10 0.00 0.76 9.91 10.51 8.00 • 174.00 12.10 0.00 0.76 9.97 10.50 8.00 175.00 12.10 0.00 0.75 10.04 10.46 8.00 176.00 12.10 0.00 0.75 10.10 10.47 8.00 177.00 12.10 0.00 0.75 10.16 10.46 8.00 178.00 12.10 0.00 0.74 10.22 10.45 8.00 179.00 12.10 0.00 0.74 10.28 10.44 8.00 180.00 12.10 0.00 0.74 10.34 10.43 8.00 181.00 12.10 0.00 0.73 10.40 10.42 8.00 182.00 12.10 0.00 0.73 10.46 10.40 8.00 183.00 12.10 0.00 0.73 10.52 10.39 8.00 184.00 12.10 0.00 0.72 10.58 10.38 8.00 185.00 12.10 0.00 0.72 10.64 10.37 8.00 186.00 12.10 0.00 0.72 10.70 10.36 8.00 187.00 12.10 0.00 0.71 10.76 10.35 B.00 188.00 12.10 0.00 0.71 10.82 10.34 8.00 189.00 12.10 0.00 0.71 10.88 10.33 8.00 190.00 12.10 0.00 0.70 10.94 10.32 8.00 191.00 12.10 0.00 0.70 11.00 10.31 8.00 192.00 12.10 0.00 0.70 11.05 10.30 8.00 193.00 12.10 0.00 0.69 11.11 10.29 8.00 194.00 12.10 0.00 0.69 11.17 10.27 8.00 195.00 12.10 0.00 0.69 11.22 10.26 8.00 196.00 12.10 0.00 0.68 11.28 10.25 8.00 197.00 12.10 0.00 0.68 11.34 10.24 8.00 198.00 12.10 0.00 0.67 11.39 10.23 8.00 199.00 12.10 0.00 0.67 11.45 10.22 8.00 200.00 12.10 0.00 0.67 11.50 10.21 8.00 201.00 12.10 0.00 0.66 11.56 10.20 8.00 202.00 12.10 0.00 0.66 11.61 10.19 8.00 203.00 12.10 0.00 0.66 11.67 10.18 8.00 204.00 12.10 0.00 0.65 11.72 10.17 8.00 205.00 12.10 0.00 0.65 11.78 10.16 8.00 206.00 12.10 0.00 0.65 11.83 10.15 BAD 207.00 208.00 12.10 12.10 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.64 11.88 11.94 10.14 10.13 8.00 8100 209.00 12.10 0.00 0.64 11.99 10.12 8.00 210.00 12.10 0.00 0.63 12.04 10.11 8.00 211.00 12.10 0.00 0.63 12.09 10.10 8.00 212.00 12.10 0.00 0.63 12.15 10.09 8.00 213.00 12.10 C.00 0.62 12.20 10.08 8.00 214.00 12.10 0.00 0.62 12.25 10.08 8.00 Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: 25yr3day Date: March 21, 2006 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 108 of 513 Page 5 Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (acre -ft) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) 215.00 m 12.10 0.00 0.62 12.30 10.07 BAD 216.00 12.10 0.00 0.61 12.35 10.06 S.OD 217.00 12.10 0.00 0.61 12.40 10.05 8.00 218.00 12.10 0.00 0.61 12.45 10.04 8.00 219.00 12.10 0.00 0.60 12.50 10.03 8.00 220.00 12.10 0.00 0.60 12.55 10.02 B.00 221.00 12.10 0.00 0.60 12.60 10.01 6.00 222.00 12.10 0.00 0.59 12.65 10.00 8.00 223.00 12.10 0.00 0.58 12.70 9.97 8.00 224.00 12.10 0.00 0.57 12.75 9.94 8.00 225.00 12.10 0.00 0.56 12.79 9.92 8.00 226.00 12.10 0.00 0.55 12.94 9.89 8.00 227.00 12.10 0.00 0.54 12.SB 9.B6 8.00 228.00 12.10 0.00 0.53 12.93 9.83 8.00 229.00 12.10 0.00 0.52 12.97 9.81 8.00 230.00 12.10 0.00 0.50 13.01 9.78 9.00 231.00 12.10 0.00 0.49 13.05 9.16 6.00 232.00 12.10 0.00 0.49 13.09 9.73 8:00 233.00 12.10 0.00 0.47 13.13 9.71 8.00 234.00 12.10 0.00 0.46 13.17 9.68 8.00 235.00 12.10 0.00 0.45 13.21 9.66 8.00 236.00 12.10 0.00 0.44 13.24 9.64 8.00 237.00 12.10 0.00 0.43 13.28 9.62 8.00 238.00 12.10 D.00 0.41 13.31 9.60 8.00 239.00 12.10 0.00 0.40 13.35 9.59 8.00 - 240.00 12.10 0.00 0.39 13.38 9.56 8.00 241.00 12.10 0.00 0.38 13.41 9.54 8.00 242.00 12.10 0.00 0.37 13.44 9.52 8.00 243.00 12.10 0.00 0.36 13.47 9.50 8.00 244.00 12.10 0.00 0.34 13.50 9.47 8.00 245.00 12.10 0.00 0.32 13.53 9.44 9.00 246.00 12.10 0.00 0.29 13.56 9.42 8.00 247.00 12.10 0.00 0.27 13.58 9.39 8.00 248.00 12.10 0.00 0.25 13.60 9.37 8.00 249.00 12.10 O.OD 0.23 13.62 9.35 8.00 250.00 12.10 0.00 0.21 13.64 9.33 6.00 251.00 12.10 0.00 0.19 13.65 9.32 8.00 252.00 12.10 0.00 0.18 13.67 9.30 8.00 253.00 12.13 O.OD 0.16 13.68 9.29 8.00 254.00 12.10 0.00 0.15 13.69 9.28 8.00 255.00 12.10 0.00 0.14 13.71 9.26 8.00 256.00 12.10 0.00 0.13 13.72 9.25 8.00 257.00 12.10 0.00 0.12 13.73 9.24 8.00 258.00 12.10 0.00 0.11 13.74 9.23 8.00 259.00 12.10 0.00 0.10 13.75 9.22 8.00 260.00 12.10 0.00 0.10 13.75 9.21 8.00 261.00 12.10 0.00 0.09 13.76 9.21 8.00 262.00 12.10 0.00 0.09 13.77 9.20 8.00 263.00 12.10 0.00 0.08 13.78 9.19 8.00 264.00 12.10 0.00 0.07 13.78 9.19 8.00 265.00 12.10 0.00 0.07 13.79 9.18 8.00 266.00 12.10 0.00 0.07 13.79 9.11 8.00 267.00 12.10 0.00 0.06 13.80 9.17 8.00 268.00 12.10 0.00 0.06 13.80 9.16 8.00 269.00 12.10 0.00 0.06 13.81 9.16 8.DO 270.00 12.10 0.00 0.05 13.81 9.16 0.00 271.00 12.10 0.00 0.05 13.82 9.15 8.00 272.00 12.10 0.00 0.05 13.82 9.15 8.00 273.00 12.10 0.00 0.05 13.83 9.14 8.00 274.00 12.10 0.00 0.04 13.83 9.14 8.00 275.00 12.10 0.00 0.04 13.83 9.14 8.00 276.00 12.10 0.00 0.04 13.84 9.13 8.00 277.00 12.10 0.00 0.04 13.84 9.13 8.00 278.00 12.10 0.00 0.04 13.84 9.13 6.00 279.00 12.10 0.00 0.03 13.85 9.12 8.00 280.00 12.10 0.00 0.03 13.85 9.12 8.00 281.00 12.10 0.00 0.03 13.85 9.12 8.00 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 109 of 513 Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 • File: 25yr3day Date: March 21, 2006 Page 6 I- Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hrl (in) {cfs) a (cfs) - (acre -ft) �v (ft NGVD) (£t NGVD) �•8.00� 282.00 12.10 0.00 0.03 13s85 9.12 283.00 12.10 0.00 0.03 13.86 9.11 8.00 284.00 12.10 0.00 0.03 13.86 9.11 8.00 285.00 12.10 0.00 0.03 13.86 9.11 8.00 286.00 12.10 0.00 0.03 13.86 9.11 8.00 287.00 12.10 0.00 0.02 13.86 9.10 8.00 288.00 12.10 0.00 0.02 13.87 9.10 8.00 289.00 12.10 0.00 0.02 13.87 9.10 8.00 290.00 12.10 0.00 0.02 13.87 9.1D 8.00 291.00 12.10 0.00 0.02 13.87 9.10 B.00 292.00 12.10 0.00 0.02 13.87 9.09 8.00 293.00 12.10 0.00 0.02 13.88 9.09 B.OD 294.00 12.10 0.00 0.02 13.88 9.09 8.00 295.00 12.10 0.00 0.02 13.88 9.09 8.00 296.00 12.10 0.00 O.D2 13.88 9.09 8.00 297.00 12.10 0.00 0.02 13.88 9.09 8.00 298.00 12.10 0.00 O.D2 13.88 9.09 8.00 299.00 12.10 0.00 0.02 13.88 9.08 8.00 300.00 12.10 0.00 0.02 13.89 9.08 8.00 301.00 12.10 0.00 O.D2 13.89 9.08 8.00 3102.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.89 9.08 8.00 303.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.89 9.08 8.00 304.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.89 9.08 8.00 305.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.89 9.08 8.00 306.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.89 9.08 8.00 307.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.89 9.07 8.00 308.00 12.10 0.00 0101 13.90 9.07 8.00 • 309.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.90 9.07 8.00 310.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.90 9.07 8.00 311.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.90 9.07 8.00 312.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.90 9.07 8.00 313.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.90 9.07 8.00 314.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.90 9.07 8.00 315.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.90 9.07 6.00 316.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.90 9.07 8.00 317.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.90 9.06 8.00 318.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.90 9.06 8.00 319.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.91 9.06 8.00 320.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.91 9.06 8.00 321.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.91 9.06 8.00 322.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.91 9.06 8.00 323.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.91 9.06 8.00 324.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.91 9.06 8.00 325.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.91 9.06 8.00 326.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.91 9.06 8.00 327.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.91 9.06 8.00 328.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.91 9.06 8.00 329.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.91 9.06 8.00 330.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.91 9.06 8.00 331.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.91 9.06 8.00 332.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.91 9.05 8.00 333.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.91 9.05 8.00 334.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.92 9.05 8.00 335.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.92 9.05 8.00 336.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.92 9.05 6.00 337.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.92 9.05 8.00 338.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.92 9.05 8.00 339.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.92 9.05 8.00 340.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.92 9.05 8.00 341.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.92 9.05 8.00 342.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.92 9.05 8.00 343.00 12.10 0100 0.01 13.92 9.05 8.00 344.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.92 9.05 6.00 345.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.92 9.05 8.00 346.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.92 9.05 8100 347.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.92 9.05 8.00 348.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.92 9.05 8.00 I- b] Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 110 of 513 Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: 25yr3day Date: March 21, 2006 Page 7 Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (acre -ft) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) 349.00 12.10 0.00 0.01 13.92 9.05 8.00E 350.00 12.10 0.00 0.00 13.92 9.05 8.00 351.00 12.10 0.00 0.0c 13.92 9.05 8.00 352.00 12.10 0.00 0.00 13.92 9.04 8.00 353.00 12.10 0.00 0.00 13.92 9.04 8.00 354.00 12.10 0.00 C.00 13.92 9.04 8.00 355.00 12.10 0.00 0.00 13.93 9.04 B.00 356.00 12.10 0.00 0.00 13.93 9.04 8.00 357.00 12.10 0.00 0.00 13.93 9.04 B.00 358.00 12.10 D.00 0.00 13.93 9.04 8.00 359.00 12.10 0.00 0.00 13.93 9.04 6.00 360.00 12.10 0.00 0.00 13.93 9.04 B.00 STRUCTURE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM DISCHARGES Struc Max (cfs) Time (hr) Min (cfs) Time (hr) -� n� OE1 X1.01 �EO=72.60 0.00 0.00 BASIN MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM STAGES Basin c�Max (ft) Time (hr) Min (ft) Time (.1r) @�¢ Entire Project 11.50 72.60 SOS 9.00 0.00 BASIN WATER BUDGETS (all units in acre -ft) �E�aEE ®m Total Structure Structure s InitialEEEE Final Basin Runoff Inflow Outflow Storage Storage Residual Entire Project O x13.97 0.00 Oe0 13.92 0.00 E-- 0.04 ^� 0.00 E Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: 100yr3day Date: March 21, 2006 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 111 of 513 Page 1 Project Name: Santa Barbara Reserve Reviewer: CDS Project Number: FMPUD Period Begin: Jan 01, 2000;0000 hr End: Jan 16, 2000;0000 hr Duration: 360 hr Time Step: 0.2 hr, Iterations: 10 Basin 1: Entire Project Method: Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph Rainfall Distribution: SFWMD - 3day Design Frequency: 100 year 1 Day Rainfall: 11.2 inches Area: 17.1 acres Ground Storage: 2.2 inches Time of Concentration: 1 hours Initial Stage: 9 ft NGVD Stage Storage (ft NGVD) -------- (acre -ft) 9.00 --------- 0.00 9.50 0.50 10.00 1.32 10.50 4.03 11.00 7.37 11.50 11.35 12.00 16.16 12.50 22.00 13.00 28.35 13.50 34.70 Offsite Receiving Body: Offsite Time Stage (hr) -------- Ift NGVD) 0.00 --------- 8.00 480.00 8.00 Structure: 1 From Basin: Entire Project To Basin: Offsite Structure Type: Gravity Weir: None Bleeder: None Pipe: None Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (acre -ft) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 0.07 O.DO 0.00 0.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 8.00 4.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 8.00 5.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 B.00 6.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.OD 8.00 7.00 0.48 0.01 0.00 0.00 9.DD 8.00 8.00 0.55 0.05 0.00 0100 9.OD 8.00 9.00 0.61 0.11 0.00 0.00 9.01 8.00 10.00 0.68 0.16 0.00 0.00 9.02 8.00 11.00 0.75 0.22 0.00 0.09 9.04 8.00 12.00 0.82 0.27 0.00 0.00 9.06 8.00 13.00 0.89 0.32 0.00 0.00 9.08 8.00 14.00 0.95 0.36 0.00 0.00 9.11 8.00 15.00 1.02 0.40 0.00 0.00 9.14 8.00 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 112 of 513 _ Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: 100yr3day Date; March 21, 2006 Page 2 Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Read Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (acre -ft) (ft NGVD) ®_ (ft NGVO) s 16.00 se - - - 1.09 - 0 44 v -- 0.00 0.00 9.17 8.00 17.00 1.16 0.47 D.00 0.00 9.21 8.00 18.00 1.23 0.51 0.00 0.00 9.25 8.00 19.00 1.29 0.54 0.00 0.00 9.30 8.00 20.00 1.36 0.56 0.00 0.00 9.34 8.00 21.00 1.43 0.59 0.00 0.00 9.39 8.00 22.00 1.50 0.62 0.00 0.00 9.44 8.00 23.00 1.57 0.64 0100 0.00 9.49 8.00 24.00 1.64 0.66 0.00 0.00 9.53 0.00 25.00 1.73 0.89 0.00 0.00 9.57 6.00 26.00 1.83 0.99 0.00 0.00 9.61 8.00 27.00 1.93 1.06 0.00 0.00 9.67 8.00 28.00 2.03 1.10 0.00 0.00 9.72 8.00. .29.00 2.13 1.13 0.00 0.00 9.78 8.00 30.00 2.23 1.16 0.00 0.00 9.84 8.00 31.00 2.33 1.19 0.00 0100 9.89 8.00 32.00 2.43 1.22 0.00 .0.00 9.96 8.00 33.00 2.53 1.24 0.00 0.00 10.01 8.00 34.00 2.63 1.26 0.00 0.00 10.02 8.00 35.00 2.73 1.2B 0.00 0.00 10.04 8.00 36.00 2 -83 1.30 0.00 0.00 10.06 8.00 37.00 2.93 1.32 0.00 0.00 10.08 B.00 38.00 3.03 1.34 0.00 0.00 10.10 8.00 39.00 3.13 1.35 0.00 0.00 10.12 8.00 40.00 3.23 1.37 0100 0.00 10.15 8.00 ---- 41.00 3.33 1.38 0.00 0.00 10.11 8.00 42.00 3.42 1.39 0.00 0.00 10.19 B.00 43.00 3.52 1.40 0.00 0.00 10.21 8.00 44.00 3.62 1.42 0.00 0.00 10.23 8.00 45.00 3.72 1.43 0.00 0.00 10.25 8.00 46.00 3.82 1.44 0.00 0.00 10.27 6.00 47.00 3.92 1.45 0.00 0.00 10.30 8.00 48.00 4.02 1.46 0.00 0.00 10.32 8.00 49.00 4.13 1.56 0.00 0100 10.34 8.00 50.00 4.24 1.64 0.00 0.00 10.37 8.00 51.00 4.38 1.87 0.00 0.00 10.39 8.00 52.00 4.52 2.10 0100 0.00 10.42 8.00 53.00 4.72 2.63 0.00 0.00 10.46 8.00 54.00 4.95 3.27 0.00 0.00 10.50 8.00 55.00 5.23 3.97 0.00 0.00 10.55 8.00 56.00 5.56 4.69 0.00 0.00 10.60 B100 57.00 5.94 5.57 0.00 0.00 10.67 8.00 58.00 6.41 6.84 0.00 0.00 10.74 8.00 59.00 7.03 9.11 0.00 0.00 10.84 8.00 60.00 11.37 56.60 0.00 0.00 11.11 8.00 61.00 12.61 33.04 0.00 0.00 11.56 8.00 62.00 13.18 18.10 0.00 0.00 11.77 8100 63.00 13.54 10.43 0.00 0.00 11.89 8.00 64.00 13.88 7.42 0.00 0.00 11.97 8.00 65.00 14.08 4.88 0.00 0.00 12.01 8.00 66.00 14.28 3.95 0.00 0.00 12.04 8.00 67.00 14.48 3.61 0.00 0.00 12.07 8.00 68.00 14.68 3.48 0.00 0.00 12.10 8.00 69.00 14.82 2.72 0.00 0.00 12.12 8.00 70.00 14.95 2.44 0100 0.00 12.14 8.00 71.00 15.09 2.34 0.00 0.00 12.15 8.00 72.00 15.22 2.30 0.00 0.00 12.17 8.00 73.00 15.22 0.85 0.00 0.00 12.18 8.00 74.00 15.22 0.31 0.00 0.00 12.18 8.00 -75.00 15.22 0.11 0.00 0.00 12.18 8.00 76.00 15.22 0.04 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 Ae 77.00 15.22 0.02 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 78.00 15.22 0.01 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 79.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 80.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 61.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 82.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 113 of 513 Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 • File: 100yr3day Date: March 21, 2006 Page 3 Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) =15.2255_ (cfs) -5_�a (cfs) 5 (acre -ft) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) 83.00�Se55 0.005 50.003�s == 0.00 m 12.19 �5 8.005 84.DO 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 85.00 15.22 0.60 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 86.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 6.00 87.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 D.00 12.19 8.00 88.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 89.00 15.22 0.00 D.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 90.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 91.00 15.22 0.00 D.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 92.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 93.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 94.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 95.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 96.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 97.00 15.22 0.00 D.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 98.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8100 99.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 100.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 101.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 102.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 103.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 104.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 105.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 106.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 107.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 108.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 109.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 • 110.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 111.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 112.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 113.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 114.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 6.00 115.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 116.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 D.00 12.19 8.00 117.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 118.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 119.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0100 12.19 8.00 120.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 121.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 122.00 15.22 O.DD 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 123.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 B.00 124.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 125.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 126.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 127.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 O.DO 12.19 8.00 128.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 129.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 130.00 15.22 0.OD 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 131.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 B.00 132.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 133.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8100 134.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 135.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 136.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 137.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8100 138.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 139.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 140.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 141.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 142.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 CAD 12.19 8.00 143.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 144.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 145.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 146.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 147.00 15.22 O.DO CAD 0.00 12.19 8.00 148.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 149.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 114 of 513 _ Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: 100yr3day Date: March 21, 2006 Page 4 Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Tine Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) (cfa) (cfa) (acre -ft) (ft NGVD) 1ft NGVD) 150.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 O.OD 12.19 8.00 151.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 152.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 D`r00 12.19 8.00 153.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 154.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 155.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 D.00 12.19 8.00 156.00 15 -22 0 -00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 157.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 158.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 B.00 159.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 160.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 161.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 162.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 163.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 164.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 165.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 166.00 15.22 0.00 D.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 167.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 168.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 169.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 170.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 O.DO 12.19 8.00 171.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 172.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8,00 173.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 174.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 -- -- 175.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 176.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 177.OD 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 178.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 179.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 180.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 181.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 182.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 183.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 184.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 185.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 186.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 167.00 15.22 0. OD 0100 0,00 12.19 8.00 186.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 189.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 BAD 190.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 B.00 191.00 15.22 O.OD 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 192.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 193.00 15.22 O.OD 0.00 0.00 12.19 8 -00 194.00 15.22 DAD 0.00 O.DO 12.19 8.00 195.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 196.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 197.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0,00 12.19 8. DO _ 198.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 199.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 200.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 201.00 15.22 0.D0 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 202.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 203.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 204.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 205.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 DAD 12.19 B.00 206.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 207.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 208.00 15.22 O.DO 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 209.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 210.00 15.22 O.DO 0.00 0 -00 12.19 8.00 211.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 B.DD 212.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 213.DO 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 214.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 215.00 15.22 0.00 0 -00 0.00 12.19 8.OD 216.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8 .OD • Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: 100yr3day Date: March 21, 2006 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 115 of 513 Page 5 Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) (cis) (cfs) (acre -ft) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) 217.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00. 218.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 219.00 15.22 O.DO 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 220.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 221.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 222.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 223.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 B.00 224.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 225.00 15.22 D.CO 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 226.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 227.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 228.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 229.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 230.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 231.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 O.DO 12.19 8.00 232.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 233.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 234.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 235.00 15.22 0.00 0100 0.00 12.19 8.00 236.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 237.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 238.00 15.22 0100 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 239.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 B.00 240.00 15.22 0.00 0100 0.00 12.19 8.00 241.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 242.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 243.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 • 244.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 245.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 246.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 247.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 248.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 249.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 250.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 251.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 252.00 15.22 0.00 O.OD 0.00 12.19 8.00 253.00 15.22 0.00 O.OD 0.00 12.19 8.00 254.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 255.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 256.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 257.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 B.DD 258.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 259.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 260.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 261.00 15.22 O.DO 0.00 0.00 12.19 5.00 262.00 15.22 0.00 C.00 0.00 12.19 5.00 263.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 264.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 265.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 266.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 DAD 12.19 8.00 267.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 D.00 12.19 8.00 268.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 269.00 15.22 0.00 O.OD 0.00 12.19 8.00 270.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 271.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 6.00 272.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 0.00 273.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 O.OD 12.19 8.00 274.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 275.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 276.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 277.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 278.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 279.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 280.DO 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 281.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 282.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 283.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: 100yr3day Date: March 21, 2006 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 116 of 513 Page 6 Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (acre-ft) (ft NGVD) Ift NGVD) ��- 284.00 l�15.22 0.00 0.DO 0.00 12.19 8.00 285.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 286.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 287.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 288.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 289.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 290.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8100 291.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 292.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 293.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 294.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 • 295.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 296.00 15.22 O.DO 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 297.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 B.OD 298.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 B.00 299.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 300.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 301.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 302.00 15.22 0.00 0.DO 0.00 12.19 8.00 303.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 304.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 305.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 306.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 307.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 308.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 _ 309.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 310.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8100 311.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 312.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 313.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 314.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.D0 315.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 316.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 317.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 318.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0100 12.19 8.00 319.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 320.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 321.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 322.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 323.00 15.22 O.OD 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 324.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 325.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 326.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 327.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 328.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 329.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 330.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 331.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 332.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 333.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 B.00 334.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 335.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 D.00 12.19 B.OD 336.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 BAD 337.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 B.00 338 -00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 339.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 340.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 341.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 342.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 343.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 344.00 345.00 15.22 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 12.19 8.DC ,�--• 8.00 346.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 6.00 347.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 348.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 349.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 350.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 117 of 513 Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 • File: 100yr3day Date: March 21, 2006 Page 7 STRUCTURE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM DISCHARGES 9 Struc6s Max (cfs) Time (hr)� Min (cfs) Time (hr) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BASIN MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM STAGES Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) (cfs) a �O.OD (cfs) a (acre -ft) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) 351.00 15.22 Storage Storage Residual ®0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 352.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 353.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 354.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 355.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 356.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 357.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 358.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 359.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 360.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.19 8.00 STRUCTURE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM DISCHARGES 9 Struc6s Max (cfs) Time (hr)� Min (cfs) Time (hr) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BASIN MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM STAGES " Basin Max f(ft) Y Time (hr) Min (ft) Time ;hr) Entire Project 12.19 81.80 9.00 0.00 • BASIN WATER BUDGETS (all units in acre-ft) Total ��T - Structure Structure - -- Initial Final Basin Runoff Inflow outflow Storage Storage Residual Entire Project 18.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.33 0.00 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 118 of 513 TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT FOR FREESTATE CPUD Prepared for: FFT Santa Barbara I, LLC 5307 Randolph Road Rockville, Maryland 20552 -2121 Prepared by: Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 (239) 947 -1144 MAY 2007 Revised July 30, 2007 Revised November 30, 2007 Revised January 22, 2008 (April 3, 2008) Michael J. Delate, P.E. FL 49442 F5PRO3 . PLANNING DOCS\FREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)\TISIFMPUDTISr3.DOC FMPUD TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................ LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES INTRODUCTION .......................... SCOPE ............ ............................... TRIP GENERATION ..................... TRIP ASSIGNMENT ...................... DISCUSSION .. ............................... APPENDIX A . ............................... LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE 1.. FIGURE 1.. FIGURE3 ............................. ............................... FIGURE 4 TABLE1 ................................ ............................... TABLE2 ................................ ............................... TABLE3 ................................ ............................... TABLE4 ................................ ............................... TABLE5 ................................ ............................... TABLE6... ............................................ ............... TABLE 7 ................................ ............................... TABLE8 ................................ ............................... TABLE9 ................................ ............................... TABLE10 .............................. ............................... TABLE11 .............................. ............................... TABLE12 .............................. ............................... TABLE13 .............................. ............................... TABLE14 .............................. ............................... F:1PROJ - PLANNING DOCSIFREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)ITISIFMPUDTISr3.D0C Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 119 of 513 .... ............................... i ... ............................... i ............................1 ... ............................... l ... ............................... I ... ............................... 2 ... ............................... 2 ............... A -1 thru A -5 ....................... 3 ....................... 3 ....................... 3 3 ....................... 4 ....................... 4 ....................... 4 ....................... 4 ....................... 5 ....................... 5 ....................... 5 ....................... 5 ....................... 6 ....................... 6 ....................... 6 ................. 6 .....................10 .....................1 I FMPUD FREESTATE CPUD INTRODUCTION Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 120 of 513 The proposed Freestate CPUD is a 16.81 acre commercial project to be located on the southwest comer of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The subject zoning action is requesting approval for a maximum of 150,000 square feet of commercial land uses. The uses proposed are a variety of retail, office, professional and business services. The existing zoning of the property is C -2 and C-4, which permit a similar variety of uses. The highest and best uses of the property are not substantially changed by the proposed action, thus the traffic impact of the proposed zoning action is minimal. In fact, with the approval of the subject zoning request the maximum commercial square footage will be limited to 150,000 square feet while there is currently no limitation on square footage. Expected build out is 2012. The project will have three access points, one on Davis Boulevard and two on Santa Barbara Boulevard. For project location please refer to Figure 1, Location Map. SCOPE The following analyses are included in this report: 1. Trip Generation Calculations (For Undeveloped Uses) Presented For Peak Season Daily Traffic (PSDT) Including the Respective Peak Hour Volumes. 2. Trip Assignment within the Radius of Development Influence (RDI). 3. Discussion of Impacts to Roadways within the RDI. TRIP GENERATION The 7th Edition Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is used for trip generation calculations provided in this report. Please refer to Tables 1 through 12. The raw trip generation for the proposed use is estimated to be 8,839 trip ends for daily traffic volume, 200 trip ends during the AM peak hour and 818 trip ends for the PM peak hour. Once pass -by traffic volumes for the commercial retail uses are taken into account the net trip generation is 6,629 trip ends for daily traffic volume, 150 trip ends during the AM peak hour and 614 trip ends for the PM peak hour. As discussed above, this request is for a rezone from C -2 and C4 to CPUD. The highest and best use of the property is not substantially changed by the requested land use change. Thus no net increase in trip generation is expected as a result of the subject case. In fact, there may be a net reduction in trip generation due to the creation of a maximum development intensity of 150,000 square feet while current zoning designations do not limit the square footage of commercial uses that may be developed on site. Please refer to the DISCUSSION section for details concerning the effects of these traffic volumes on the level of service for roadway links within the RDI. FAPROJ . PLANNING DOCSTREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)%TIS1FMPUDTISr3.D0C Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 121 of 513 TRIP ASSIGNMENT The project directional distribution of traffic to and from Freestate CPUD is presented on Figure 2 and Table 13. These exhibits show the total volume of trip generation from the property and not the net new trips. It should be noted that the proposed land use change does not generate additional trips over the current land use designation. This total volume is included in the balance of the report discussion. When traffic is distributed to the accessed, adjacent and subsequent links, trip generation volumes below the 2 1/o/2 1/c/3% significance test for the surrounding roadways, except Davis Boulevard, Santa Barbara Boulevard and Rattlesnake - Hammock Road (see Table 14). As previously stated, the subject request does not generate additional traffic. These projected volumes will be generated later, at the time of development. DISCUSSION Table 14 shows the results of the Level of Service analysis for surrounding roadways. The Level of Service of the roadways is not degraded with the addition of the unadjusted project traffic. Davis Boulevard from Airport Road to Santa Barbara Boulevard, Santa Barbara Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake - Hammock Road and Rattlesnake - Hammock Road from County Barn Road to Santa Barbara Boulevard operate at acceptable levels of service. Davis Boulevard from Santa Barbara Boulevard to Collier Boulevard is currently a 2 lane facility. It currently operates at LOS F. It is within the East Central TCMA area that is currently estimated to have in excess of 90% of lane miles meeting the LOS standards. In addition, there are efforts to accelerate widening of Davis Boulevard to 4 lanes in this segment in cooperation with FDOT. The road widening will improve the level of service to LOS D. The current request does not add traffic to this segment; these traffic projections will be further addressed during the Site Development Plan reviews for development of the site. Figure 3 depicts the turn lane (existing and proposed) configurations at the Davis Blvd/ Santa Barbara Blvd intersection. As stated above the net effect of the subject land use change will be an overall reduction or at a minimum no net new trips for the proposed land use change being requested. No degradation of LOS results from the proposed change in land use. FAPROr - PLANNING DOCSTREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)1TIS\FMPUDTISr3.DOC Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 122 of 513 FIGURE I Location Map �u F TPO) • PLANNING DOCSTREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)1TISIFMPUDTI9r3 DOC m m » m s &OLDEN GATE PARKWAY CC.R 886)3 S MTE! STATE - a 73 64 315 38 31 M xi s NAPLES rc ad a RADIO ROAD O:.R. 836) i a AIRPORT �7 Srr . ' _ < DAVIS BOULEVARD ($.R. M S 7 q Y µ is t7 w u y6 N Y 7 SSR/ RATTLEI WCE HAMIOC ROAD RIVE (C.R 864> n y{ 7t 30 ZI 22 9 l 9 S�TyfN 28 is 71) y 9 b !R 1 Location Map �u F TPO) • PLANNING DOCSTREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)1TISIFMPUDTI9r3 DOC Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 123 of 513 TABLE l TOTAL DAILY PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP GENERATION TABLE 2 ENTER/EXIT BREAKDOWN OF DAILY TRIPS ITE LAND DU (RES) OR/ FORMULAI DAILY LAND USE USE CODE SQ.FT. (NON -RES) I I RATE TRIPS 6,629 EXISTING LAND USE (C -2 AND C -4) 3,314/3,314 SHOPPING CENTER 820 150 T.G.L.A. I Ln(T) =.65 Ln(X) + 5.83 8,839 PROPOSED LAND USE SHOPPING CENTER 820 150 T.G.L.A. Ln(T) =.65 Ln(X) + 5.83 8,839 NET NEW TRIPS 0 TABLE 2 ENTER/EXIT BREAKDOWN OF DAILY TRIPS LAND USE TOTAL TRIPS PERCENTAGE ENTER/EXIT DAILY TRIPS ENTER/EXIT SHOPPING CENTER 8,839 50 0/o/50% 4,420/4,420 SHOPPING CENTER* 6,629 50°/0/50% 3,314/3,314 *non pass -by from Table 4 TABLE 3 TOTAL DAILY EXTERNAL PROJECT TRIPS LAND USE TOTAL TRIPS (FROM TABLE 2) INTERNAL CAPTURE % DAILY TRIPS EXTERNAL TRIPS SHOPPING CENTER 8,839 0% 8,839 TABLE 4 TOTAL DAILY EXTERNAL NON -PASS BY PROJECT TRIPS TOTAL EXTERNAL DAILY TRIPS TRIPS PASS EXTERNAL LAND USE (FROM TABLE 3) BY % NON -PASS BY TRIPS SHOPPING CENTER 8,839 25% 6,629 F_TROJ - PLANNING DOCSIFRLESTATE MPUD (FMP11D)MS1FMPUDTISr3.D0C Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 124 of 513 TABLE 5 TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE HE LAND USE CODE DU (RES) OR/ SQ.FT. (NON -RES) FORMULA/ RATE PEAK HOUR TRIPS' EXISTING LAND USE SHOPPING CENTER 820 150 T.G.L.A. I Ln(T) =.6 Ln(X) + 2.29 200 PROPOSED LAND USE SHOPPING CENTER 820 150 T.G.L.A. Ln(T) =.6 Ln(X) + 2.29 200 NET NEW TRIPS 0 TABLE 6 ENTER/EXIT BREAKDOWN OF TRIPS DURING AM PEAK HOUR LAND USE TOTAL TRIPS PERCENTAGE ENTER/EXIT AM TRIPS ENTER/EXIT SHOPPING CENTER 200 61 %/39% 122/78 SHOPPING CENTER* 150 61 0/a/39% 92/58 *non pass -by from Table 8 TABLE 7 TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR EXTERNAL PROJECT TRIPS LAND USE TOTAL TRIPS (FROM TABLE 2) INTERNAL CAPTURE % AM PEAK HOUR, I EXTERNAL TRIPS SHOPPING CENTER 200 0% 200 TABLE 8 F.\PROJ • PLANNING DOCSIFREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)1TJ5 \FMPL'DTISr3.D0C Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 125 of 513 TABLE 9 TABLE 10 ENTER/EXIT BREAKDOWN OF TRIPS DURING PM PEAK HOUR LAND USE TOTAL TRIPS PERCENTAGE ENTER/EXIT PM TRIPS " - ENTER/EXIT' SHOPPING CENTER 818 48 0/o/52% 393/425 SHOPPING CENTER* 614 48 %/52% 295/319 *non pass -by from Table 12 TABLE 11 TABLE 12 F:1PR03 - PLANNING DOCSTREESTATE MPUD (FMPUmMSIFMPUO'nSr3.D0C Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 126 of 513 FIGURE 2 SANTA BARBARA RESERVE MPUD PK HR PK DIR TRIP DISTRIBUTION (EXTERNAL TRIPS) (393) F:IPROI - PLANNING DOCSTREESTATE MPUD (FMPUDffISAF'MPUDTISr3.DOC m s m 3M W GATE PARINAY ' CCJL aec' 10% 39 10X 3 > Dvr STATE - Te �. at 10X ?s aArl.es 956) g 39 .KAD1a RDAD (CA ri gF( 9B r. V� 1 4 2 P2(1)X M MD (SR. , L12 M 8` 40Z 157 lot 1 59 14 17 14AMM= RDAD tC7t.D6yl ' 24 11 4t 1llE S SANTA BARBARA RESERVE MPUD PK HR PK DIR TRIP DISTRIBUTION (EXTERNAL TRIPS) (393) F:IPROI - PLANNING DOCSTREESTATE MPUD (FMPUDffISAF'MPUDTISr3.DOC Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 127 of 513 FIGURE 3 e5`I f !t (� 1 DAVIS BLVD j (; i +ox 168) ,ox (43)�j zax (79)— + lax (63) —+ �– — (170) tiE Puz)DC C/1 I j a z ,ox � Sox (12 (39) > SITE I :30X ,ax w tta (76) > tz 9 If M zzx (Oa) 9 8% (3a) „) I r ( I SANTA BARBARA RESERVE MPUD PM PEAK HOUR ENTRANCE DISTRIBUTION (EXTERNAL TRIPS) (393/425) F TROJ - PLANNING DOCSTREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)1TIS�FMPUDIISr3.DOC Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 128 of 513 FIGURE 4 SANTA BARBARA RESERVE MPUD PK HR PK DIR TRIP DISTRIBUTION (EXTERNAL - PASSBY TRIPS - INTERNAL CAPTURE) (295) FAPROJ - PLANNING DOCSIFREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)%TIS \FMPUDT19r3.D0C W, ILI— woo— Iwo SANTA BARBARA RESERVE MPUD PK HR PK DIR TRIP DISTRIBUTION (EXTERNAL - PASSBY TRIPS - INTERNAL CAPTURE) (295) FAPROJ - PLANNING DOCSIFREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)%TIS \FMPUDT19r3.D0C Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 129 of 513 TABLE 13 PROJECT DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ROADWAY LINK FROM TO % OF PROJECT VOLUME Davis Boulevard U.S. 41 Airport Road 10% Davis Boulevard Airport Road County Barn Road 20% Davis Boulevard County Barn Road Santa Barbara Blvd. 30% Davis Boulevard Santa Barbara Blvd. Radio Road 25% Davis Boulevard Radio Road Collier Boulevard 10% Santa Barbara Blvd. Rattlesnake Hmck. Rd. Davis Boulevard 25% Santa Barbara Blvd. Davis Boulevard Radio Road 20% Santa Barbara Blvd. Radio Road Golden Gate Parkway 5% Radio Road Livingston Road Santa Barbara Blvd. 10% Radio Road Santa Barbara Blvd. Davis Boulevard 10% County Barn Road Davis Boulevard Rattlesnake Hmck. Rd. 10% Rattlesnake Hmck. Rd. U.S. 41 County Barn Road 10% Rattlesnake Hmck. Rd. County Barn Road Santa Barbara Blvd. 15% Rattlesnake Hmck. Rd. Santa Barbara Blvd. Collier Boulevard 10% Airport Road U.S. 41 Davis Boulevard 5% Airport Road Davis Boulevard Radio Road 5% Collier Boulevard U.S. 41 Rattlesnake Hmck. Rd. 5% Collier Boulevard Rattlesnake Hmck. Rd. Davis Boulevard 5% F:TR01 • PLANNING DOMFREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)MsTMPUDTISr3.D0C LL 00 m C) — a) LO aN— 0 wpm OJ iii C:l a u I ul =1 u Ma 2 v.: *M V n 2 ^f F, 22 !2 E !E z Z t3 > Fn X x m:z U 75 .2t UDC a cz u wo L5 cd Xtj > > m m > cc r z U ad X Ci � Q Q u u Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 131 of 513 APPENDIX A SUPPORTING DATA FAPROJ - PLANNING DOCSTREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)1TISIFMPUDTISr3.DOC FMPUD a r i 1� $; Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 132 of 513 F TROJ - PLANNING DOCSTREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)\TISIFMPUDTISr3.DOC FMPUD A -I s r oil 11111113 MCCI I - IM C: Ml Ill 111:111MI!, 130101:111113 M 1111133 MIS 3:111 m� F TROJ - PLANNING DOCSTREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)\TISIFMPUDTISr3.DOC FMPUD A -I s r A �i T� t� 1 12,111 �3 j E Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 133 of 513 HPROJ - PLANNING DOCSIFREESTATE MPUD (FMPUDffISTMPUDIlSr3.DOC FMPUD A -2 6 111cl 1:1111111111 0 milli 3:11:111 MESMERIC 0 3:11:111:112:13:111 v nn HPROJ - PLANNING DOCSIFREESTATE MPUD (FMPUDffISTMPUDIlSr3.DOC FMPUD A -2 6 ii Sa� Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 134 of 513 F:TROJ - PLANNING DOCSIFREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)UISVMPUDTIS6.DDC FMPUD A -3 I V OMNI W m,:11 A Xi 1110: 1 .:C:1 S 11111:1113CURMCCIS: 1111111111 F:TROJ - PLANNING DOCSIFREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)UISVMPUDTIS6.DDC FMPUD A -3 I V 1 11,111 �3 i a Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 135 of 513 F.IPROJ -PLANNING DOCSIFREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)1TIS%FMPUDTISd.DOC FMPUD A-4 s r I��I� ■�9��E11CAI��01� ��i0�1A1G131GC11lDCI�0101�0 u F.IPROJ -PLANNING DOCSIFREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)1TIS%FMPUDTISd.DOC FMPUD A-4 s r >s 1 +e ■ i Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 136 of 513 F:%PROJ - PLANNING DOCSTREESTATE MPUD (FMPUD)1TIS\FMPUD nSr3.DOC FMPUD A -5 s p FREESTATE MPUD COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT March 2006 Revised November 2006 Revised May 2007 Revised July 2007 Revised November 2007 (Exhibit I only) Revised January 2008 (Page 5 only) Revised March 2008 (Pages 14, 15, and Exhibit Q only) Prepared For: Freestate Construction, Inc. 5307 Randolph Road Rockville, Maryland 20852 (301) 231 -6000 Prepared By: Passarella & Associates, Inc. 9110 College Pointe Court Fort Myers, Florida 33919 (239) 274 -0067 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 137 of 513 Project No. 98CEC338 TABLE OF CONTENTS Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 138 of 513 Page Introduction.................................................................................................... ............................... 1 10.02.02 (A) 4. Information Required for Application a. Applicant Information ............................................................... ............................... 1 b. Mapping and Support Graphics ................................................ ............................... i C. Project Description and GMP Consistency Determination ....... ............................... 4 d. Native Vegetation Preservation ................................................. ............................... 7 e. Wetlands.. ................. ................... .......................................................................... I I f. Surface and Groundwater Management ................................... ............................... 14 g. Listed Species ........................................................................... ............................... 16 h. Other ......................................................................................... .............................20 References..................................................................................................... ............................... 22 i Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 139 of 513 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Project Location Map ................................................. ............................... ii Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 140 of 513 LIST OF TABLES iii Page Table 1. Habitat/Collier County FLUCFCS Types and Acreages ........ ............................... 3 Table 2. Soil Types and Their Status ................................................... ............................... 4 Table 3. Native Vegetation Habitat Types and Acreages .................... ............................... 10 Table 4. Collier County and SFWMD Wetlands ................................ ............................... 11 Table 5. Nail and Topographic Elevations of Wetland Water Levels . ............................... 13 Table 6. Wetland Impact Summary ..................................................... ............................... 13 Table 7. Listed Wildlife That Could Potentially Occur ...................... ............................... 16 Table 8. Listed Plant Species That Could Potentially Occur .............. ............................... 19 iii Agenda item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 141 of 513 LIST OF EXHIBITS Page ExhibitA. Resumes ............................................................................... ............................... A -1 Exhibit B. Aerial with Collier County FLUCFCS Overlay ................... ............................... B -1 Exhibit C. Collier County FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map .................... ............................... C -1 Exhibit D. Collier County FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map with Topography and General Drainage Patterns ............................................. ............................... D -1 ExhibitE. Soils Map ............................................................................. ............................... E -1 Exhibit F. Conceptual Water Management Plan ....................................... ............................F -1 Exhibit G. Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit H. Project Location with Land Use Designations Exhibit I. Listed Species Survey Exhibit J. Correspondence from the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources .. ............................... Exhibit K. Native Vegetation Map G -1 ......... H -1 .......... I -1 ........... J -1 K -1 Exhibit L. South Florida Water Management District Wetland Jurisdictional Determination Letter and Wetland Jurisdictional Sign-Off Map ........................ L -1 Exhibit M. Water Level Nail Photographs ............................................ ............................... M -1 iv Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 142 of 513 List of Exhibits (Continued) Paee Exhibit N. Water Level Nail and Topographic Information Map .......... ............................... N -1 Exhibit O. Wetland Impact Map O -1 Exhibit P. Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method Analysis .................. ............................P -1 Exhibit Q. Harvey Harper Analysis Q -1 Exhibit R. Red - Cockaded Woodpecker Nesting Season and Non - Nesting Season Survey Reports ................................... ............................... R -1 Exhibit S. Documented Occurrences of Listed Species ........ ............... ................................. S -1 v Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 143 of 513 INTRODUCTION This report represents the Collier County Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Freestate Master Planned Unit Development (MPUD) (Project), formerly known as the Abele Parcel. This EIS has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 10.02.02 (A) 4. of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) (October 30, 1991 as amended February 27, 2004). 10.02.02 (A) 4. INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR APPLICATION a. Applicant Information i. Responsible person who wrote the EIS and his /her education and job related environmental experience. Michael Myers and Christian Emblidge, Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI). Copies of Mr. Myers' and Mr. Emblidge's resumes are enclosed as Exhibit A. ii. Owner /agent name, address, phone number, and e-mail address. Owner: Chuck Faller Freestate Construction, Inc. 5307 Randolph Road Rockville, Maryland 20852 (301) 231 -6000 efaller@fallermgt.com Agent: Wayne Arnold Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 (239) 947 -1144 warnold @gradyminor.com b. Mapping and Support Graphics i. General location map. A Project location map is provided as Figure 1. 1-75 rc COLLIER COUNTY July 22, 2008 Paae 144 of 513 S -rq GOLDEN GATE BLVD T_ . -_1_75 'Ir 101 RADIO RD a PROJECT LOCATION 4DAVIS BLVD SEC 8, TWP 50 S, RGE 26 E L L L L RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP Consulting Ecologists FREESTATE MPUD DRAWN BY: W.C. DATE: 5/3/07 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 145 of 513 ii. Native habitats and their boundaries shall be identified on an aerial photograph of the site extending at least 200 ±feet outside the parcel boundary. This does not mean the applicant is required to go onto adjoining properties. Habitat identification consistent with the Florida Department of Transportation - Florida Land Use Cover, and Forms Classi0cation System (FLUCFCS) shall be depicted on an aerial photograph having a scale of one inch equal to at least 200± feet when available from the county. Other scale aerials may be used where appropriate for the size of the Project, provided the photograph and overlays are legible at the scale provided. A legend for each ofthe FLUCFCS categories found on -site shall be included on the aerial. The vegetation associations and land uses were mapped utilizing the FLUCFCS Levels III and IV (Florida Department of Transportation 1999). Level IV was used to denote exotic infestations, anthropogenic disturbances, and hydrological conditions. An aerial with Collier County FLUCFCS overlay of the site is enclosed as Exhibit B. A Collier County FLUCFCS and wetlands map of the property is provided as Exhibit C and an acreage breakdown of the habitat types on the Project site is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Habitat/Collier County FLUCFCS Types and Acreages FLUCFCS( Code Habitat tAcrgage rCnt oC Coial 4119 E1 Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (0 -24% Exotics) 1.19 7.1 4119 E2 Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (25 -49% Exotics) 1.16 6.9 4119 E3 Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (50 -75% Exotics) 0.15 0.9 4159 E2 Pine, Disturbed (25 -49% Exotics) 0.46 2.7 4159 E4* Pine, Disturbed (76 -100% Exotics) 0.48 2.9 6219 E2 Cypress, Disturbed (25 -49% Exotics) 0.49 2.9 6249 El Pine/Cypress, Disturbed (0 -24% Exotics) 8.70 51.9 6249 E2 Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (2549% Exotics) 0.54 3.2 6249 E3 Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (50 -75% Exotics) 1.64 9.8 6259 El Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (0 -24% Exotics) 0.37 2.2 6259 E3 Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (50 -75% Exotics) 1.58 9.4 Total 16.76 100.0 Note: *These habitats are considered native vegetation areas. Topographic map and existing drainage patterns if applicable. Where possible, elevations within each of FLUCFCS categories shall be provided. A Collier County FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map with topography and general drainage patterns is enclosed as Exhibit D. Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 146 of 513 A iv. Soils map at scale consistent with that used for Florida Department of Transportation - FLUCFCS. A soils map of the Project area is provided as Exhibit E. A list of the site's soil units, descriptions, and status is provided in Table 2. Table 2. Soil Types and Their Status V. Proposed drainage plan indicating basieflowpatterns, outfall, and off- site drainage. Please see the Conceptual Water Management Plan enclosed as Exhibit F. vi. Developmentplan includingphasingprogram, service area ofexistingandproposed public facilities, and existing and proposed transportation network in the impact area. Not applicable. vii. Site plan showing preserves on -site and how they align with preserves on adjoining and neighboring properties. Include on the plan locations of proposed and existing development, roads, and areas for storm water retention, as shown on approved master plans for these sites, as well as public owned conservations lands, conservation acquisition area, major flowways and potential wildlife corridors. Please see the Conceptual Master Plan enclosed as Exhibit G. viii. For properties in the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts (RFMU), a site plan showing the location of the site, and land use designations and overlays as identified in the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The Project is not located within the RLSA or RFMU. Please see the Project's location on the Project Location with Land Use Designations Map enclosed as Exhibit H. C. Project Description and GMP Consistency Determination L Provide an overall description ofthe project with respect to environmental and water management issues. The Freestate MPUD is 16.76± acres and is located in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Figure 1). More specifically, the Project is located at 4 14 Pineda Fine Sand Limestone Substratum H dric 21 Boca Fine Sand Non- Hydric V. Proposed drainage plan indicating basieflowpatterns, outfall, and off- site drainage. Please see the Conceptual Water Management Plan enclosed as Exhibit F. vi. Developmentplan includingphasingprogram, service area ofexistingandproposed public facilities, and existing and proposed transportation network in the impact area. Not applicable. vii. Site plan showing preserves on -site and how they align with preserves on adjoining and neighboring properties. Include on the plan locations of proposed and existing development, roads, and areas for storm water retention, as shown on approved master plans for these sites, as well as public owned conservations lands, conservation acquisition area, major flowways and potential wildlife corridors. Please see the Conceptual Master Plan enclosed as Exhibit G. viii. For properties in the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts (RFMU), a site plan showing the location of the site, and land use designations and overlays as identified in the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The Project is not located within the RLSA or RFMU. Please see the Project's location on the Project Location with Land Use Designations Map enclosed as Exhibit H. C. Project Description and GMP Consistency Determination L Provide an overall description ofthe project with respect to environmental and water management issues. The Freestate MPUD is 16.76± acres and is located in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Figure 1). More specifically, the Project is located at 4 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 147 of 513 the southwest corner of Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard in south Naples. County Barn Road is located approximately three - fourths of a mile to the west. A 1" = 200' scale aerial of the Project site is attached as Exhibit B. The Project's surrounding land uses are a mixture of residential developments; undeveloped, disturbed land; and commercial developments. Abutting the site immediately to the north is Davis Boulevard, to the east is the right -of -way (ROW) for the future Santa Barbara Boulevard extension and undeveloped land that has been partially cleared and filled, and to the south and west is the residential community of Falling Waters. The proposed Project includes a commercial development and 2.5± acres of native vegetation preserve along the western portion of the site. The required preserve requirements for the commercial development total 15 percent of the Project's total native vegetation, or 2.5± acres. The actual native vegetation preserve consists of 2.38± acres of wetlands and 0.19± acre of uplands. The Project area contains 13.32± acres of Collier County /South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD) jurisdictional wetlands and no "other surface waters" (OSW). The wetland lines were previously approved in the field by Lisa Earhart of the SFWMD on December 10, 1998 and re- verified by Krista Gentile of the SFWMD on August 27, 2004. All of the wetland areas have been invaded to various degrees by exotics, such as melaleuca (Melaleuca quenquinervia), downy rose - myrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosus), and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). Approximately 10.94± acres or 82 percent of the wetlands are proposed to be impacted by the Project. A listed species survey was conducted on the property on March 4, 2004 and updated on April 23, 2007 by PAI. Additional observations were made on January 21, 2004; June 22, 2004; July 13, 2004; and July 30, 2004. The survey methodology and results are provided in Exhibit I. Red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW) nesting and non - nesting season surveys have also been conducted on -site from April 29 through May 12, 2005 and from November 11 through 23, 2005, respectively. During the RCW survey, the property was surveyed for all listed species, including wading birds. The RCW surveys were conducted for one hour after sunrise and ending four hours past sunrise at randomly located observation stations over the entire site. No listed species were observed during the updated listed species survey, additional observation dates, or RCW nesting and non - nesting season surveys. Sufficient time was spent during the RCW surveys to meet the wading bird survey requirements. The proposed surface water management plan will incorporate best management practices including water management areas for water treatment and storage prior to discharge to the east to the future Santa Barbara Boulevard area and flow southward. Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 148 of 513 The system will be designed utilizing both wet and dry detention system. The detention system will provide for the treatment and storage for the entire 16.76± acre site. The site consists mostly of Pineda Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum with some Boca Fine Sand. The average dry season water table elevation is estimated to be at 7.0± feet NGVD. The proposed control elevation of the project will be 9.7± feet NGVD, which is consistent with the neighboring Falling Waters development to the west. The operation of the proposed storm water management system may include the collection of surface water runoff by catch basins and closed pipe systems that convey the runoff to the wet detention areas. The site proposes one storm water management lake for water quality treatment. Additional storage will be provided through the dry detention area and the wetland preserve areas. Water qualitywill be achieved before any flow is permitted to enter the preserve areas. Once water quality treatment has been achieved, all discharge will occur through control structures located on the east side of the Project near the future Santa Barbara Boulevard. ii. Explain how the Project is consistent with each ofthe Objectives and Policies in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP, where applicable. Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Plan states: "All canals, rivers, and flow -ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards." To accomplish that, Policy 2.2.2 states: "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of storm water runoff, storm water systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system." This Project is consistent with the objectives of Policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing a storm water management lake and dry detention to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. The Project as proposed is consistent with the policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons: A total of 2.57± acre (15 percent) of the site will be retained and set aside as a preserve area with a conservation easement prohibiting further development. The Preserve area is adjacent to the preserve bordering the property in Falling Waters and is the largest, most contiguous area, containing the best quality wetlands on the site. Wetland and upland enhancement will include the removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation. Selection of preservation areas are consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1. • A preserve area management plan will be required at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) /Construction Plan Submittal. Preserve areas shall be 13 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 149 of 513 required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. The requirement for an EIS pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Agency permits will be required at the time of SDP /Construction Plan submittal. As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, where permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within the urban designation and require mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area. All areas of the Project which are in the conservation designation area will remain as preserve areas and will be placed under a conservation easement to the state and Collier County. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the master site plan. Uses within preserve areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and preservation. In accordance with Policy 7.1.2, a listed species and Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) survey was conducted on the property; no listed species, or their signs, were observed on the property during the survey (Exhibit 1). RCW nesting and non - nesting season surveys have been conducted on -site from April 19 through May 12, 2005 and November 11 through 25, 2005, respectively. No RCW's were observed during the RCW surveys, the property was surveyed for all listed species, including wading birds. The RCW surveys were conducted for one hour after sunrise and ending four hours past sunrise at randomly located observations stations over the entire site. Sufficient time was spent during the RCW surveys to meet Policy 7.1.2 and the wading bird survey requirements. In accordance with Policy 11.1.2, correspondence has been received from the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources (DHR) regarding historical, archaeological, or cultural resources that may be present on the Project No significant archaeological or historical resources are recorded within the Project area. A copy of this correspondence is enclosed as Exhibit J. d. Native Vegetation Preservation Identify the acreage and community type ofall upland and wetland habitats found on the Project site, according to the FL UCFCS. Provide a description of each of the FLUCFCS categories identified on site by vegetation type (species), vegetation composition (canopy, midstory, and ground cover), and vegetation dominance (dominant, common, and occasional). Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 150 of 513 A description of each FLUCFCS type found on the Project site follows. Table 1 gives the acreage for each FLUCFCS type. Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (0 -24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E1) This upland habitat type occupies 1.19± acres or 7.1 percent of the property. The canopy contains slash pine (Pinus elliottii), occasional cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and melaleuca (0 to 24 percent coverage). The sub - canopy is denominated by slash pine with occasional species of wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), myrsine (Rapanea punctata), dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) while grape vine (Vitis rotundifolia), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and beauty berry (Callicarpa americana) are all common. Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (25 -49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E2) This upland habitat type occupies 1.16± acres or 6.9 percent of the property. The vegetation composition is similar to FLUCFCS Code 4l 19 El , except the melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper coverage in the canopy and sub - canopy ranges from 25 to 49 percent. Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (50 -75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E3) This upland habitat type occupies 0.15+ acre or 0.9 percent of the property. The vegetation composition is similar to FLUCFCS Code 4119 E2, except the melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper coverage in the canopy and sub -canopy ranges from 50 to 75 percent. Pine, Disturbed (25 -49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E2) This upland habitat type occupies 0.46+ acre or 2.7 percent of the property. The canopy is denominated by slash pine, while scattered cabbage palm and 25 to 49 percent melaleuca are common. The sub - canopy is dominated by slash pine with occaisional Brazilian pepper (0 to 24 percent coverage), and cabbage palm. The ground cover is mostly open with scattered vines such as grape vine, poison ivy, and greenbriar. Other lesser species include rush (Juncus sp.), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), little blue maidencane (Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum), yellow -eyed grass (Xyris sp.), and gulfdune paspalum (Paspalum monostachyum). Pine, Disturbed (76 -100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E4) This upland habitat type occupies 0.48± acre or 2.9 percent of the property. The vegetation composition is similar to FLUCFCS Code 4159 E2, except the Brazilian pepper coverage in the sub - canopy ranges from 76 to 100 percent. The canopy stratum is dominated by slash pine with greater than 25 percent coverage. As a result, this cover type was considered native vegetation. Cypress, Disturbed (25 -49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E2) This wetland community type occupies 0.49± acre or 2.9 percent of the property. The canopy is dominated by cypress (Taxodium distichum) and cabbage palm with Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 151 of 513 very occasional slash pine. The sub -canopy contains Brazilian pepper (25 to 49 percent coverage) while cabbage palm, myrsine, buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and wax myrtle are common. Common ground cover species includes swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), sawgrass, and royal fern (Osmunda regalis). Pine/Cypress, Disturbed (0 -24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 Eli This wetland community occupies 8.70-+ acres or 51.9 percent of the property. The canopy is dominated by slash pine and cypress. Cabbage palm and melaleuca are also common in the canopy. Common sub - canopy species include slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, dahoon holly, wax myrtle, melaleuca, and/or Brazilian pepper (0 to 24 percent coverage). The ground cover is dominated by sawgrass, gulfdune paspalum, and rush fuirena (Fuirena scirpoidea) with occasional swamp fern. Pine/Cypress, Disturbed (25 -49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E2) This wetland community occupies 0.54± acre or 3.2 percent of the property. The vegetation composition is similar to FLUCFCS Code 6249 El, except the melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper coverage in the canopy and sub - canopy ranges from 25 to 49 percent. Pine/QTress, Disturbed (50 -75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E3) This wetland community occupies 1.64± acres or 9.8 percent of the property. The vegetation composition is similar to FLUCFCS Code 6249 E2, except the melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper coverage in the canopy and sub -canopy ranges from 50 to 75 percent. Pine. Hydric, Disturbed (0 -24% Exotics) FLUCFCS Code 6259 E0 This wetland community occupies 0.37± acre or 2.2 percent of the property. The vegetation in the canopy is dominated by slash pine along with common species of cabbage palm and melaleuca (0 to 24 percent coverage). Common sub - canopy species include slash pine, wax myrtle, melaleuca, myrsine, and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes rush, sawgrass, little blue maidencane, yellow -eyed grass, and gulfdune paspalum with occasional swamp fern. Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (50 -75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E3) This wetland community occupies 1.58± acre or 9.4 percent of the property. The vegetation composition is similar to FLUCFCS Code 6259 El, except the melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper coverage in the canopy and sub -canopy ranges from 50 to 75 percent. ii. Explain how the Project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requirement in Goal 6 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP, and Division 3.9 of the LDC Provide an exhibit illustrating such. Include calculations identifying the acreage for preservation and impact, per FLUCFCS category. Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 152 of 513 The property lies within the Residential Density Band/Mixed -Use Activity Center Sub - district designation of the Project Location with Land Use Designations Map (Exhibit H). According to the vegetation preservation and retention standards for commercial development for an area of equal to or greater than approximately five acres and less than 20± acres, a minimum of 15 percent of the native vegetation areas located on the subject property will be retained. The property has a total of 16.76± acres of native vegetation habitats. A Native Vegetation Map is provided as Exhibit K, while Table 3 provides an acreage breakdown of these native habitats and calculation. Table 3. Native Vegetation Habitat Types and Acreages The proposed Project design has incorporated 2.38± acres of wetland and 0.19± acre of upland preserve areas within the development plan. The preserved wetlands and uplands will be placed under a conservation easement dedicated to Collier County. For sites already cleared and in agricultural use, provide documentation that the parcel(s) are in compliance with the 25 year re -zone limitation in Policy 6.1.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP and Chapters 4 & 10 of the LDC. For sites cleared prior to January 2003, provide documentation that the parcel(s) are in compliance with the ten year re -zone limitation previously identified in the GMP and LDC. Not applicable. 10 Aabitht 4119 El Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed 0 -24 %a Exotics 1.19 - 4119 E2 Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed 25 -49% Exotics 0.97 0.19 4119 E3 Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed 50 -75% Exotics 0.15 - 4159 E2 Pine, Disturbed 25 -49% Exotics 0.46 - 4159 E4 Pine, Disturbed 76 -100% Exotics 0.48 - 6219 E2 Cypress, Disturbed 25 -49% Exotics 0.49 - 6249 E Pine/Cypress, Disturbed 0 -24% Exotics 6.45 2.25 6249 E2 Pine/Cypress, Disturbed 25 -49% Exotics 0.54 - 6249 E3 Pine/Cypress, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) 1.64 6259 El Pine, H dric, Disturbed 0 -24% Exotics 0.24 0.13 6259 E3 Pine, H dric, Disturbed 25 -49% Exotics 1.58 Total.. 14.I9 257_ 'Mihidiiiin Retairied Native'U4geta' d6h ke4i4eiiieit alive Vegetation Area "e x 1S)1'ercehi t6.76 x b,15 2.M acres The proposed Project design has incorporated 2.38± acres of wetland and 0.19± acre of upland preserve areas within the development plan. The preserved wetlands and uplands will be placed under a conservation easement dedicated to Collier County. For sites already cleared and in agricultural use, provide documentation that the parcel(s) are in compliance with the 25 year re -zone limitation in Policy 6.1.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP and Chapters 4 & 10 of the LDC. For sites cleared prior to January 2003, provide documentation that the parcel(s) are in compliance with the ten year re -zone limitation previously identified in the GMP and LDC. Not applicable. 10 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 153 of 513 iv. Have preserves or acreage requirements for preservation previously been identified for the site during previous development order approvals? Ifso, identify the location and acreage of these preserves, and provide an explanation if they are different from what is proposed. Not applicable. V. For properties with Special Treatment (ST) overlays, show the ST overlay on the development plan and provide an explanation as to why these are being impacted or preserved. There are no areas with ST overlays located within the subject property. e. Wetlands Define the number of acres of Collier County jurisdictional wetlands (pursuant to Policy 6.1.1 and 6.2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP) according to the FLUCFCS Include a description of each of the FLUCFCS categories identified on -site by vegetation type (species), vegetation composition (canopy, midstory, and ground cover) and vegetation dominance (dominant, common, and occasional). Wetland determinations are required to be verified by the SFWMD or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), prior to submission to the County. There are 13.32+ acres of Collier County and SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands on- site (Table 4). The SFWMD wetland lines were field reviewed and verified by Lisa Earhart on December 10, 1998 and re- verified by Krista Gentile on August 27, 2004. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (COE) jurisdictional wetlands were field reviewed by Skip Bergmann on December 11, 1998 and re- verified by Robert Tewis on February 17, 2005. A copy of the SFWMD wetland jurisdiction determination, dated September 3, 2004, and sign -off map is provided as Exhibit L. Table 4. Collier County and SFWMD Wetlands Wong_ i5escrrptiad Wetiiutls „,: 1 6219 E2 Cypress, Disturbed (2549% Exotics) 0.49 1 6249 E1 Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (0 -24% Exotics) 8.70 1 6249 E2 Pine/Cypress, Disturbed (25 -49% Exotics) 0.54 ] 6249 E3 _ Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (50 -75% Exotics ) 1.64 1 6259 E1 Pine, H dric, Disturbed 0 -24% Exotics 0.37 1 6259 E3 Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (50 -75% Exotics) 1.58 _ Total Wetlands 13.32 11 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 154 of 513 Compress, Disturbed (25 -49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E2) This wetland community type occupies 0.49± acre or 2.9 percent of the property. The canopy is dominated by cypress and cabbage palm with very occasional slash pine. The sub - canopy contains Brazilian pepper (25 to 49 percent coverage) while cabbage palm, myrsine, buttonbush, and wax myrtle are common. Common ground cover species includes swamp fern, sawgrass, and royal fern. Pine/Cypress, Disturbed (0 -24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E1) This wetland community occupies 8.70± acre or 51.9 percent of the property. The canopy is dominated by slash pine and cypress. Cabbage palm and melaleuca are also common in the canopy. Common sub - canopy species include slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, dahoon holly, wax myrtle, melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper (0 to 24 percent coverage). The ground cover is dominated by sawgrass, gulfdune paspalum, and rush fuirena with occasional swamp fern. Pine/Cvoress. Disturbed (25 -49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E2) This wetland community occupies 0.54± acre or 3.2 percent of the property. The vegetation composition is similar to FLUCFCS Code 6249 El, except the melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper coverage in the canopy and sub -canopy ranges from 25 to 49 percent. Pine/Cypress, Disturbed (50 -75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E3) This wetland community occupies 1.64± acre or 9.8 percent of the property. The vegetation composition is similar to FLUCFCS Code 6249 E2, except the melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper coverage in the canopy and sub - canopy ranges from 50 to 75 percent. Pine. Hvdric. Disturbed (0 -24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 El) This wetland community occupies 0.37± acre or 2.2 percent of the property. The vegetation in the canopy is dominated by slash pine along with common species of cabbage palm and melaleuca (0 to 24 percent coverage). Common sub - canopy species include slash pine, wax myrtle, melaleuca, myrsine, with occasional Brazilian pepper. The ground cover is dominated by sawgrass, little blue maidencane, yellow - eyed grass, and gulfdune paspalum with occasional swamp fern. Pine, Hvdric, Disturbed (50 -75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E3) This wetland community occupies 1.58± acres or 9.4 percent of the property. The vegetation composition is similar to FLUCFCS Code 6259 E 1, except the melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper coverage in the canopy and sub -canopy ranges from 50 to 75 percent. ii. Determine seasonal and historic high water levels utilizing lichen lines or other biological indicators. Indicate how predevelopment hydroperiods. Provide control elevations) for the site. 12 the Project design improves /affects a narrative addressing the anticipated Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 155 of 513 Nails marking biological indicators (i.e., water stains, adventitious rooting, buttresses, etc.) of the wetlands normal pool and seasonal high water levels were set in the field and photographed by PAI (Exhibit M). Topographic data was also recorded in the wetlands, including the elevation of the wetland edges. The water level nail elevations and wetland topographic information were surveyed by Kepple Engineering, Inc. The water level nail and edge of wetland elevations are summarized in Table 5. The water level nail locations and topographic information are provided in Exhibit N. Table 5. Nail and Topographic Elevations of Wetland Water Levels Wetland Nail �No. Description IG vat'60No. Vl) WL -1 Top of adventitious roots on melaleuca tree .24 W L -2 To of adventitious roots on wax myrtle shrub 9.19 W L -3 Top of adventitious roots on wax myrtle shrub 9.28 WL -4 Bottom of moss on willow tree 9.18 1 WL -5 Bottom of moss on willow tree 9.13 WL -6 Bottom of moss on willow tree 9.21 N/A Upland/wetland line at northwest upland 9.75 N/A Upland/wetland line at south upland 9.80 N/A Upland/wetland line at upland 10.00 The proposed control elevation of the Project will be 9.7t feet NGVD, which is consistent with the neighboring Falling Waters Development. This elevation has been shown by experience to adequately address water management needs in the area while providing for adequate hydration of on -site preserve areas. Indicate the proposed percent of defined wetlands to be impacted and the effects of proposed impacts on the functions of these wetlands. Provide an exhibit showing the location of wetlands to be impacted and those to be preserved on -site. Describe how impacts to wetlands have been minimized. A total of 10.94+ acres of Collier County and SFWMD wetland impacts are proposed for the Project. There are no OS W impacts proposed. The proposed wetland impacts are summarized in Table 6 and are illustrated on the Wetland Impact Map enclosed as Exhibit O. Table 6. Wetland Impact Summary Igo# Wetland PISWA FLUCIF NO.ypeA�Fe)#er�s�S 1 Cypress, Disturbed 6219 E2 0.49 0.49 (25 -49% Exotics) 13 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 156 of 513 Table 6. (Continued) iv. Indicate how the Project design compensates for wetland impacts pursuant to the Policies and Objectives in Goal 6 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. For sites in the RFMUDistriet, provide an assessment, based on the SFWMD's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) that has been accepted by either the SFWMD or FDEP. For sites outside the RFMUDistrict, and where higher quality wetlands are being retained on -site, providejustification based on the UMAM. The Project design compensates for the proposed wetland impacts pursuant to the Policies and Objectives in Goal 6 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP in the following ways: 1) through the eradication of prohibited exotics in the proposed conservation areas and by providing a preserve area management plan to ensure long term control (Policy 6.1.4); 2) obtaining a SFWMD permit (Policy 6.2.3); and 3) by providing compensatory mitigation through the preservation and enhancement of uplands and wetlands on -site (Policy 6.2.4) and by purchasing off -site mitigation credits from an approved mitigation bank. A preliminary mitigation analysis using the UMAM to provide justification for the proposed on -site plan is attached as Exhibit P. Following project development, the proposed function of the preserved wetlands should increase due to wetland enhancement activities. However, preliminary estimates show that there will be a functional loss of 5.18± credits on -site. The credit total will be subject to SFWMD review and approval. These credits will be purchased at an agency approved regional mitigation bank as needed to offset the functional loss to retain a no net loss of wetlands. f. Surface and Groundwater Management 14 n11 MIF{11jy AlEmm d s '.v �. 1 Pine/Cypress, Disturbed 6249 El 8.70 2.25 6.45 (0 -24% Exotics) l Pine/Cypress, Disturbed 6249 E2 0.54 - 0.54 (2549% Exotics 1 Pine/Cypress, Disturbed 6249 E3 1.64 - 1.64 50 -75% Exotics 1 Pine, Hydric, Disturbed 6259 El 0.37 0.13 0.24 0 -24% Exotics 1 Pine, Hydric, Disturbed 6259 E3 1.58 1.58 50 -75% Exotics Totals 13.32 2.38 10.94 iv. Indicate how the Project design compensates for wetland impacts pursuant to the Policies and Objectives in Goal 6 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. For sites in the RFMUDistriet, provide an assessment, based on the SFWMD's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) that has been accepted by either the SFWMD or FDEP. For sites outside the RFMUDistrict, and where higher quality wetlands are being retained on -site, providejustification based on the UMAM. The Project design compensates for the proposed wetland impacts pursuant to the Policies and Objectives in Goal 6 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP in the following ways: 1) through the eradication of prohibited exotics in the proposed conservation areas and by providing a preserve area management plan to ensure long term control (Policy 6.1.4); 2) obtaining a SFWMD permit (Policy 6.2.3); and 3) by providing compensatory mitigation through the preservation and enhancement of uplands and wetlands on -site (Policy 6.2.4) and by purchasing off -site mitigation credits from an approved mitigation bank. A preliminary mitigation analysis using the UMAM to provide justification for the proposed on -site plan is attached as Exhibit P. Following project development, the proposed function of the preserved wetlands should increase due to wetland enhancement activities. However, preliminary estimates show that there will be a functional loss of 5.18± credits on -site. The credit total will be subject to SFWMD review and approval. These credits will be purchased at an agency approved regional mitigation bank as needed to offset the functional loss to retain a no net loss of wetlands. f. Surface and Groundwater Management 14 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 157 of 513 i. Provide an overall description of the proposed water management system explaining how it works, the basis ofdesign, historical drainageflows, off =site flows coming in to the system and how they will be incorporated in the system or passed around the system, positive outfall availability, wet season water table and dry season water table, and how they were determined, and any otherpertinent information pertaining to the control of the storm and ground water. The proposed surface water management plan will incorporate best management practices including water management areas for water treatment and storage prior to discharge to the east to the future Santa Barbara Boulevard area and flow southward. The proposed Project will be located on a 16.76± acre parcel. The preserve areas are estimated to encompass 2.571 acres and the commercial area 14.191 acres. The system will be designed as both a wet and dry detention system. The detention system will provide for the treatment and storage for the 16.76± acre site, less the 2.57± acre preserve (i.e., 14.19± acres). The site consists mostly of Pineda Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum with some Boca Fine Sand. The average dry season water table elevation is estimated to be at 7.0± feet NGVD. The proposed control elevation of the Project will be 9.7± feet NGVD, which is consistent with the neighboring Falling Waters development to the west. The operation of the proposed storm water management system may include the collection of surface water runoff by catch basins and closed pipe systems that convey the run -off to the wet detention areas. The site proposes one storm water management lake for water quality treatment. Additional storage will be provided through the wetland preserve areas. Water quality will be achieved before any flow is permitted to enter these preserve areas. Once water quality treatment has been achieved, all discharge will occur through control structures located on the east side of the Project near the future Santa Barbara Boulevard. ii. Provide an analysis ofpotential water quality impacts of the Project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the Project (post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and storm water management controls) compared with water quality loadings of the Project area as it exists in its pre - development conditions. This analysis is required forProjects impactingfive or more acres of wetlands. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies. No water quality impacts are expected for the Project. The Harvey Harper analysis is provided in Exhibit Q. Identify any Wellfield RiskManagement Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WPM -SI) within the Project area and provide an analysis for how the Project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive WRM -STs. No WRM -ST exists within the Project area. 15 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 158 of 513 g. Listed Species i. Provide a plant and animal species survey to include at a minimum, listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on -site, and conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). State actual survey times, dates, and provide a map showing the location(s) of species of special status identified on -site. A listed species survey was conducted on the property on March 4, 2004, and updated on April 23, 2007 by PAL Additional observations were made on January 21, 2004, June 22, 2004, July 13, 2004, and July 30, 2004. The updated listed species survey report is included as Exhibit I. RCW nesting and non - nesting season surveys have also been conducted on -site from April 29 through May 12, 2005 and from November 11 through 23, 2005, respectively. Copies of the RCW surveys are provided as Exhibit R. No listed species were observed during the listed species survey, additional observation dates or RCW nesting and non - nesting season surveys. During the RCW surveys, the property was surveyed for all listed species including wading birds. The RCW surveys were conducted for one hour after sunrise and ending four hours past sunrise at randomly located observation stations over the entire site. Sufficient time was spent during the RCW surveys to meet the wading bird survey requirements. ii. Identify all listed species that are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on the site or that have been directly observed on the site. Listed wildlife species that have the potential to occur on the Project site are listed in Table 7. Information used in assessing the potential occurrence of these species included Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida Volume I. Mammals (Humphrey 1992); Volume III. Amphibians and Reptiles (Moler 1992); Volume V. Birds (Rodgers et al. 1996); and personal experience and knowledge of the geographic region. The proximity of listed species to the Project site is provided as Exhibit S. Table 7. Listed Wildlife that Could Potentially Occur Scientific Name Common Naive? Desk ated k A -s HdbitIA :.::lId'6C?)) Am hibians and Re tiles Alligator American SCC T(S /A) 6219 E2 mississi iensis alligator Drymarchon Eastern indigo T T 4119 El -E3, corals coo en snake 4159 E2 and E4 Gopherus Gopher tortoise SCC 4119E1 -E3, Polyphemus 4159 E2 and E4 Rana capito Gopher frog SSC 4119 El -E3, 4159 E2 and E4 16 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 159 of 513 Table 7. (Continued) 4'1.....I Egretta caerulea Little blue heron SSC 6219 E2, 6249 El -E3, 6259 El, and E3 Egretta thula Snowy egret SSC 6219 E2, 6249 El -E3, 6259 El, and E3 Egretta tricolor Tri- colored heron SSC 6219 E2, 6249 El-E3, 6259 E] and E3 Falco sparverius Southeastern .1, 4119 El -E3, aulus American kestrel 4159 E2 and E4 Halweetus Bald ea gle T T 4119 EI -E3, leucocephalus 4159 E2 and E4 Mycterta Wood stork E E 6219 E2, 6249 El -E3, americans 6259 El, and E3 4119 E1 -E3, Picoides borealis Red - cockaded T E 4159 E2 and E4, woodpecker 6249 E1 -E3, 6259 EI, and E3 Mammals 4119 E1 -E3, Sciurus niger Big Cypress fox 4159 E2 and E4, avicennia squirrel T 6219 E2, 6249 E1 -E3, 6259 El, and E3 4119 E1 -E3, Ursus amen .canus 4159 E2 and E4, Jloridanus Florida black bear T 6219 E2, 6249 E1 -E3, 6259 E1, and E3 SSC - Species of Special Concern T - Threatened E - Endangered T (S /A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance American Alligator (Alligator mississiniensis) Habitat for the American alligator consists of mostly permanent bodies of fresh water, including marshes, swamps, lakes, and rivers (Hipes et al. 2001). Alligators may use the cypress area located in the northeast comer of the property. Eastern Indigo Snake (Drvmarchon corals coupert) The Eastern indigo snake is far ranging and may utilize activity areas of 125 to 2501 acres or more (Moler 1992). The Eastern indigo snake is typically found in association with populations of gopher tortoise. No gopher tortoise burrows were observed on the Project site. 17 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 160 of 513 Gopher Tortoise (Gopheruspolvphemus) The gopher tortoise is typically found in dry upland habitats, including sandhills, scrub, xerie oak hammock, and dry pine flatwoods; also commonly uses disturbed habitats such as pastures, old fields, and road shoulders. The site provides appropriate habitat for the gopher tortoise; however, no gopher tortoise burrows were observed on the site during surveys. Gopher Frog (Rana areolata) The gopher frog is typically only found in association with populations of gopher tortoises. No gopher tortoise burrows were observed on the Project site. Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerula), Snowy Egret (Egretta thula), Tri- Colored Heron (Egretta tricolor), and Wood Stork (Mvcteria americana) Potential foraging habitat (i.e., cypress; pine /cypress, disturbed; and pine, hydric, disturbed) for the little blue heron, snowy egret, tri- colored heron, and wood stork occurs on -site. The Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991) list no bird rookeries on the subject parcel. Red- Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) To date, no RCW's were observed or heard on the property. No RCW cavity trees have been documented on the Project site. Four RCW colonies have also been identified within a one mile radius of the parcel. Based on previous surveys performed by PAI in this region within the last five years, none of these colonies are known to currently have nesting RCW's. Per the USFWS Draft Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES) Guidelines for RCW, PAI. conducted a 14 -day nesting season foraging survey from April 29 through May 12, 2005 and a 14 -day non - nesting season foraging survey was performed from November 11 through 23, 2005 on the property ( USFWS 2002). No RCW's were observed on the property during the surveys. Copies of the surveys are provided as Exhibit R. Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) Potential habitat for the Southeastern American kestrel may exist within the pine and palmetto habitats on the Project site; however, the Project site is at the southernmost extreme of the known range for this sub - species. Since 1980, observations of Southeastern American kestrel in Florida have occurred primarily in sandhill or sandpine scrub areas of north and central Florida (Rodgers et al. 1996). Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Potential nesting habitat for the bald eagle may exist within the pine habitats on the Project site. The FWCC database has no documented bald eagle nests within a one mile radius of the Project site. Big Cypress Fox Souirrel (Sciurus niQer avicennia) Potential Big Cypress fox squirrel habitat exists within the upland pine habitats, IEl Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 161 of 513 cypress habitats, and pine/cypress habitats. No Big Cypress fox squirrels have been documented on the Project site. Listed plant species were not observed, but which have the potential to occur on the Project site are listed in Table 8. Information used in assessing the potential occurrence of these species included the Field Guide to the Rare Plants of Florida (Chafin 2000) personal experience and knowledge of the geographic region. Table 8. Listed Plant Species That Could Potentially Occur FDACS — Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services E — Endangered C — Commercially Exploited Indicate how the Project design minimizes impacts to species of special status. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. The proposed site plan has been designed to minimize impacts to listed species. This includes the establishment of wetland preserves and upland buffers in the western portion of the property. Upland and wetland enhancement will include the removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation. Enhancement of the upland preserve will include the removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation such as downy rose - myrtle, Brazilian pepper, and melaleuca. 19 Design ated Status habitat SribeciVaKa Cdtttrht�g Nir►e (kLU'C i)ACS USFS Deeringothamnus Beautiful paw -paw E E 4119 E1 -E3 ulchellus Chrysophyllurn olivae orme Satinleaf E 4119 El -E3 Fakahatchee 4119 E1 -E3, Burmannia jlava burmannia E 4159 E2 and E4 Cyrtopodiurn Cowhorn orchid E - 6249 El -E3 unctatum Encyclia tarn ensis Butterfly orchid C - 6219 El Tillandsia Stiff leaved wild asciculata pine E 6249 El -E3 Tillandsia utriculata Giant wild pine, ' E - 6249 El -E3 ant air Tillandsia pruinosa Fuzzy - wuzzy air E - 6249 El -E3 plant Zamia oridana Florida coontie C - 4119 El -E3 FDACS — Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services E — Endangered C — Commercially Exploited Indicate how the Project design minimizes impacts to species of special status. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. The proposed site plan has been designed to minimize impacts to listed species. This includes the establishment of wetland preserves and upland buffers in the western portion of the property. Upland and wetland enhancement will include the removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation. Enhancement of the upland preserve will include the removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation such as downy rose - myrtle, Brazilian pepper, and melaleuca. 19 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 162 of 513 The wetland preserve will be placed under a conservation easement granted to SFWMD. iv. Provide habitat management plans for each of the listed species known to occur on the property. For sites with bald eagle nests and/or nest protection zones, bald eagle management plans are required, copies of which shall be included as exhibits attached to the PUD documents, where applicable. No listed species are known to occur on the property; therefore, need for habitat management plans are not anticipated for the Project. V. Where applicable, include correspondence receivedfrom the FWCC and the USFWS with regards to the Project. Explain how the concerns of these agencies have been met. No correspondence has been received from either the FWCC or the USFWS regarding this Project to -date. h. Other 1. For multi -slip dockingfacilities with ten slips or more, andfor all marina facilities, show how the Project is consistent with the Marina Siting and other criteria in the Manatee Protection Plan. Not applicable. ii. Include the results ofany environmental assessments and /or audits of the property. If applicable, provide a narrative of the cost and measures needed to clean up the site. To date, the applicant is unaware if any environmental assessments and/or audits of the property have been performed. iii. For site located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern — Special Treatment (ACSC -ST) overlay district, show how the Project is consistent with the development standards and regulations established for the ACSC -ST. Not applicable. iv. Soil sampling or ground water monitoring reports and programs shall be required for sites that occupy old farm fields, old golf courses or for which there is a reasonable basis for believing that there has been previous contamination on site. The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by the Environmental Services staff along with the Pollution Control Department and the FDEP. 20 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 163 of 513 Not applicable. V. Provide documentation for the Florida Master Site File, Florida Department of State and any printed historic archaeological surveys that have been conducted on the Project area. Locate any known historic or archaeological sites and their relationships to the proposed Project design. Demonstrate how the Project design preserves the historic /archaeological integrity of the site. Correspondence has been received from the DHR regarding historical, archaeological, or cultural resources that may be present on the Project. No significant archaeological or historical resources are recorded within the Project area. A copy of this correspondence is enclosed as Exhibit J. 21 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 164 of 513 Chafin, Linda G. 2000. Field Guide to The Rare Plants of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550- 010- 001.a. Third Edition. Hipes, Dan, D.R. Jackson, K. Nesmith, D.Printiss, and K.Brandt. 2001. Field Guide to the Rare Animals of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. Humphrey, S.R. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume 1. Mammals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Moler, P.E. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume 111, Amphibians and Reptiles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Rodgers, J.A., Jr., H. W. Kale, II, and H.T. Smith. 1996. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume V. Birds. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Runde, D.E., J.A. Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 - 1989. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Draft Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species — Red - Cockaded Woodpeckers. South Florida Ecological Services Office. 22 Education Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 165 of 513 MICHAEL A. MYERS Senior Vice President, Passarella and Associates, Inc. Environmental consultant and ecological services for private and public development, and road projects. Services include state, federal, and local permitting; agency negotiations; environmental impact assessments; ecological assessments; listed species surveys, permitting and relocation; state and federal wetiand jurisdictionals; wetland mitigation design, construction observations and monitoring. B.S. Wildlife Biology & Management, 1980 Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan Representative Projects Wetland mitigation monitoring, habitat management, agency coordination, gopher tortoise census, and gopher tortoise relocation for the 500± acre Collier's Reserve Golf Course and Country Club. Collier Comity, Florida. Environmental project management, wetland mitigation monitoring, and coordination of bald eagle issues for the 200± acre Florisota Properties. Lee County, Florida. Wetland jurisdictionals for real estate assessment maps for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 800 ±acre Cape Romano acquisition area. Collier County, Florida. Wetland mitigation monitoring for the 270±acre Hunters Ridge Golf Course and residential development. Lee County, Florida. Environmental project management, federal, state, and local wetland permitting, agency negotiation, mitigation design, and construction observations for the 50± acre Carefree Resort of Southwest Florida, mobile home and RV development. Lee County, Florida. Monitoring and report preparation on the listed species Beautiful pawpaw for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Lee and Charlotte Counties, Florida. Experience Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 166 of 513 Ecologist 1111, Environmental Field Supervisor, Johnson Engineering, Inc., Fort Myers, FL, September 1992 - November 1996. Member of the firm's environmental section. Supervisor for ecological field studies, environmental planning, and regulatory agency coordination. Performed wetland jurisdictional determinations, protected species surveys, regulatory permitting, and wetland mitigation design and monitoring. Representative Projects: Field supervisor and ecological assessment (vegetation mapping, jurisdictional wetland determinations, and protected species surveys) on 800± acre Estero Pointe property. Lee County, Florida. 1995 - 1996. Ecological assessment (vegetation mapping) for Florida Department of Transportation Alternative U.S. 41 Extension from south of Six Mile Cypress to Business U.S. 41. Lee County, Florida. 1996. Ecological assessment (vegetation mapping), federal and state permitting, and wetland mitigation design for 200± acre Old Town commercial and residential development. Lee County, Florida. 1996. Ecological assessment (vegetation mapping, jurisdictional wetland determinations, and protected species surveys) and federal, state, and local permitting on 60± acre Baylanding commercial and residential development. Lee County, Florida. 1995 - 1996. Ecological assessment (vegetation mapping and jurisdictional wetland determinations) and federal and state permitting on 70± aore Fisher parcel; a proposed residential subdivision. Lee County, Florida. 1995. Environmental assessment (jurisdictional wetland determination) on 360± acre DSA proposed mining operation. Collier County, Florida. 1995 - 1996. Environmental assessment (jurisdictional wetland determination and protected species survey) on 80± acre Lee County boot camp site. Lee County, Florida. 1993 - 1996. Environmental assessment (protected species survey) and agency coordination for gopher tortoise take permit on 4± acre residential home site. Lee County, Florida. 1996. Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 167 of 513 Environmental assessment (jurisdictional wetland determination) on 200± acre OBP regional mall site. Collier County, Florida. 1994 - 1995. Ecological assessment assistance (vegetation mapping,jurisdictional wetland determinations and listed species surveys) on 406± acres in North Cape Coral. Lee County, Florida. 1993. Third annual monitoring report for IMC Fertilizer, Inc. 125 acre Hookers Prairie Mitigation site. Polk County, Florida. 1992. Wetland mitigation monitoring/permitting for the Florida Department of Transportation widening of S.R. 72. Sarasota County, Florida. 1993. Gopher tortoise relocation for 60 acre Market Place DRI. Lee County, Florida. 1992. Wetland monitoring at Florida Cities Water Company Green Meadows wellfield. Lee County, Florida. 1993 - 1996. Wetland mitigation inspection for 30 acre mitigation site. Lee County Department of Transportation Daniel's Road widening. Lee County, Florida. 1992. Construction inspections for Florida Department of Transportation 951 widening south of U.S. 41. Collier County, Florida. 1992. Ecological assessments (vegetation mapping, listed species surveys, and wetland jurisdictional determinations), federal and state permitting, and wetland mitigation design for Del Prado Boulevard Extension, City of Cape Coral. Lee County, Florida. 1992 - 1994. Wetland monitoring for 60 acre mitigation site at Omni Interstate Park. Lee County, Florida. 1993 - 1996. Wetland mitigation design, wetland monitoring, j urisdictional determinations, federal and state permitting, and mitigation construction observations on 400 acre Health Park Florida DRI. Lee County, Florida. 1992 - 1996. Wildlife surveys on 1,100 acre River Run project. Lee County, Florida. 1992. 9 Continuing Education Professional Associations Certifications Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 168 of 513 1 Florida Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM), South Florida Water Management District (2005) Scrub Plant Seminar with Dr. George Wilder (2004) Oak Trees of Lee and Collier Counties with Dr. George Wilder (2004) ♦ FGCU Plant Identification Course (2003) 1 Master Wildlifer Program (2003) ♦ Ted Below, Shorebird Seminar (1998) Dr. David Hall, Grasses, Sedges and Rushes Plant Identification Workshop (1996) ♦ Dr. David Hall, Sedges and Rushes Plant Identification Workshop (1995) ♦ Dr. David Hall, Plant Identification Workshop (1993) ♦ Native Plant Society Annual Conference (1993) ♦ Florida Department of Environmental Protection Wetland Delineation Workshop (1993) ♦ Dr. Victor Carlisle Hydric Soils Workshop (1993) ♦ Florida Chamber's Environmental Permitting Short Course (1993) Florida Association of Environmental Professionals President of Southwest Florida Chapter (1996 - 1998) State Board of Directors (1996 to 1998) Local Board of Directors (1994 to 1998) Florida Native Plant Society Certified Wetland Delineator by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Certified to Perform Generic Gopher Tortoise Relocations by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Agenda Item No, 8F July 22, 2008 Page 169 of 513 CHRISTIAN J. EMBLIDGE Senior Ecologist, Passarella and Associates, Inc. Provides ecological services for private and public development and road projects. Services include state, federal, and local wetland jurisdictionals; environmental construction inspections; environmental impact assessments; ecological assessments; listed species surveys; and wetland monitoring. Edacarion D.A. Environmental Studies/Geography 1.995 Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, Edinboro, Pennsylvania Representative Projects South Florida Water Management District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting for Crossroads Commerce Center. Lee County, Florida South Florida Water Management District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting and Lee County rezoning for Winkler 38. Lee County, Florida indigo snake monitoring for Riverview Center. Lee County, Florida. Gopher tortoise survey /relocation for Collier's Reserve. Collier County, Florida. Gopher tortoise survey /relocation for Riverview Center, Lee County, Florida. Eagle nest monitoring for Estero River Bay. Lee County, Florida. Eagle Nest Monitoring for Tranquility Bay. Lee County, Florida. Red- cockaded woodpecker survey for the 1881 acre Hideout project, 196.4} acre Southern Marsh Golf Club, and 19t acre Davis Road and C.R. 95 L Collier County, Florida. Red - cockaded woodpecker survey for the Florida Rock Industries, Inc. Ft. Myers Mine. Lee County, Florida. Wildlife surveys for East Bonita Bay Courses. Lee County, Florida. Scrub jay survey for Estero River Bay. Lee County, Florida. Snowy egret rookery survey for Hidden Lakes. Lee County, Florida. Curtiss' milkweed relocation for Riverview Center, Lee County, Florida. Wetland functional assessment for Three Oaks Boulevard extension. Lee County, Florida. Continuing Education Professional Associations Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 170 of 513 Wetland monitoring for Naples Airport Authority, Kensington Golf and Country Club, and Naples Community Hospital. Collier County, Florida. Wetland monitoring for Lee County Mine. Lee County, Florida • Grass Identification Workshop, Sarasota County, Florida, 1999 • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Training, Orlando, FL. October 1999. • 121h and 13a' Annual Environmental Permitting Summer School, Florida Chamber, Marco Island, FL. July 1999 and July 2000. • Wetland Functional Assessment Workshop, Little Pine Island Restoration Site, Little Pine Island, FL. April 2000. • Gopher Tortoise Management and Mitigation Professional Training Program, Ray Ashton. 2000 • Iiydric Soils Seminar, Victor Carlisle. 2000 • Florida Department of Protection Wetland Delineation Workshop. 2003 • Creation and Restoration of Wetlands Course. The Ohio State University; held in Naples, FL. April 2003. • Oak Trees of Lee and Collier Counties with Dr. George Wilder, October 2004. • Florida Wetlands and Mitigation Banking Seminar, Tampa, FL. December 2004 • Florida Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) Short Course, Gainesville, Florida, August 2005 • The Endangered Species Act, CLE International, Tampa, Florida, September, 2005 Florida Association of Environmental Professionals Society of Wetland Scientists Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 171 of 513 EXHIBIT B AERIAL WITH COLLIER COUNTY FLUCFCS OVERLAY � q4 • n ■v 4;,-, ea � .... ..ro t V -S{TE = LUCFCS tL w - «wpmcRas wF1E Acu�nPE➢ Rower ca.rtc <mwrr.PrFRn a:sFrr -s oPEl,e wlr.. Fucm OFF-SITE FWCFCS pd E OE ➢4fYMbEP $OYS - JANWP! z P00. uc•s wes Fm—rep EEen _ I 35 U1IDE SSA (x0' C51 D t\ rthEl)— 3 1 . 5 .PINE +s F LIILS E9\ ago Wif li /6'J5 .GN$E 5b.5. LxO11Cgi ,_,,� W Aiy GSSOCI ➢iFS MImuL It !1 IWE .NE:➢ IrA E+ ,C51 LaE AC• aWi 3 L ,N IY+'a4f aOt T51 919 AC: <T L. Mr@ _ nMG2 : ExOrv„A z t'v. l 4lE cpf :HE ➢I: T,. ExOilCil 0 %h: itM PvE - � � hGip I: �\ Ea9116y1 G': NNF IS CEO RJ D.pW„51 [)'aca :IaL I[,en wry{. Item No. 8F / my 22, 2008 e 172 of 513 LFSFIp /�/ 64PeEY¢➢wEnuq ttM % J I Y ,r Gwn i,. X1)319 PL&PASSARELLA V 'I 1 '1 lYl 'xK1 ran/ PCCrL bNp ➢w.^. W.M �z. z:vz iIIRlt -1 YtITLAtl LII.F$ G't T nIN:A AK` LSE'.'�'IAiES Oii<HML M1-J mTI n� IP ✓l Uw. UL'E➢ „rP prb IP !S Ta . :2 mrs rew weewEn ooe!I➢ sn�r w+ -- -NE um br sir /sr m+ Iv- I,-Pe� I Re vER�.'IEV n+ srwrm seFr a, e.$z.aA wJ b� CCC SL4�F ON ZJI -GS WITH FRE CO 1P1;D TE &Nt iTH O - �11[.YUk ��•,�, YLR fI- l' "f It L1Y I IIRb - «wpmcRas wF1E Acu�nPE➢ Rower ca.rtc <mwrr.PrFRn a:sFrr -s oPEl,e wlr.. Fucm OFF-SITE FWCFCS pd E OE ➢4fYMbEP $OYS - JANWP! z P00. uc•s wes Fm—rep EEen _ '.t ➢a RCPoy MOIWNYMS YW '.O:atipXS arvv ➢IGr:AIE➢ fiCY.4 Gf .F ) rthEl)— .'JC�CS P(R I'.pR10L ipp p6f. M E aFt. !V[. eN� ipFMS h]SS,FP9el d �. 1/'.IATCS) VGpI 1 ago imbEm'+(�rM,a WYtflYr E.'.A969!nEN LFADf n ♦ u .p W Aiy GSSOCI ➢iFS MImuL It LFSFIp /�/ 64PeEY¢➢wEnuq ttM % J I Y ,r Gwn i,. X1)319 PL&PASSARELLA V 'I 1 '1 lYl 'xK1 ran/ PCCrL bNp ➢w.^. W.M �z. z:vz iIIRlt -1 YtITLAtl LII.F$ G't T nIN:A AK` LSE'.'�'IAiES Oii<HML M1-J mTI n� IP ✓l Uw. UL'E➢ „rP prb IP !S Ta . :2 mrs rew weewEn ooe!I➢ sn�r w+ -- -NE um br sir /sr m+ Iv- I,-Pe� I Re vER�.'IEV n+ srwrm seFr a, e.$z.aA wJ b� CCC SL4�F ON ZJI -GS WITH FRE CO 1P1;D TE &Nt iTH O - �11[.YUk ��•,�, YLR fI- l' "f It L1Y I IIRb a Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 je 173 of 513 WWI mayDer ON -SITE FLUCFCS Et CES CDUF CESRMIIUN A[101 at:9F\ Ell W]M1 EiU1 Y31 \9 Pia 71, a„BfY iNEfUM'UD06.DKf WBEp QSgb ExpT,C51 + \E.Li 6T WIF M!WUL'25.UB1VIBE0 NV}IST. EYOrIC51 C\54x 41WE] SB E) A1F.O6iVRY0 DSBL F1U11G5) aE4a 1 i'4 1 •t Ea IMC. pai VR0ED p6rOln ElUlIC51 IaB A[a 2YY czrDE] ciNF]s.Uma:BED ¢s.a. Exo rlcsl a .ix ¢w El RwE.c.Rnfsses]uRBED rox.%E.Dir_sl .iD e<.a spa+ ¢xs E3 IeiE.Cm E]Ull l O6TiAREV DaI G3% ¢aB EI S5 1E1% PNE'LVME65,p6ilYEEO 19'/5%txOtICS t4 ^a i'iE1 F4\E ,nDPoG dilVBpED IDiat. EiOIMSI 4'✓A•E] VNE MU!BC. DISI WBEUIY+154 EAU!:G51 IYACi Ya% i(IiPC :6:6 PCa IL.Pa OFF -SITE FLUCFCS N S:IMUiMt Uittt4N2ENf pr: F.fr19FrY5 CMBPVaa w PwEP roh Crp6eS.IM1pBED :E Sew ,'V SWVfVED wE R.PNC LrW Worts PEwev .Nc1oLPPrns wsz Pc.D;xRCe TNRDDary CD4uEB wprr rmwEPn a.+RmsERS oFF¢E mrP P nmNr „ ^PTf V aCCEMBER IBCS JPNWR! 2E06. LUCi([ I:NES I inLLrm FPM i'•240 MPi4 MD`DuPPM1aS e:p rCE4Tip5 PmPOxmPTm LNCi CS R` FL0Rr4P ium ,RE. NB pT5 OfW7 nCPlrp StSIEn IFCVCFCSI IFpDi row) ^RCFf Yi! BDWrpcQT PEN i .1Di m. DP P]m 4ssocmtfs waw:NC xo, smrf nervE arm DnD Do-im nPr t m¢. v2efll Wt7LA DL: ES rfR GR Y n x'uN PND P.11tdrEE W anrrve W. m.^vJ nc +REV n Dw: W rm ,:r.EnBER :a, mob. rryEi(PNL IM TS RE PE lli VEwEa BT,YWMJ ST.F DN I2 -M -PE PND Br CDE sren p a.uae. TIE unevorwET+PND (:nns .ERE RF vERnNEB BT 6Fw'na 41e. M 6 -2)Pe P uD aNaPn r..:.�cN. FREESTAIL MPUD axce::nn M,m.FEny)1aP PASSARELLA rM.rzivl vauwi ry Olnnuuaa AEUi WITH CVLLIE0. COVUlY & A OCIT[Sz ttiucr<r; o. Erttw tsmD:n+ Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 174 of 513 EXHIBIT C COLLIER COUNTY FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP n v SCALE: V -20C 4159E4 - • - - 10.40 Acq 6259F3 - 0 i1 scf bF19E3 • •10,49 qC.t)' 4119LZ II.I6 AC.[l 625 SO. ' IO.DF 4<. 1 . (7 81 A C[J . • - 6149E3 fi159 OS39E5 10.3] Al .1 • ID. 10 At t) u39EZ I.SI A(. 41SO. - D I'S A49 6S9EI 119EI 10.06 Acx) (1.19 Acil DE49E1 -(054 AC.t)• ) PDIDIt FMM., 2 J3919 Mu (319) 7 —P AS SARELLA Fu U19)3]4-0069 � (55nCLArESt NOTES. FLVCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM $ '•i0D AERIAL FMDTGFWAY AND LOCA TIONS AFAODOMEn0. FLLCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION 5YSTEM IFLUCFCS) (FOOT W99). ISOMER TI IIOLN YPEA GRAVY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES DVAWIN6 NO STATE PLARE YI D .OWG SATED MAY E. 2Dm. SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER GRAVY MINOR AND ASBPc..TE6 DRWAING NA. FMPUD MCP (REV I) DWS DATED SEPTEMBER Y. 2006. UPLANDIWETLAND LIMITS WERE REVIEWED BY SFWMD STAFF ON I3R0 -9A AND BY COE STAFF ON 1141 -98 . THE UPLANEIWETLAND LIMITS WERE RE- VERIFIED BY SFWMD STAFF ON BS)-M AND BY COE STAFF CN E- I1 -06, FREESTATE MPUD COLLIER COUN-IY FLUCFCS AND WE NDS MAP 96CEC338 E %I IIDITC Item No. 8F ily 22, 2008 175 of 513 wCFCS ., ON CUOE DE 1222N nCPE4GE LE9E1@ 19 E1 %Nf FUTW0005, 015iVRBED IO -E4L E40TKS1 x118 E1 NINE FUTWOOOS, DISTURBED 135.4M EMOTIC51 4c SFWMD M£TLANOS 1,BEt RNE FIATYODO5. D16TURSE01ED]E% EYOTIC51 ,s AC.x (IS,Si pS yj fBF] PWE. D 6TURBE..EMOTIC61 6B EA ONE DIS=D Pb FW E%OTICSI SWVf YED WETLAND LINE AYPIEZ CYPRESS DSTIMBEO USrx ExOTKS1 o0AC VF, ROB EI MIEICYPPESS. D161UPBED 10Y a4 EYOiIC91 fBtlY AP E3 PINEICWRE66, 0151 DA:EO PS RY•UDTIC51 _ ..A E6 PMEILYFPESS. DISTVRBEDINI'ISi EY0iKS1 YEl MINE MYOPIC. OI6TVRDED 1014; EMOTIC51 DW YE] MN£. MVORIG. 015iUPBED 59 A: EFOT T tOTAL t61E qSi IN.PA ) PDIDIt FMM., 2 J3919 Mu (319) 7 —P AS SARELLA Fu U19)3]4-0069 � (55nCLArESt NOTES. FLVCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM $ '•i0D AERIAL FMDTGFWAY AND LOCA TIONS AFAODOMEn0. FLLCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION 5YSTEM IFLUCFCS) (FOOT W99). ISOMER TI IIOLN YPEA GRAVY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES DVAWIN6 NO STATE PLARE YI D .OWG SATED MAY E. 2Dm. SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER GRAVY MINOR AND ASBPc..TE6 DRWAING NA. FMPUD MCP (REV I) DWS DATED SEPTEMBER Y. 2006. UPLANDIWETLAND LIMITS WERE REVIEWED BY SFWMD STAFF ON I3R0 -9A AND BY COE STAFF ON 1141 -98 . THE UPLANEIWETLAND LIMITS WERE RE- VERIFIED BY SFWMD STAFF ON BS)-M AND BY COE STAFF CN E- I1 -06, FREESTATE MPUD COLLIER COUN-IY FLUCFCS AND WE NDS MAP 96CEC338 E %I IIDITC Item No. 8F ily 22, 2008 175 of 513 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 176 of 513 EXHIBIT D COLLIER COUNTY FLUCFCS AND WETLAND MAP WITH TOPOGRAPH AND GENERAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS U SCALE: I"- ma Item No. 8F ily 22, 2008 177 of 513 -/L NOTES. PLUCKS LINES ESTIMATED FROM I• =200 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED. FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCFCS)(FDOT 1999), PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES DRAWING N6. STATE PLANE BND.DWG DATED MAY 2, zoo). SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES DRAWING NO FMPUD MCP (REV I).OWG DATED SEPTEMBER 19. 2006. UPLAND /WETLAND LIMITS WERE REVIEWED BY SPYING STAFF ON 12 -10 -99 AND BY COE STAFF ON 12- 1145, THE UPLAND /WETLAND LIMITS WERE RE- VERIFIED BY SFWMD STAFF ON 5 -22 -04 AND BY COE STAFF ON 2 -17-05, TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FROM KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING 4,151SLOCATION DWG DATED 10- 21 -04. 9110CI1 Pw„. �„R Fa FREESTATE MP UEND FhNIr,O ftP E RhL WV«7Cw CJB P-- 239)27400 67 I AJJA L Ll CU ER CUUNN fLUCfC AND WETUNpMTP (2)9) 27N9 WITH TDI NAND ( _C , DRAINAGE FATTER] EXH181TD FLUCFCS % OF CODE OESCRITION ACREAGE TOTAL aVOEI PINEFLATW0O0S. 06iURBED 162a %E %DTICS) Ite PC.x ].I% ,PE] RNE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED E%OTICSI 59R SFWKD SFWNO WETLdIUS ct III MINE FIATWOODS, EW7VA EXOTICS) 0ISAC.[ 0.15Ac2 0M 16.R ac[I ONE . DUTURSEDRSK4E%0TICB) 4964 EXOTICS) DA6AC.z 41SBER EA PINE. OIS. URBEDP61 a FON ].Y: �y SURVEYED WEttYq LINE QIR SO. Ei DS.9I PICT) DRBEORDDID11OTICO ....Ac 25% 6NS El PNEICYS,OIST RNE /CYPRESS. DISTURBED ION %EXOTIC$) A11 fti OAC_ 51 P4 �. TOPOGRAMIC ELEVATION (TYF,) G2a9 ES RNE /CYPRESS. DISTURBED 12510% EXOTICS) II x 32% SND E] RNEICYPRESS,DITURBED G6TR EXOTICA) IOR. 161 A,,c B.S% GENERAL DRAINAGE PATTERN 6259 E RNE. HYDRIC. OISTURBED1O EXOTICL) 09 RC._ 2.2% 5B E] FINE MYOPIC DISTURBED S'}>Y.. -% l p 1% TOTAL I6 ]fi PC._ X00 ML NOTES. PLUCKS LINES ESTIMATED FROM I• =200 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED. FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCFCS)(FDOT 1999), PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES DRAWING N6. STATE PLANE BND.DWG DATED MAY 2, zoo). SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES DRAWING NO FMPUD MCP (REV I).OWG DATED SEPTEMBER 19. 2006. UPLAND /WETLAND LIMITS WERE REVIEWED BY SPYING STAFF ON 12 -10 -99 AND BY COE STAFF ON 12- 1145, THE UPLAND /WETLAND LIMITS WERE RE- VERIFIED BY SFWMD STAFF ON 5 -22 -04 AND BY COE STAFF ON 2 -17-05, TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FROM KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING 4,151SLOCATION DWG DATED 10- 21 -04. 9110CI1 Pw„. �„R Fa FREESTATE MP UEND FhNIr,O ftP E RhL WV«7Cw CJB P-- 239)27400 67 I AJJA L Ll CU ER CUUNN fLUCfC AND WETUNpMTP (2)9) 27N9 WITH TDI NAND ( _C , DRAINAGE FATTER] EXH181TD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 178 of 513 MR 0,1l: SOILS MAP yyM M ,A F ,•.iTy � �� 'ice, r Mks S'C�� Irt" ... '* r -c v b� a Y W M- :� ► xr'`�y,''�ab 'x" Ye..x �T` •± ', t c� r 4 ms's' i f�- 'w►Ak ,A F ,•.iTy � �� 'ice, r Mks S'C�� ... '* r -c Y W M- :� ► xr'`�y,''�ab 'x" Ye..x �T` •± ', t 4 ms's' yyyyaa��i y {Rp f Vn•jA'N. � v<,�yM Y y 1 1 •.Y rt 'j � �t Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 180 of 513 EXHIBIT F CONCEPTUAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN d Agenda t F f J b 8 Pag 3 � I u i � I 5 t d a € 0 0 fq €€ 0 0 II 41. d 0 O ... ...:;, dE t O t Oj ti 0 0 ;0 i _____________ .____ ------------- __________________________ p 4 v 4 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 182 of 513 1 *4VI : CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN d i .• 8 F J I o 08 Pag 13 T T•W(FA IWWAME %E T)I T 8O 19,M 4TWIII E1 .u......... ..1' OE FE. . . ... ..... � p ...w.. < V 1 S a 00 O 0 }: Q k� � o0 �g a o • I 6 6 F 0 0 F NVAOE IME O_BUFFER —.. —_ —._ —_ •» OAVISBOVLEVA ______ _______________________________ 1 ____ —_._._ ___.__.— ._— ..— .._.___.— .. —__� Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 184 of 513 EXHIBIT H PROJECT LOCATION WITH LAND USE DESIGNATIONS MAP Nlud u='. 11� July 22, 2 Page 185 of H z L) 2 LU 0 L) ¢O CL -j 1% 01 �2 CL LU 2 LU S. LU W 0 cr I T 2 2 6 LL Z a a W-;,i 4' It, I LF 8 1 L SO D E 11 H z L) 2 LU 0 L) ¢O CL -j 1% 01 �2 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 186 of 513 EXHIBIT I LISTED SPECIES SURVEY FREESTATE MPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY October 7, 2004 Revised May 7, 2007 Revised July 6, 2007 Revised November 28, 2007 INTRODUCTION Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 187 of 513 This report outlines the listed species survey conducted by Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) for the 16.76} acre Freestate MPUD (Project). The purpose of the survey was to review the project area for listed flora and fauna species. The review included a literature search of listed species within the project's geographical area and on -site field surveys conducted on March 4, 2004 and April 23, 2007. The weather on March 4, 2004 was mostly sunny, northeast winds of 5 to 10 mph, with temperatures in the low 80's. The weather on April 23, 2007 was mostly sunny, northeast winds of 5 to 10 mph, with temperatures in the low 80's. Additional observations were made on January 21, 2004, June 22, 2004, July 13, 2004, and July 30, 2004. The Project is located in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County. More specifically, the parcel is found at the southwest comer of Davis and Santa Barbara Boulevards in south Naples. County Barn Road is located approximately ' /< of a mile to the west. The existing land use of the site is undeveloped, forested land. The Project's surrounding land uses are a mixture of residential developments; undeveloped, disturbed land; and commercial developments. Abutting the site immediately to the north is Davis Boulevard; to the east is the right -of -way (ROW) for the future Santa Barbara Boulevard extension and undeveloped land that has been partially cleared and filled; and to the south and west is the residential community of Falling Waters. METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted on -site, with specific attention given to the Big Cypress fox squirrel. Field surveys were conducted on March 4, 2004, and April 23, 2007, with additional observations on June 22, 2004, July 13, 2004, and July 30, 2004 to determine whether the Project was being utilized by state or federal listed species. The listed wildlife species survey included, but was not limited to Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coeruleseens), red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW), Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), wood stork (Mycteria americans), Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), Florida black bcar (Ursus americanusJloridanus), Florida panther (Fells concolor coryi), and gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) and their commensals such as the Eastern Indigo snake (Drymarchon corals eouperi) and gopher frog (Rana areolata). The listed plant 1 -1 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 188 of 513 species survey included species typical to forested upland and wetland habitats in this geographical region, as well as listed epiphytes and terrestrial orchids common in Southwest Florida. The survey was conducted by qualified ecologists walking meandering transects through suitable habitats within the project area. Transects were spaced 15 to 25± feet apart depending on habitat and visibility due to the density of the vegetation (Appendix A). Habitats were inspected for listed plant and wildlife species, including potential Big Cypress fox squirrel nesting sites. At regular intervals the ecologists stopped, remained quiet, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. The listed species review also included a literature search of available information on listed species in the project's geographical region. The literature sources reviewed included Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concem, Official Lists (FWCC 2006); the Collier County 1999 Bald Eagle Location Maps (Collier County Development Division 1999); Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991); Status and Distribution of the Florida Scrub Jay (Cox 1987); and the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (Logan et al. 1993). SURVEY RESULTS No listed species, or Big Cypress fox squirrels or their nests were observed throughout the survey. The results of the literature search found no recorded bald eagles nests or wading bird rookeries within a one mile radius of the subject parcel. One Florida black bear and one Florida panther telemetry point where located within a one mile radius of the site but these recordings are from 1992 and 1995. Based on the age of the telemetry points and the sites location west of County Road 951, these species should not affect the Project's development potential. Four RCW colonies have also been identified within a one mile radius of the parcel. Based on previous surveys performed by PAl in this region within the last five years, none of these colonies are known to currently have nesting RCW's. I -2 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 189 of 513 REFERENCES Collier County Community Development Division. 1999. Bald Eagle Location Maps for Collier County. Cox, Jeffrey A. 1987. Status and Distribution of the Florida Scrub Jay. Florida Orinithological Society, Gainesville, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2006. Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern. Official Lists. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Tallahassee, Florida. Logan, Todd, Andrew C. Eller, Jr., Ross Morrell, Donna Ruffner, and Jim Sewell. 1993. Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan South Florida Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Gainesville, Florida. Runde, D.E., J.A. Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 - 1989. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee,Florida. 1 -3 Item No. 8F Ily 22, 2008 190 of 513 I LOCI C8 lE4FIG I Of CODE DFSCWVII4N ACNta GE TOTAL .v El w.Efurwoo➢s. msTLxdEe wv +v EAaTIC51 1'.v A.- .I• .1+v Ef PMEfutWpD5. W5T1A®ED RNY4 Elor1 ^31 1:0 ACa ev4 11N E] ANE fIIT,"'WD D9iVPBED=T EYDTIC(i; C�15 Acs D64 nl'J F] PWE. pSrUnDFD GbI .EU.T. t.b AC. 1;Y. mE1 NXE. ppi 1161WL E[Di�1 CIN c+ +N ft WTT CvwE35. pST..'I, i E,TA :SI 'P1 62W E1 gN[LTWE6E. E.1c TC a 518% 9� F3 MTN1@ED W.'4 TXOTil RHE'O` F BEQ @ FXOTIC51 Ws. WslT NHE'CVNIES6. D4TUPBE9:'L 11 Cl AC: PoIE. HYDgK. q$TUpgED lDi.ti EYOi1CS1 "OTT U3'AC- 037 3YC NYAE] rnfiiyC_DSi UPDED I'A TTI. E.OTF51 Rz T014L lG 6M.- 1WOL MOl. e .I. FTI.TW W WENS AcQW AD iMNaGY CD IEa CWWY MDPENry MIW... 5 vllu Mlll A 111. M ATE DE CK `nWM iDM - JNI. 1.6 U[f C5 LINES ESIIMAiEO fPOn AE R14 hWTPoRAR5.1M LIXAtIpVS M'R:14NARD. car1L reE. Len fLwllDa la+D use. AN> EamS u.ssmutlw+ ST6TEn 6L4Ci C51 lfp]T IveN). ENDRFNIY 6' NCARt PER 41YDY I.N. A. ASSIXAi:S DNAM,l A', $IATE'AEE .. WRI DATED NAr a mw SiMYE YEU WETLAND 1.I $ f .... M$M AM ASSUCIAIES M1 Rw Na. 1M Xcl IAE Y I I —, DAIEO SEPiENBEN 10.". WIAMIWETLAIA VNIT$ WE16 NEVIE WE➢ er ezww siaoe oN D +D -w Aw er =WE sTlvr w rz -n.vE TILL U AMJWeTLAND UnITS Weft .- ITII-Eu.1 A'. STMT a 4Y. -0L AM .1 CQ .1 Al M 141 TI vuuc..a�r.a„�EmW FREESTATE NIPUD ^w EaSa �nMn ^9)274 Y19 IP.ASSARELLA nam N.Rrt1TV #9tDOS1 ...W,,, 1 AERIAL WITH COLLIER COUNT' + ++ �, c: F... CI4;:Tta>50 1 �X !'1SSOC(.ATES, Fwcres OVERLAY AND TMANSECT 1NES n'Lll.11A lE4FIG S'wl'lU nCi1JN➢S IIS.Si xccl /V awrteEO.ETLAM I xM -'I - wALrtF ➢SWVEr TRAMECn MOl. e .I. FTI.TW W WENS AcQW AD iMNaGY CD IEa CWWY MDPENry MIW... 5 vllu Mlll A 111. M ATE DE CK `nWM iDM - JNI. 1.6 U[f C5 LINES ESIIMAiEO fPOn AE R14 hWTPoRAR5.1M LIXAtIpVS M'R:14NARD. car1L reE. Len fLwllDa la+D use. AN> EamS u.ssmutlw+ ST6TEn 6L4Ci C51 lfp]T IveN). ENDRFNIY 6' NCARt PER 41YDY I.N. A. ASSIXAi:S DNAM,l A', $IATE'AEE .. WRI DATED NAr a mw SiMYE YEU WETLAND 1.I $ f .... M$M AM ASSUCIAIES M1 Rw Na. 1M Xcl IAE Y I I —, DAIEO SEPiENBEN 10.". WIAMIWETLAIA VNIT$ WE16 NEVIE WE➢ er ezww siaoe oN D +D -w Aw er =WE sTlvr w rz -n.vE TILL U AMJWeTLAND UnITS Weft .- ITII-Eu.1 A'. STMT a 4Y. -0L AM .1 CQ .1 Al M 141 TI vuuc..a�r.a„�EmW FREESTATE NIPUD ^w EaSa �nMn ^9)274 Y19 IP.ASSARELLA nam N.Rrt1TV #9tDOS1 ...W,,, 1 AERIAL WITH COLLIER COUNT' + ++ �, c: F... CI4;:Tta>50 1 �X !'1SSOC(.ATES, Fwcres OVERLAY AND TMANSECT 1NES n'Lll.11A Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 191 of 513 EXHIBIT J CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Glenda E. Hood Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES Mr. Christian J. Emblidge Passarella and Associates, Inc 9110 College Pointe Court Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 192 of 513 January 21, 2005 RE: DHR No.: 2004 - 108891 Date Received: October 18, 2004 Abele Parcel, Project No. 98CEC338 -- Commercial Development and Multi- family Residential Community/ Collier County, Florida Dear Mr. Emblidge: Our office received and reviewed the above referenced project in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1992, and Chapters 267 and 373, Florida Statutes. The State Historic Preservation Officer is to advise and assist federal agencies when identifying historic properties (archaeological, architectural, and historical resources) listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, assessing the project's effects, and ooritidering alternatives to avoid or reduce adverse effects. Our review of die Florida Master Site File indicates that no significant archaeological or historical resources are recorded within the project area. Furthermore, because of the location and /pr nature of the project, it is unlikely that any such sites will be affected. If there are any questions concerning our comments, please contact Janice Maddox, Historic Sites. Specialist, by electronic mail. at insaddox0,dca state:fl.us, or by telephone at 850/245 -6333. Thank you for your interest in protecting Florida's historic properties. Sincerely, RiECEIVED Frederick Gaske, Director, and ]AN 21 2005 State Historic Preservation Officer PPSSPJ a� iNG A. S00 S. Dronough Street 4 Tallahassee, CL 32899 -0250 • hHpalwww.tlhcritage.com a Directors office O Archaeological Research fd Historic Preservation 0 Historical Museums (850) 245-6300' PAX: 2456436 (850) 245 -6444 - FAX: 2456436 (850) 245-6333 • FAX: 245 -6437 (850)245 -6400 • PAX: 245 -6433 ❑ Southeast Regional Office f3 Northeast Regional Office O Central Florida Regional Office ('154) 467 -4990' FAX: 467 -4991 (904) 825 -5045 • FAX: 6755044 (813) 272 -3843 • PAX: 272 -2340 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 193 of 513 EXHIBIT K NATIVE VEGETATION MAP a Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 ae 194 of 513 ,LE: 1, - 200' u "W" 4R9Ni LEOENO PASSf�EL�i PAL YEGETATIAN --T ®NATIVE .T9 ASY C.E. 1�n /Di NATIVE YEGEiAiIDN IFEEMYE �t ('�SSOG' 'IEy' (29 �v 6tMVEYEO WERYp LINE "W" 4R9Ni YIIDCd1, iPmna Guru Furtn9.YM. FlueiJa JJ9i9 PASSf�EL�i PAL FREESTATE MPUD NOTES: �.^E— °.^ C.E. 1�n /Di Phll.. fz7vl n9m5t F. II)913i4M51 �t ('�SSOG' 'IEy' PLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM rEXHIORK f =L90 ACRIK "BY"AAFHS AID LOCAII 9 AETISOIMATED. FWCFC9 10' LODE DESCRIFIION pCI TOTAL FLU CS PER F OF DA LAMB ME, AI19E1 PINEFIATWppI]S, OISTUPBED 163M1 E %OTIGI I.A. 11Ypci 71% l.lf LOVER AND FDId15 CLA41F1:4TM MNE FlP1WOp�, OASFVPBEDIY`il9°a EROTICSI 116ACi 69Y STSTEM(FWCFCS) (FOOT 1999). a11YES pNEFV.TWCOOb, DISTURBED ISG)5% ESOlICSI 019,41.. 094 pproENry OO.ANY FT;P 4.A it SOU RNE, p KT".SE.(2.ExDTCS1 ..A"- 01 .1. ANASSOLNTTS OADAI AA 1159E MNE, O61UPNEU 1111�� EipTI( , OMKA I. STALE.1..1 DWG DATfO SOADS c .S. D611JE.0 kY. DAOncsj D.Brc.A x.91 MAY Z. x11117. ¢19E1 FIFFE /crrness. DIeTUPeLD W.,., VIO'COl @1N F3 EINEACYPAESS. INSTVPDED(1S CSOTIC51 I.NI 19; EMNEFEO WETLAND LINES PEN BHODY ... MNE /OYFRE99. ORTUPdED V9,1 E%OTIC5) 1.M,41.i BDY MAMA AND AGSCLIATES MEWING N9. @N1E1 PI9E. HYDRIL, OIGTUflBEDN2IY ESOTC5 0.9]gc.A xx4 FMPUD MCP IREV BOWS DATED AS. EO %M1E MYURIC 0.T1JRBED 51)9 SEFTEMBEP 19. E006. TOTAL 16 ]b A<.i 1p O% IgpNDIWERANO LIMITS WERE IIEVIEWED BY SFWMD STAFT IN IE 1D 1 AND BY DOE STAFF ON II4I -90. THE UPLANDIWETI6IA LIMITS WERE RE- VERIFIED BY SEAMS STAFF 01162E-0i AND BY ME STAFF ON i -It -0S. "W" 4R9Ni YIIDCd1, iPmna Guru Furtn9.YM. FlueiJa JJ9i9 PASSf�EL�i PAL FREESTATE MPUD 9netcne �.^E— °.^ C.E. 1�n /Di Phll.. fz7vl n9m5t F. II)913i4M51 �t ('�SSOG' 'IEy' NATIVE VEGETATION MAP rEXHIORK Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 195 of 513 EXHIBIT L SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WETLAND JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION LETTER AND WETLAND JURISDICTIONAL SIGN -OFF MAP Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 196 of 513 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOWER WEST COAST REGIONAL SERWCE CENTER 2301 McGregor Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (2391338.2929 • Fl -WATSI -800- 248 -1201 • Suncom748 -2929 - Fax(239)338.2936 • www.stwmd.gov /orglexolltmyers/ Regulation Department September 3, 2004 Mr. Christian J. Embtidge Passarella and Associates, Inc. 9110 College Pointe Court Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Subject: Abele Parcel; Informal Jurisdictional Wetland Determination Collier County, S8/ T50SI R26B Dear Mr. Emblidge: The District offers the following in response to your request for a determination of the jurisdictional wetland boundaries located within the subject property. K3ista Gentile, Environmental Analyst, of the Natural Resource Management Division, revalidated a jurisdictional determination on July 13, 2004. The project boundaries shown on the attached aerial define the area that was inspected. Based on the information provided and the results of the site inspection, jurisdictional wetlands as defined in Chapter 62 -340 F.A.C. have bean identified within the limits of the original property inspected. Thejurisdictional wetland boundaries are shown on the attached aerial photograph. This correspondence is an informal pre- applicationjulisdictional determination pursuant to Section 373.421 (6) and F.A.C. 62- 312.040 (7). It does not bind the District, its agents or employees, nor does it convey any legal rights, expressed or implied. Persons obtaining this informal pre- applicationjurisdictioaal determination are not entitled to rely upon it for purposes of compliance with provision of law or District rules. A bindingjurisdiclional determination may be obtained by submitting an application to the South Florida Water Management District Ft. Myers office for a formal determination pursuant to Chapter 40E -4.042 F.A.C. or by applying for a permit. RECEIVED SEP 2 3 20M PASSARELLA AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GOVERNWG BOARD EXECUTIVE OFFICE Mica lds 1. GW idrmx, Jr., Esq., Chair Michael Collins Kevin McCarty Henry Dean, Executive Director Pamela Rrwks- Thomas, Vice -Chair Hugh M. English Harkley R. Thornton Ircla M -Tagud Lennart E. Lindahl, P.E. Trudi K. Williams, P.E. DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS: 3301 Gun Club Road, CO. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, F1.33416 -4680 • (5611680-8800 • PL WATS I- 800. 432 -2045 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 197 of 513 Clu-istian Cmblidge Abele Parcel Page 2 of 3 A file has been set up at the Lower West Coast Service Center with pre - application materials. If you have any further questions please contact Krista Gentile at (239) 338 -2929 ext. 7737. �Si ncerely, l/ Laura ��MMonnttess de Oca Senior Envirorunental Analyst Lower West Coast Service Center Attachment (aerial w/ FLUCCS, location map) C: USACOL- Ft Myers w /memo, aerial w/FLUCCS, location map Collier County wlmemo, aerial w /FLUCCS, location map Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 198 of 513 TO: File FROM: Krista Gentile, Environmental Analyst, NRM Division THROUGH: ,aura Montes de Oca, Senior Environmental Analyst, NRM Division DATE: September 3, 2004 SUBJECT: Abele Parcel, Informal Wetland Jurisdictional Inspection Collier County, S8/ T50S/ R26E A site inspection was previously conducted on December 10, 1998 and revalidated on July 13, 2004 the above referenced property. The subject property encompasses approximately 19.41 acres and is located southwest of Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The property to the east is undeveloped and the property to the south and west is the Falling Waters residential development. The jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by Chapter 62 -340 F,A.C., have been identified on the attached aerial photograph. The site has not been surveyed and therefore the acreages are approximate. The northwestern and southwestern portion of the site consists of pine flatwoods as well as sporadic pockets on the eastern boundary. The wetland is centrally located and consists of cypress, slash pine, and hydric pine wetland systems. Water stains are prevalent throughout these areas. The jurisdictional wetlands onsite total acreage is 15.61 There were no wetland- dependent threatened or endangered species observed during this site inspection. , w 4'a,' ry Y 1 M m v:tc s . J yrsw l Lh ��.�'.✓ "F A.37.� 1' � \ n . . k " MrYet.�,.w. vj� 7"�X �. � �'J4r+Y hr's �` �"` •Myy�4.� �w.^.*t'i IAL tt Agenda Item No, 8F July 22, 2008 Page 200 of 513 EXHIBIT M WATER LEVEL NAIL PHOTOGRAPHS Q j a'4x. f ' wy- �I W -.° I .... '� .: -` . ►�.,. tr® � � L ,. �� '�"# "�'!: _ - �. Vii` �� �` _ S��j� i� °� s ,w .�� w, f` F� f {j / /l� f fi� .„ ..,3„�..p..__e. .« � �. _ .A _� � '��. �. � .. r � g. q +� 4 "'�.�� ." Y.,. y� \✓ . ".o... -...,_ � � i,. —'.,' � M� �� 8 €,��� � � �. fil. _ � � R° � � + �r � :� ... I "� t �r x�'s, .. .� h � �: r f �i �i I► r fF } .' d �+�\ � \ --+�_ R aiw'_^M IbL ��x,wti� iLap Jos r s J i so �' � .� ♦ try -(i .�r, 'i� .` „ • - "a ` , t• i� Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 204 of 513 EXHIBIT N WATER LEVEL NAIL AND TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION MAP a Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 le 205 of 513 U RL ,N A _19 we As - 9.31 FiL nctl aryc •_._. C Us NOTES: FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM I'40D' AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCADNS APPROXIMATED. T I FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE. COVER AND FORMS CILA551FICATION SYSTEM (FLUCFCS) (FOOT 19W), iWC *OS qpF PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER GRADS mE DESCroniOx nCn[nGE tOTAL MINOR AND ASSOCIATES DRAWING NA a"BA,, 119EI RNE FlArnU00.S. OI5iUNBED IBM'.. EXOTICS( ]1% STATE PLANE ONO DW4 DATED Is E2 FIRE FLATWOOD9. DISTURBED QS99>, L%OTK51 IR, ¢9% MAY 2. 2001, SFrvnu rvElvJ:D9 MA[D C -IPEO RNE FIATWOODS, OIS"PREC ISDTS ".a E %UTIL51 D 1 FC.z D9% IN P. 56 E2 FINE UBTUPIUU 12S49% EKOTICR D.iG AC.i 21% SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER OFADY 4'59 Ep PINE mSTUROEDOb10kEXOT1651 ae6 AC.e MINOR AND ASSOCIATES DRAWING NP. ^� wxvETtD.1. LINE 6319U CYPRESS. DICTURBEDGIL" %EXOTICS( FMPLO MUCH (REV 1) OWG DATED y pppy,IMR WATER M49 El MNE?CNPRESS. DISTURBED 402— E %UTICBI BON._ 6 SEPTEMBER 19. 2006. T LEVEL "IL LOCATION BI49 E9 AR 969 RNEICYPRE55, D191UMBE0954VYEMOTGS RNEICY %IESB.DISTURBEOIAS72C°OTICSI 161..! 9B4 UPLAND /WETLAND LIMITS WERE REVIEWED 9 TOPOGRAPHIC EIEVATIOH ITIL) .:S9 MNEHIDRIC OISNRREDry2a1Ex0TAA) 111-4 99% BY SFWMD STAFF ON I2 -I0-9B AND BY sR E9 RNE. NVDRIL.E ED (SDtY_a EXOTICS vRi01AL I.tB M.z 5n% COE STAFF ON 0 -11 -9& t6 i6AC.z 16],D`n THE UPLANDIWETLAND LIMI15 WERE RE- VERIFIED By SFWMD STAFF ON 8-27-0L AND BY COE STAFF OM 2 -19 -05 WATER LEVEL NAIL LOCATION ARE TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FROM BEI INUINEERING DRAWING NO G ISLOCATION .DWG DATED 10- 2I -04. S. J /I9 /Ofi 9110 C..1FMP^111rc C^ur1 Pon— lAJJAl\ELLA Y hIZE1;JTATE tV-- PUD -- pSCE(;25tl WATER LEVEL NALL AND TOPOGRAPHIC •^ i 31'x; c /Ob (Z9^IId°3$919 PhaxlU9)Ei5N6i F=QI9)ZiMON9 [F..)w' —� ASS�Ui�s? I^•rc.•• INFORMATION M4P FzI1:BiTN Cx S /+ /Oi Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 206 of 513 EXHIBIT O WETLAND IMPACT MAP A" SCALE: V- 2W LEGEND W ETLAND PRESEPVE (2.30 AC.*) ®WETLAND FPACT 110.04 A, A) B UPLAND UFFER 10.00 D DM ®UPLAND FftESERVE SO LI AC F ,IV SURVEYED WETLSND LINE GLUCFCS WETLAND WETLAND CODE PRESERVE IMPACT TOTAL 5219 E2 O49AG± O49AG! 6249 E1 225 AD.z 6.45 Ac ± 8 70A ' 6249 E2 - C54AC.x 054 AC.x 6249 E3 1 6A AC. 1,64 AO. x 6269E1 D.13 AC 0.24 AL- 0.37 AC.! 6259 E3 1.52 AC- 158 AC TOTAL 238 AC! 10.84 AC .± 1332 AC .c NOTES FLVCFCB LINES fSTINATEO ERON V 1= 0 PERIAL n TOGRAPNS AND LOCATIONS P1FR041MA1E9 PLUCFCS PER FLORIDA WIO USE. COVER AND FORI CLASSIFICATI0N STSTEN VLVCFCSI IFOCT 19991, PROWI ROLNI PER 11I MINdi AND ASSOCIATES DRAWING N9. STATE PLFNf ! W.DW6 DATID Puv E. 107. SYRVEYI D WETLAND LIN S PER GRADV ....R NiD PSSOCIATES .1.0 N9- PUO nCP INEV II ONW GATED SE9TEMBER I9. $N!. UPLAND /WETL D LIMITS WERE REWEWEO .1 SFWFID STAFF ON 1210 -95 AND BV COE STAFF ON I1-II -09. 1NE IIRANO /WETLAND LIMITS WEIR RE-VERIFIEO AT SFMMD STAFF ON 8-27.44 AND BF CCE STAFF ON 2 -OAS. a Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 ae 207 of 513 Sun C 11, P— a." I E RESTAT PUD FI M'. Fl9 P `ECLcn Pw In» 3707 WETLAND IMPAC-r MP Fx.(219)27"069 &ASSOCIATESY I I EXIIe1TU Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 208 of 513 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 209 of 513 EXHIBIT P UNIFORM MITIGATION ASSESSMENT METHOD ANALYSIS PINIQ c�ri o 0 Q O W O W d a`Z W q W i+ a N d a W E� N q q O W v of a q W 4 a M d a W F 0 a 0 m 0 0 a 0 0 a d 0 0 a: 0 O O. O O O 0 a n a: a Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 210 of 513 P. Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 211 of 513 PART 1— Qualitative Description (See Section 62- 345.400, F.A.C.) Site /Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freestate MPUD SFWMD Application No. 650113 -15 1 -6249 E1 FLUCCs code Fu(ther classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size 6249 Ei Pine /Cypress, Disturbed to - 24% Exotics) Impact 6.66 BaslntWatershed Name/Number Affected Walerbody(Class) Spedai Classification p.e.OFW, AP, ae.r �dMaenae«u dedMatlon Nanponan<at West Collier Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands Surrounded by wetlands to the south, east and west and uplands to the north Assessment area description The canopy consists of slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, and melaleua. The sub - canopy contains slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, dahoon holly, wax. myrtle, melateuca and/or Brazilian pepper (zero to 24 percent coverage). The ground cover includes sawgrass, guifdune paspalum, and rush tuirena. Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional landscape.) Davis Boulevard to the north, Failing Waters to west Functions Mitigation for previous permlUother historic use Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (Listed species Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, !heir legal that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to classification (E, T, S5C), type of use, and Intensity of use of the be found) assessment area) observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.): Additional relevant factors: Assessment conducted by. Assessment date(s): CE 16 -Mar -06 Form 62- 345.900(1), F.AC. ( effective dale of 2121041 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 212 of 513 PART 1— Qualitative Description (See Section 62. 345.400, F.A.C.) SltelProled Name Freeslate MPUD Application Number SFWMD Application No. 050113 -15 Assessment Area Name or Number 1 -6249 E2 FLUCCs code 6249 E2 Further classification (optional) Pine/Cypress, Disturbed (25 -49% Exotics) Impact ar Mitigation Site? Impact Assessment Area Size 1.20 BaslNWaterahed NamelNumber West Collier Affected Waterbody(Class) Special Classification p.jcm. M oairbcaewftweraf daasnaft a mpan.eml Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands ' Surrounded by wetlands to the north and uplands to the east, west and south Assessment area desolption The canopy consists of slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, and melsleuca. The sub - canopy contains slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, dahoon holly, wax- myrtle, melateuca andW Brazilian pepper (25 to 49 percent coverage). The ground cover Includes sawgrass, guffdune paspalum, and rush fuirene. Significant nearby features Davis Boulevard to the north, Falling Waters to west Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity In relation to the regional landscape.) Functions Mitigation for previous pennlUother histodc use Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of speclas that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found ) Anticipated Utilization by listed Species (List species, their legal classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and Intensity of use of the assessment area) Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (L st species directly observed, of other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, eE. Additional relevant factors: Assessment conducted by: CE Assessment date(s): 16 -Mat -06 ' Form 62- 345.000(1), F.A.C. [ effective date of 2121041 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 213 of 513 PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62- 345.400, F.A.C,) SllelPro(ed Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freeslale MPUD SFWMD Application No. 050113 -15 1 - 6249 E3 FLUCCa code Further classification (optional) Impactor Miligallon Site? Assessment Area Size 6249 E3 Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (50 - 756 Exotics) Impact 3.12 Basks Nalershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody(Class) Special Classlficaaon(t...oFv. AP, oewlauwb 04nl Mrlgmem o(ipmonesl West Collier Geographic relationship to and hydrologic, connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands Surrounded by wetlands to the west and south, uplands to the east, and Davis Boulevard to the north Assessment area description The canopy consists of slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, and melaleuea. The sub - canopy contalns slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, dahoon holly, wax- myrtle, metaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper (50 to 75 percent coverage). The ground cover Includes sawgrass, gulfdune paspalum, and rush fulrena. Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity In rotation to the regional landscape.) Davis Boulevard to the north, Falling Waters to west Functions Mitigation for previous permlVOther htstodc use Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Utera(ure Review (Lis( of species Anticipated Utilization by Usted Species (List species, their legal that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to classification (E, T, SSG). type of use, and Intensity of use of the be found) assessment area) Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.): Additional relevant factors: Assessment conducted by. Assessment date(s): CE 16-Mar -06 Form 62- 345.900(1), F.A.C. I effective date of 2121041 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 214 of 513 PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62.345.400, F.A.C.) Site /Project Name 7SPI: n Number Assessment Ama Name or Number Freestate MPUD D Applica tion No. 050113 -15 1 .6259 E1 FLUCCs rode Further classification (optional) Impact or Mlligalbn 51te9 Assessment Area Size 6259 El Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (0.24% Exotics) Impact 0.18 aasinfWatershed NameMumber Affected Waterbody(Class) Special Cfassifloation l.a.opw,A,eVw buWlalNWxe a.Wnwue.rhpanancq West Collier Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands Surrounded by wetlands to the west and south, and uplands to the north and east Assessment area description The vegetation In the canopy Is dominated by slash pine along with cabbage palm and melaleuca (zero to 24 percent coverage). The sub - canopy contains slash pine, was - myrtle, melaleuca, myrsine, and Brazillen pepper. The ground cover Includes rush, sawgrass, little blue maldencane, yellow -eyed grass, and gul(dune paspalum. Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity In relation to the regional landscape.) Davis Boulevard to the north, Falling Waters PUD to west Functions Mitigation for previous permlgother historic use Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species Anticipated Uttlimbon by Listed Species (List spades, their legal that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the be found) assessment area) Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or amar signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.): Additional relevant factors: Assessment conducted by Assessment date(s): CE 18 -Mar -06 Form 62. 345.900(1). F.A.C, [ effective date o(2121041 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 215 of 513 PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62- 345.400, F.A.C,) Site /Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number FreestateMPUO SFWMD Application Na. 050113.15 1 - 6259 E3 FLUCCs code Further classl0cation (optional) Impact or Wgirallon Site? Assessmem Area Sim 6259 E3 Pine, Hyd4c, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) Impact 174 BaslmWalershed NamelNumber sled Waterhody(Class) Special Classinca9on„.a.ofvr, �M.ISeaaxa ae,b,,lm dbie seer West Collier Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands Surrounded by wetlands to the north and south and uplands to the east and west Assessment area description , The vegetation in the canopy Is dominated by slash pine along with cabbage palm and meldeuca (50 to 75 percent coverage). The sub-canopy contains slash pine, wax- myrtle, melaleuca, myrsine, and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover Includes rush, sewgrass, little blue maldencane, yellow <yed grass, and gulfdune paspalum. Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional landscape.) Davis Boulevard to the north, Falling Waters to west Functions Mitigation for previous pennlUother historic use Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (Ust of species Anticipated Udlizatlon by Usted Species (List species, their legal that are representadve of the assessment area and reasonably expected to classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and Intensity of use of the be found) assessment area) Observed Evidence of Wlldlife Utilization (Ust species directly observed, or other signs such as backs, droppings, casings, nests, etc.): Additional relevant factors: Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): CE 16- Mar -06 Form 62- 345.900(1), F.A.C. ( effective date of 2/21041 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 216 of 513 PART I - Qualitative Description (See Section 62. 345.400, F.A.C.) Site/Project Name Freestate MPUD ApRution Number SFWMD Application No. 050113 -15 Assessment Area Name or Number T - 6259 E4 FLUCCs code 6259 E4 further classification (optional) Plne, Nydric, Disturbed (76. 100% Exotics) Impact a Mitigation Site) Impact Assessment Area Size p -ig Saslro Watershed NamelNumber West Collier Affected Watertwdy(Class) Specialclassnlagon g.e.OPw,AP, egerbc.waNaeaera WYpn.um MYnpaWw.) Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands Surrounded byweltands to the north, south, and west and uplands to the east Assessment area description The vegetation in the canopy Is dominated by slash pine along with cabbage palm and melaleuca (76 to too percent coverage). The sub- canopy contains slash pine, wax - myrtle, metaleuca, myrsine, and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover Includes rush, sawgrass, little blue maidencane, yellow -eyed grass, and gulfdune paspalum. Significant nearby features Davis Boulevard to the north, Felling Waters to west Uniqueness (oonaidertng the relative rarity in relation to the regional landscape.) Functions - - Mitigation for previous permfYother historic use Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Uterature Review (Lief of species that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found ) Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List spades, their legal classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and Intensity of use of the assessment area) Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.): Additional relevant factors: Assessment conducted by: CE Assessment date(s): 16- Mar -06 Form 62- 345.900(1), F.A.C. (effective date of 212/041 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 217 of 513 PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62- 345.400, F.A.C.) SltwPro)ecl Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freestate MPUD SFWMD Application No. 050113 -15 1 - 7401 E1 FLUCCs rode Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Sae? Assessment Area Size 7401 El Disturbed Land, Hydric Impact 0.23 SasINlNatershad NameMumber Affected Waterbody(Claes) Special Classalcatlen e...orv{Ap,m,.rl.r urt.wxa.nienga.s.aranpenax.l West Collier Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands Surrounded by wetlands to the south, uplands to (he east and west, and Davis Boulevard to the north Assessment area description The canopy and sub-canopy Include slash pine, and scattered wax-my a, aM 8razlIan pepper. The ground cover indudas chocolate we bahla grass, caesar weed, and smut grass. Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative racily In relation to the regional landscape,) Davis Boulevard to the north, Falling Waters to west Functions Mitigation for previous permitlother historic use Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (Lis( species, their legal that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and Intensity of use of the be found ) assessment area) Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as trar*s, droppings, casings, nests, etc.): Additional relevant factors: Assessment conducted by. Assessment dale(s): CE 16- Mar -06 Form 62- 345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date of 2/2/04] Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 218 of 513 PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62. 345.400, F.A,C.) SitelPmlect Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freestale MPUO SFWMD Application No. 050113 -15 1 - 6249 El FLUCCs code Further classl0calion (optional) impact orM igation Site? Assessment Area Size 6249 E1 PlnelCypress, Distunced (0 -24% Exotics) Mitigation 2 Basin/waiershed NamelNumber Affected Walerbody(Class) Special Classification VAOM,,AP. eewr�M"MilMOoe ofimpodma) West Coffer - Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wedands, other surface water, uplands Surrounded by wetlands to the south, east and west and uplands to the north Assessment area description The canopy consists of slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, and metaieuca. The sub -canopy contains slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, dahoon holly, wax- myrtle, melaieuca and/or Brazilian pepper (zero to 24 percent coverage). The ground cover includes sawgrass, gulfdune paspalum, and rush fuirena. Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional Significant nearby features landscape.) Davis Boulevard to the north, Felling Waters to west Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the be found ) assessment area) Observed Evidence of Wgd ffe Ulilizallon (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.): Addillonal relevant factors: Assessment conducted by. Assessment date(s): CE 16 -Mar -06 Form 62- 345.900(1), F.A.C. I effective date of 2/2/041 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 219 of 513 PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62. 345.400, F. . :t Neme Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freastale MPUD SFWMD Applicallon No. 050113 -15 1 - 6259 E1 code Further classification (optional) Impactor Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size 6259 Ef Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (0 -24% EzeUcs) Mitigation 0.16 shed :Ns!Me1NUMbe( A %acted Walerbody (Class) Special Classlfa:ation ILO.OFW.Wes c relationship to and hydrologic connection with wegands, other surface water, uplands Surrounded by wetlands to the west and south, and uplands to the north and east kssessmenl area descripnon th cabbage writains ash pine wax -myrtle mOttaleucabmyrsine, and Brazilian pepper.. The ground cover Includes to sawgrass, little blue maldencane, yellow -eyed grass, and gulfdune paspalum. Uniqueness (consMering the relative redly in relation to the regions Significant nearby features landscape.) Davis Boulevard to the north, Falling Waters to west for previous permiVother historic use Anflcipated Wildlife Utillzadon Based on Literature KBVIew tusr or aPeaaa that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found ) relevant factors: 16- Mar-06 Form 62-345 9000), F�A.C. [ effective date of 2121041 (E, T, SSG). type of use, and Intensity of use of area) Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 220 of 513 PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62- 346.400, F.A.C.) Sitelpfolect Name Appacallon Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freestate MPUD SFWMD Application No. 050113 -15 Upland Preserve FLUCCs code Further ctassification (optionaq Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size 4119, 4159 pine Flatwoods, Disturbed; Pine, Disturbed Mitigation O.88t acre Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody(Class) Special Classincationgeow.m,en.rwc.uwwr. a„rd.,Wman etk"ftr,.l West Collier NIA NIA Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands This upland preserve areas is adjacent to the welland preserves. Assessment area description The canopy contains slash pine (Pinus egiolgi ), scattered cabbage palm (Sabel palmetto ), and Melaleuca (Meiaiauca quinquenervla), The sub - canopy contains Brazilian pepper, wax - myrtle (Myrica writers), and cabbage palm. The ground cover Includes caesarweed (Urena lobala ), bahlagrass (Paspalum notatum), common ragweed (Ambrosia arlemisNalla ), dog fennel (Eupalodum capigUogum ), saw palmetto penance rapers), and beaul -bar Calif a americans). Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional landscape.) Davis Boulevard to the north and Failing Waters to the west. NIA Functions Mitigation for previous pennittother historic use NIA Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based an Literature Review (List of species that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found ) Anticipated UUlizatlon by Listed Species (Ust species, their legal classification (E, T. BBC), type of use, and intensity of use of the assessment area) Birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as trac(s, droppings, casings, nests, etc.): Additional relevant factors: Assessment conducted by: Assessment dale(s): CE 311 912 00 8 Form 62- 345.900(1), FA.C. ( effective date of 2/2104) Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 221 of 513 PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62- 345.400, F.A.C.) SllelPro(ect Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freeslale MPUD SFWMD Application No. 050113.15 1 - 6219 E2 FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impactor """ation Site? Assessment Area Size 6219 E2 Cypress, Disturbed (26 - 49% Exotics) Impact 0.49 BasIrMatershed NameOtumber Affected Watefbody(Class) Special Ctasci9calton ae. oFw. M.. mwbewnrrtwarl aeManManah+Nenrrel West Collier Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands Surrounded by wetlands to the north, south, east and west Assessment area description The canopy contains cypress and cabbage palm with very scattered slash pins The sub - canopy contains Brazi lan pepper (26 to 49 percent coverage), cabbage palm, myrsine, bultonbush, and wax - myrtle. The ground cover includes swamp fern, sawgrass, and royal fern. Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity In raladon to the regional Signi6canl nearby features landscape.) Davis Boulevard to the north, Failing Waters to west Functions Mitigation for previous permittother historic use Anticipated Wildite U9Ilzallon Based on Literature Review (Ust of spades Anticipated Utilization by Usted Spades (List spades, their legal that am representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to clasaiffoation (E, T. SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the be found) assessment area) Observed EvMence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.): Additional relevant factors: Assessment conducted by. Assessment date(s): CE 16 -Mar -06 Form 62- 345.900(1), F.A.C. (effective dale of 212104) Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 PART II - Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) Page 222 of 513 (See Sections 62. 345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) SilelProject Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freeslate MPUD SFWMD Application No. 050113 -15 1 - 6249 El Impact or Mitigallon Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Impact CE 31162006 Sco Guidance The scodng of each indloator Is based on what would be suitable for the type of wetland or surface water assessed Optimal( 10 Moderate (71 Minimal Al I Not Present 0 (via for uplands) Condition Is fees than !o pres or Condition Is optimal and full optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insu(5cient to supports wetland/surface maintain most wellarWsurfam water provide wedandlcurface water functions wegend/sudaa functions water functions mLffrenl Fa waterfundions 6 .500(6)(s) Location and Landscape Support We pres or current with 4 .500(6)(b)Water Environment (via for uplands) !o pres or current with 5 .500(6)(c)Community structure 1. Vegetation and/or 2. BeMNc Community s or mLffrenl Fa 6 scare = sum of above scores/30 (f( If preservation as mitigation, For Impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) current Preservation adjustment factor = r w/o res with Adjusted mitigation delta = FL = delta x acres = 3.72 0.56667 it millgailan For preservation areas Oefta = [with - current] Time lag (t- factor) _ 0.57 Risk factor = RFG - delta x acres = Form 62- 345.900(2), F.A.C. (effective date 2121041 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 PART II — Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) Page 223 of 513 (See Sections 62. 345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) SltetPm(ect Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freestale MPUD SFWMD Application No. 050113.15 1 - 6249 E2 Impacl or Mitigation Assessment conducted by. Assessment dale: Impact CE 3x1612006 Scoring Guidance The scoring of each indicator is based on wha would be suitable for the type of welland or surface water assessed Optimal 10 ) o arate(71 Mlnlmal 4 (Na for uplands) Condition is less Than to pres or Condition is optimal and fully optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition ent to supports welland /surface maintain most wellandlaur face water =1n$uMcjenI ace water functions wellandisurface functions current with waledunclions 6 .500(6)(a) Location and Landscape Support We pees or current with 3 .500(6)(b)Water Environment (Na for uplands) to pres or current with 5 .500(6)(c)Community structure 1. Vegetation and/or 2. Benthto Community to pres or current with 6 Score - sum of above scores/00 (a If preservation as mitigation, For Impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) current Preservation adjustment factor = V wto Pres with Adjusted mitigation delta = FL = delta x acres = 0.59 0.46667 mueon Della = (wfth- currenQ Time lag (1- factor) 0.47 Risk factor = Form 62. 345.900(2), F.A.C. (effective dale 2121041 For preservation areas RFO = delta x acres - Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 PART II — Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) Page 224 of 513 (See Sections 62.345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) Site /Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freaslate MPUO SFWMO Application No. 050113.15 1 - 6249 E3 Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by. Assessment date: Impact CE 3116/2006 Sce Guidance The seodng of each indicator is based on who would be sullable for the type of wetland or surface water assessed Optimal (111 Modarata 7 Minimal (4V I Not Present 161 (Na for uplands) Condition Is less than to Ares or Condition Is optimal and fully optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition Is insufficient to supports wedand/sudaoe maintain most wetiandlsurface water provide wetland/surface water functions wetiandfsudace functions water functions anent with walerfunclions 4 .500(6)(x) Location and Landscape Support to pres or current with 3 .500(6)(b)Water Environment (Na for uplands) to Ares or current with 5 .500(6)(c)Community structure 1. Vegetation and/or 2. eenthic Community /o pres or anent with 4 scare = awn of above scoresno IN It preservation as mg)gation. For impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) ascent Preserval(on adjustment factor = r w/o res with FL = delta x ernes = 1.26 Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.4 it mitigation _.. Forpreservadon areas Delta = (with- cunenl} Time lag (t- factor) _ 0.40 Risk (actor = RFG = delta x acres = Form 62- 345.900(2), F.A.C. (effective dale 2121041 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 PART I( — Quantification of Assessment Area (Impactor mitigation) Page 225 of 513 (See Sections 62.345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) Site /Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Nernst or Number Freestate MPUD SFWMD Application No. 050113.15 1 - 6259 E1 Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by. Assessment dale: Impact CE 3/16/2006 S Cwidance The smdng of each indicator is based an what would be a, it" for the type of wallets or surface water assessed Optimal (lot od Grata 7 Minimal 4 Not Presets 0 (nfa for uplands) Condition Is less than /o pres or Condition is optimal and fully optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insuffident to supports wellandlsurface maintain most weband/surface water provide wetiandhurface water functions wetlandlsurtace functions water functions current with wal0functions 6 .500(6)(a) Location and Landscape Suppon to pros or current with 4 500(6)(b)Waler Environment (nfa for uplands) /o pres or current vdth 5 - 500(6)(c)Community structure 1. Vegetation andlor 2. Benthle Community /o Was or current with 6 Scare =sum of above acoreslao p( uplands, divide by 20) Wf(ent rw /o ns with 0.5 Della = [with- current[ 0.60 Form 62- 345 - 900(2), F.A.C. [effect If preservation as mitigation, For Impact assessment areas Preservation adjustment factor = FL = delta x acres = 0.09 Adjusted millgallon delta = It ml Ige ion For preservation areas Time lag (Ffactor) _ Risk factor = RFG = delta x acres = ve date 2/21041 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 PART II — Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) Page 226 of 513 (See Sections 62.345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) ShelProject Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freeslale MPUD- SFWMO Application No. 050113 -15 1 - 6259 E3 Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by- Assessment date: Impact CE 3/16/2006 Scodn G ng uWof earn ence The scod indicator is based on what would be suitable for the type of wetland or surface water assessed optimal( 10 Moderate .500(6)(b)Water Environment Minfmal 4 Nat Present o Condition Is less than current with Condition Is optimal and fully optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is Insuf cksm to supports wetland /surface maintain most wellandlsurface water prov(de wa0andlsurface water functions webandfsur/arc functions water functions waterfunctions .500(6)(Q Location and Landscape Support /e pres or current with 3 .500(6)(b)Water Environment (nla for uplands) to pres or current with 5 .500(6)(c)Community structure 1. Vegetation andlor , 2. Benthlc Community to pres or current with 4 Score = sumorabovesmrasno (It If preservation as mitigation, uplands, divide by 20) current Preservation adjustment factor= r vdo Ores with Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.4 it mitigation patio = (with- rLrtenlj Time lag (1-factor) = 0.40 Risk factor Form 62- 345.900(2), F.A.C. (effective date 2/21041 For impact assessment areas FL = delta x acres - 0.69 For preservation areas RFG = delta x acres = Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 PART If — Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) Page 227 of 513 (See Sections 62. 345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) SltelProject Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freestate MPUC SFWMC Application No. 050113 -15 1 - 6259 E4 Impact or Ml9galion Assessment conducted by. Assessment dale: Impact CE 311612006 =ba3ed uidance so of each ed on what ebk (or the asurface esse d Optimal 10 Moderate 7 Minimal (41 Not Present 0 (nla for uplands) Condition Is less than /o pras or Condition is optimal and fully optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of suppod of Condition is InsufOdenl io supports wetiandlsurface maintain most watiandlsurlace water provide wedandlsurface water functions wetiandlsurface functions water functions current with I walerfunclions 2 .500(6)(=) Location and Landscape Support !o pres or current with 3 .500(6)(b)Waler Environment (nla for uplands) /o pras or current with 5 .50O(6)(e)Commumly structure 1. Vegetation andlor 2. Sen1Nc Community o pres or current with I 2 Score= sumotabovescoruM Of uplands, divide by 20) current 2r W/O ore s with 0.33333 Celle - (wilh- currenQ 0.33 If preservation as miligaflon, Preservation adjustment factor Adjusted mitigation delta = It mitigation Time tag lit-factor) _ Risk factor = Form 62- 345.900(2), F.A.C. (effective date 2/2/041 For impact assessment areas FL = delta x aces = 0,05 For preservation areas RFG - delta x aces = Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 PART 11 — Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) Page 228 of 513 (See Sections 62. 345.500 and .600, F.A,C.) SItelProject Name Appgcation Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freestats MPUO SFWMD Application No. 0501 13 -15 1 -7401 Ell Impact w Mitigation Assessment conducted by. Assessment date. Impact CE 3160006 Soofin Ouldance Tha scoring of each indicator is based on what would be suitable for the type of watland or surface water assessed Optimal 10 Mod ''a 7 Mlnimat 4 (nla for uplands) Condit on fa less Than We pres or Condition is optimal and fully optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of nt to supports weeandlsudace maintain most wellandlsurface water =Condillonisinsuftidentto face water functions wetiandlauAace functions current with waterfunGlons 9 .500(6xa) Location and Landscape Support !o pres or current with 2 .500(6)(b)Water Environment (nla for uplands) We pres or current with 5 .500(6)(c)Community structure 1. Vegetation and/or 2.8enlhlc Community /o pres or current with 9 Score - sum of above amrear00 of uplands, divide by 20) current r w/o pres with 0.36667 Delta = (with- currenq 0.37 Form 62- 345.900(2), F.A.C. [effecil If preservation as mitigation, For Impact assessment areas Preservation adjustment (actor = Adjusted mitigation delta = FL = delta x acres = 0.09 it mitigation Time lag (4 factor) For preservation areas _ Risk factor= RFO = delta x acres = ve date 2121041 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 PART II -Quantification of Assessment Area (impactor mitigation) Page 229 of 513 (See Sections 62. 345.500 and .500, F.A.C.) Site /Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freestals MPUD SFWMD Application No. 050113 -15 1 - 6249 E1 Impact of Mitigation Assessment conducted by. Assessment date,. Mitigation CE 3/16/2006 Scoria Guidance The scoring of each Indicator Is based on whal would be suitable for the type of wetland or suiterxt water assessed Optimal 10 Modarats 7 Minimal 1 Not Pasant O (n /a for uplands) Condl on s leas men to pres or Condition Is optimal and fully optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition la insufficient to suppons weaand/surface maintain most wellandrsurface water provide wellandlaurtace water functions wefland /surfaca functions water functions current with waterfunciions 6 9 .500(6)(x) Location and Landscape support /o pres or current with 4 4 .500(6)(b)Waler Environment (n /a for uplands) to pres or current with 6 5 .500(6)(c)Community structure 1. Vegetation andlor 2. Benthic Community !o pres or current with 6 9 Score • sum of above sooed30 (If uplands, d(Me by 20) current r We pres with 0.5 0.60 Della = (w9h- current] 0.10 Form 62345.900(2), F.A.C. [effect If preservation as mitigation, For Impact assessment areas Preservation adjustment factor = 0.90 FL = delta x acres = Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.09 It mitigation For preservation areas Time leg (t- (attar) _ Risk factor = RFG = delta x acres = 0.18 ve date 2121041 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 PART II — Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) Page 230 of 513 (See Sections 62- 345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) Site /Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freestale MPUD SFWMD Application No. 050113-15 1 .6259 El Impact or Mitigation Assessment mndueted by: Assessment date: Mitigation CE 3/162006 Sco Ouldance The scoring of eseh indicator is based on what would be suitable for the type of wetland or surface water assessed Optimal 10 Maderata 7 Minimal 4 Not Present 101 (n /a for uplands) Condition Is less than fo pres or Condition Is optimal and fully optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insuffidenl io supports wetland /surface maintain most wetland /surface water provide wetland /surface water functions wetiandlaurface functions water functions current with waterfundions 6 9 .500(6)(a) Location and Landscape Support /o pres or current with 4 4 .500(6)(b)Water Environment (n /a for uplands) fo pres or current with 5 5 .500(6)(c)Communily structure 1. Vegetation andfor 2. Benlhic Community ' /o pres or current with 6 9 Score -am of above smreslao (n uplands, dMde by 20) arrant X w/o Dres with 0.6 0.60 Delta = [wllhcurrentj 0.10 Form 62- 345.960(2), F.A.C. (effact If preservation as millgal on, -- For impact assessment areas Preservation adjustment factor - 0.90 FL - delta x acres = Adjusted mitigation delta - 0.09 m Ige on For preservation areas Time leg (t- factor) Risk factor = RFG = delta x acres = 0.01 ve date 2/2/04] Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 PART II - Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) Page 231 of 513 (See Sections 62345.500 and .500, F.A.C,) Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freeslale MPUD SFWMD Application No 050113.15 Upland FLUCFCS Impad or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Upland Mitigation CE 311612006 Scorin Guidance The soodng of each Indicator b based on what would be aultabk for the type of wetland or surface Walef aesea68d optimal 10 Moderate (7) Minimal 4 Not Prasent a (nda foruplands) Condition Is less than Na Condition is optimal and (Ldly optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition Is Insufficient to supports wetiand /surface maintain most wetiandlsurface water provide weliandfaudace water functions wetlancitsurface functions water functions current vdtir waterfundions 0 9 .500(6)(a) Location and Landscape Support Jo pres or current vrith 0 9 Without preservation, upland would be developed .500(6)(b)Water Environment (nda foruplands) Na !o pres or current wim We We .500(6)(c)Cammunity structure 1. Vegetation andlor 2. Beothic Community Without preservation, upland would be developed fo pres or current vdtir 0 9 Scare - sum ar sbova saoresra0 gf uplsnds, dM* by 20) current rvAo res with 0 0.9 Delta =(with-currenq 0.9 Form 62- 345.900(2), F.A.C. [effect If preservation as midgallon, For Impact assessment areas Preservation adjustment factor - 0.90 FL = delta s acres = Adjusted mlligatlon delta = 0.81 If'-fruilgation - -- For preservation areas Time lag ft-factor) Risk factor = RFG = delta x acres =0.71 Ive dale 212!041 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 PART II — Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) Page 232 of 513 (See Sections 62- 345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) SitelProject Name - Appgcat on Number Assessment Area Name or Number Freestale MPL1D SFWMD Application No. 050113 -15 1 - 6219 E2 Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by. Assessment date: Impact CE 311 MOM Scoring Guldance The scoring of each Indicator is based on wha would be suitable for the type of wetland or surface water assessed Optimal 10 Moderate .500(6)(b)Water Environment Minimal 4 Not Present D Condition Is less man current with Condition is optimal and fWly optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition Is Insufficient to supports wetland/surface, maintain most wellandlsurface water provide wetland /surface water functions we0andlsurfece functions water functions wa(erfunclfons .500(6)(x) Location and Landscape Support /o pres or current with 3 .500(6)(b)Water Environment Iris for uplands) We pros or current with 5 .500(6)(c)Communfty structure 1. Vegetation and/or 2. Benthic Community to pros or current with fi Score = sum of above seorealaa of uplands, divide by 20) current rwto ras with 0.46667 Gotta = (with- currenu 0.47 Form 62- 345.900(2), F.A.C. (effect If preservation as mitigation, For Impact assessment areas Preservation adjustment factor= Adjusted mitigation delta = FL - delta x acres = 0.23 it mitigation For preservation areas Time leg (t- factor) Risk factor = RFG = delta x acres = ve date 20041 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 233 of 513 EXHIBIT Q HARVEY HARPER ANALYSIS Q -Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Project Job # Calculated by: HARPER ANALYSIS Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 234 of 513 Freestate MPUD FFSSDP MD Date 7/31/2007 Rev 1011/200" Task: Determine the water quality treatment requirements for: 16.7 ac single family site multi family I commercial land use = rangeland/forest wetlands Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 235 of 513 page 2 Q -Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Project Freestate MPUD Job # FFSSDP Calculated by: MD Date 5/2912007 Rev 7131/07 Pre - Development 1 Land Use 8 acres mixture of rangeland /forests (Pine flatwoods, saw palmetto prairie) 8.7 acres isolated wetlands (hyrdic pines, cypress forest,Brazillian Pepper) 2 Ground Cover /Soft T es• Hallandale Fine Sand,sbugh Nearly Level, poorly drained Sloughs D Nearly Level, very poorly Isles fine sand, dep drained Depressions A/D Pineda fine sand Nearly Level, poorly drained Sloughs D Malabar fine sand Nearly Level, poorly drained Sloughs B Boca fine sand Nearly Level, poorly drained $toughs B Hallandale Fine Sand Nearly Level, poorly drained Low,bmad fiatwoods B Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum Nearly Level, poorly drained Sloughs D Pompano fine sand, dep Nearly Level, goody drained Depressions B 3 Impervious Areas: 0% impervious, 0% DCIA 4 Estimate curve number /runoff coefficient A) Ranceland /Forest: From TR -55 (USDA,1986), the curve number for woods /grass in fair condition in HSG B: 67 The curve number for brush/weeds in fair condition in HSG B i 56 Assume an average curve number of 56 + 67 61.5 From Table 4(Fig.4 -7), the runoff coeff for 0% DCIA and non -DCIA curve number of 61.5 0.044 by linear interpolation between non -DCIA curve numbers of 60 & 65 B) Wetland: Due to the large evapotranspiration losses in wetlands, an average runoff coefficient 0.225 is assumed. Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 236 of 513 -- page 3 Q -Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Project Freestate MPUD Job # FFSSDP Calculated by: MD Date 5/29/2007 Rev 7/31107 Pre - Development 5 Calculate annual runoff volumes: Assume an annual rainfall depth of 53.13 inlyr (From Table 1, App. A -4) A) Rangeland/Forest, Annual Runoff Volume (ac -ft) = 8.0 ac x 53.15 inches/year x 111/12in x 0.044 = 8 ac 53.13 in /yr lft/12in 0.044 1.56 ac -ft B) Wetland; (since 2.6 acre will be oreserved. this will be removed from equations) Annual Runoff Volume (ac -ft) = 6.1 ac x 53.13 inches/year x 1 ft/12in x 0.225 = 6.1 ac 53.13 in /yr 1ftl12in 0.225 6.08 ac -ft 6 Estimate runoff characteristics for land uses A) Rangeland /Forest: From Table 26(Table 4 -17), mean runoff concentrations of total nitrogen and total phosphorus in rangeland /forests are: TN = 1.15 mg/I TP = 0.055 mg/I B) Wetland: From Table 26, mean runoff concentrations of total nitrogen and total phosphorus in wetlands are: TN = 1.01 mg /I TP = 0.09 mg /I Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 237 of 513 page 4 Q -Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Project Freestate MPUD Job # FFSSDP Calculated by: MD Date 5/29/2007 Rev 7131/07 7 Calculate ore - development loadings A) Rangeland /Forest: 1.) Total N 1.56 ac -f lyr X 43,560 ft sq /ac X 7.48 gal /cu 2.2 TN /yr 2.) Total P 1.56 ac -f tyr X 43,560 ft sq /ac X 7.48 gal /cu 0.11 TN/yr B) Wetland 1.) Total N 6.08 ac -tt/yr X 43,560 ft sq/ac X 7.48 gallcu 7.57 TN /yr 2.) Total P 6.08 ac -ft/yr X 43,560 ft sq /ac X 7.48 gal /cu 0.67 TP /yr 3.785 liter /gal 1.15 mg/IX 0.000001 3.785 liter /gal 0.055 mg/I X 0.000001 3.785 litedgal 1.01 mg/I X 0.000001 3.785 liter /gal 0.09 mg/I X 0.000001 C) Total Pre - Development Loads 1.) Total N 2.2 kg /yr+ 7.57 kg /yr kg TN /yr 2.) Total P 0.1 kg /yr+ 0.67 kg/yr kgTP /yr mt loads must loads must not exceed these values Q -Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Project Job # Calculated by: Post - Development 1 Land Use 14.1 acres" commercial 'includes turn lanes Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 238 of 513 page 5 Freestate MPUD FFSSDP MD Date 713112007 2 Ground Cover /Soil Tvoes: A. Commercial Sites will contain common landscape areas B. Soil types will remain HSG B 3 ImperviouslDCIA Areas A) Commmemal areas will be 70 % impervious Impervious = % impervious X development area = DCIA = 9.87 X 0.85 = = 59.5% 85 % of which will be DCIA 9.87 acres 8.3895 acres 4 Estimate curve number /runoff coefficient Calculate composite non -DCA curve number from TR -55: Curve number for comm. in good condition is HSG B = 61 i of landscape = 14.1 - 9.87 ac = 4.23 acres IImpervious area which is not DCIA = = Impervious area - DCIA = 1.48 ac Assume a curve number of 98 for imperv. area curve number = ( 4.23 X 61 ) + ( 1.48 X 98 ) 4.23 + 1.48 B) From Table 4(App C), the runoff coefficient for an area which is 59.5 DCIA and a non -DCIA curve number of 70.6 is by linear interpolation = MW Q -Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Project Job # Calculated by: Post - Development 5 Calculate annual runoff volume Runoff from commercial area = 14.1 ac X 53.13 in /yr X 6 Estimate Runoff Characteristics page 6 Freestate MPUD CLPUDA CCH Date Agenda Item No. 8F July 22. 2008 Page 239 of 513 7/31/2007 0.083 Win X 0.503 = 31.4 ac -ft/yr (1ft/12 in = 0.0833) A) Commercial: From Table 26(Table 4-17), mean total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations for runoff are (avg. of low and high intensity): TN= 2.83 mg /I TP= 0.43 mgA 7 Calculate Post- development loading Post development load = A) Total N 31.4 ac -ftlyr X 43.560 sq t)ac X 7.48 gal /w ft X 3.785 liter /gal X 2.83 mgAt X 0.000001 kg /ml X = 109.6 kg TN/ yr A) Total P 31.4 ac -ftlyr X 43,560 sq ft/ac X 7.48 gal/cu It X 3.785 liter /gal X 0.43 mgAt X 0.000001 kg /ml X = 16.65 kg TP/ yr 1) Estimate required percentage reduction in mass load to achieve no net increase in post- development load A) Total N Tloval = 109.59 kg /yr(post) - 9.78 kg/yr (pre) X 100 % 91.08 % 109.59 kg /yr(post) A) Total P moval = 16.65 kg/yr(post)- 0.78 kg /yr (pre) X 100 % 95.31 % 16.65 kg/yr(post) page 7 Q -Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Project Freestate MPUD Job # FFSSDP Calculated by: MD Date Evaluate Alternatives to Achieve Required Reduction Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 240 of 513 7/31/2007 Dry Detention Pre- Treatment The removal efficiency achieved using dry retention is a function of the water volume infiltrated and is independent of the chemical species. Since the greatest required volume removal is: this dictates the design. 91.1 %(N) Review Tables 27- 42(App D) to identify the required dry retention volume for DCIA = 59.5 % and non -DCIA curve number of: 71 to achieve a mass removal of: 95.3 % As seen in Table 28(App D), a dry retention 0.50 inc, will achieve a removal of about depth of: 56.0 % for the site specific hydrologic characteristics. This is a conservative estimate. Therefore select a depth of : 0.50 inches. The required dry retention volume is: 13.2 acres X 0.50 Inch X 0.0833 ft/in = 0.55 ac -ft Note that the calculated dry retention volume does not include volume requirements for peak flow attenuation. B) Wet Detention Additional Treatment For this SMP need to remove remaining % = 95 56 = 39% 1.) Total N A relationship between removal of total nitrogen and residence time in a wet detention pond is given in Fig.3 (attached). This relationship can be expressed mathematically as follows: Removal (y) = 8.4216 In (residence time,days) + 27.25 For removal of : 39 %, the required residence time is: Residence Time = exp[(removal eff. - 27.25)/8.4216] page 8 Project Freestate MPUD Job # FFSSDP Calculated by: MD Date 1.) Total P Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 241 of 513 5/29/2007 Rev 7/31 / A relationship between removal of total phosphorus and residence time in a wet detention pond is given in Fig.4 (attached). This relationship can be expressed mathematically as follows: Removal (y) = 8.4216 In (residence time,days) + 44.583 For removal of: 39 %, the required residence time is: Residence Time = exp[(removal eff. - 44.583)/8.0847] ;e the detention time required to remove total N is greater than the residence time for total P removal, residence time for total N governs the design. luired permanent pool volume = annual runoff volume X residence time = 31,4 ac- ft/year X 4 days X 0.003 yr /day = According to applicable SFW MD design criteria, a wet detention pond would then be designed with a permanent pool volume of at least : 0.36 ac -ft. This treatment volume could be achieved with a 0.9 acre lake an average depth of 0.4 ft. The lake could also be used for flood attenuation purposes throught proper design of the outfall structure and weirs. potential for pond stratification and development of anoxic conditions is regulated primarily by amount of algal growth within the detention pond, which is regulated by the concentrations of total sohorus in the water column. P load leaving pond = pre - development load = 0.78 kg /yr at water volume leaving pond = runoff volume (assuming that inputs from precipitation and losses evaporation are approximately equal over an annual period). Mean outfali concentration = input mass / runoff volume = 0.78 kg Ptyr X 0.0318 yr /ac -n x 2E -05 adsq ft x 0.1337 cu fugal X 0.2642 ga/ilter X 1 E +06 mglkg Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 242 of 513 - page 9 Q -Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Project Freestate MPUD Job # FFSSDP Calculated by: MD Date 5/29/2007 Rev 712 log(chyl -a) = 1.449 log (TP) - 1136 TP = mean total P (ug /L) chyl -a = equilibrium chlorophyll -a (mg/mA3) log(chyl -a) = 1.449 log(X) - 1.136 = = 0.754 chyl -a =10AX = 5.7 mg /cu meter = 8.7(1/(1 +0.47chyl -a)) where: SD = Secchi disk depth (M) chyl -a = chlorophyll -a (mg /m A3) SD = 2A m 7.8 ft Calculate depth of anoxic conditions in pond: Using the relationship in Section 3.4, the depthe of anoxic conditions within the pond can be estimated as follows: Depth of DO <1 = 2.3893xSecchi + 0.5749xin(chyl- a)- 0.0113xTo1al P the proposed depth of : 12 ft. (mean depth) is less than the estimated photic depth of 21.1 ft in or other mlpng is not required in the pond Q -Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Project Job # Calculated by. HARPER ANALYSIS Conclusion Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 243 of 513 page 10 Santa Barbara Preserve FFSSDP MD Date 7/31/2007 Water Quality Treatment methods were analyzed using the Harper Method as required. The Dry Detention areas are designed to be to pre -treat the runoff The wet detention process in the "treatment train" is designed to filter out excess nutrients and pollutants The stormwater system as designed meets or exceeds water qualilty requirements as shown in the attached engineering report and water quality analysis. Pre Development Loadings Total N 9.78 kg TN/ yr Total P 0.78 kg TP/ yr Post Development Loadings Total N 109.5942 kg TN/ yr Total P 16.65212 kg TP/ yr % Reduction Total N 91% Total P 95% Reduction after Dry Detention Treatment N 61.373 kg TN/ yr P 9.325 kg TP/ yr Total Remaining After Complete Treatment 7.672 kg TN/ yr 0.666 kg TP/ yr Total Remaining after Dry Det. Treatment 48.221 kg TN/ yr 7.327 kg TP/ yr Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 244 of 513 14 RED- COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON AND NON - NESTING SEASON SURVEY REPORTS ABELE PARCEL RED- COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY July 2005 Prepared For: Freestate Construction, Inc. 5307 Randolph Road Rockville, Maryland 20852 (301) 231 -6000 Prepared By: Passarella and Associates, Inc. 9110 College Pointe Court Fort Myers, Florida 33919 (239) 274 -0067 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 245 of 513 Project No. 98CEC338 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......... ............................... Biology of the Red - cockaded Woodpecker....... Methodology....................... ............................... Results ............................. References ....................... i Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 246 of 513 Page ............... ............................... l ........... ..............................4 ... ..............................4 ...........................5 LIST OF FIGURES Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 247 of 513 Pape Figure 1. Project Location Map ....................................:....................... ..............................2 Figure 2. FLUCFCS and Wetland Map ................................................ ..............................3 ii LIST OF APPENDICES Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 248 of 513 Pace Appendix A. Red - cockaded Woodpecker Nesting Season Foraging Survey Field Observations ................................................ ............................... A -1 Appendix B. Red - cockaded Woodpecker Nesting Season Foraging Survey Maps with Station Numbers ...................... ............................... iii Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 249 of 513 -- — INTRODUCTION The following report documents the red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) nesting season foraging survey for the Abele Parcel (project). The survey was conducted per the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines in the draft Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES) (USFWS 2002) for the red - cockaded woodpecker. The project site totals 19.72± acres and is located in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Figure 1). More specifically, the site is found at the southwest corner of Davis and Santa Barbara Boulevards in south Naples. County Barn Road is located approximately % of a mile to the west. The parcel's current land uses include a mixture of undeveloped, forested upland and wetland habitats and an area of disturbed land in the northeast corner of the property. The surrounding land uses include roads; undeveloped, forested land; pasture land; and power transmission lines. The parcel's surrounding land uses are a mixture of residential developments; undeveloped, disturbed land; and commercial developments. Abutting the site immediately to the north is Davis Boulevard; to the east is undeveloped land that has been partially cleared and filled; and to the south and west is the residential community of Falling Waters. Passarella and Associates, Inc. (PAT) conducted a listed species survey on March 4, 2004, with additional observations on June 22, 2004, July 13, 2004, and July 30, 2004. During the course of this survey PAT completed a review for red - cockaded woodpeckers and red - cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. In addition, PAI conducted red - cockaded woodpecker nesting season foraging surveys for 14 days from April 29, 2005 through May 12, 2005. No red - cockaded woodpeckers or red - cockaded woodpecker cavities were observed during these surveys. BIOLOGY OF THE RED- COCKADED WOODPECKER The red - cockaded woodpecker lives and breeds within old growth pine forests. The red. cockaded woodpecker forages preferentially in stands of live pines with trees that average a diameter of ten inches or greater (USFWS 1985). Dense pine stands or stands primarily composed of hardwoods are avoided. Red - cockaded woodpeckers feed primarily on insects including beetles, ants, grubs, and caterpillars. A smaller percent of the diet may consist of seasonal fruits, berries, and seeds. The red - cockaded woodpecker roosts and nests in cavities excavated in live pine trees. Cavity trees are typically at least 60 to 80 years old and usually weakened by a fungal infection known as red -heart disease (McFarlane 1992, Ehrlich et al. 1988). Cavities are typically constructed on the main trunk just below the lowest branches. Numerous resin wells are maintained around the cavity entrance. The resin wells may help defend against ground dwelling predators and insect damage. Red - cockaded woodpeckers live in family groups composed of a mated pair, offspring of the year, and unmated male helpers. The group's cavity trees are aggregated in clusters that typically occupy an area of about ten acres (USFWS 1985). Groups are highly territorial and may defend ROAD COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE BLVD: i L,I "RADIO RD a item No. &- July 22, 2008 n v T C s P1 m _ - PROJECT LOCATION Davis BLVD -! SEC 8, TWP 50 S, RGE 26 E zi J O P1 PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES. INC. FIGURE 2. FLUCFCS AND WETLAND MAP Consulting Ecologists ABELE PARCEL DRAWN BY: W.C. DATE: 1/26/04 3 -DAVIS BLVD- July 22, 2008 A, Page 251 of 513 4159E4 7401 (0 41t9E3 (0.23 Ac. t) 97401 - •6259E3 ` • - (0.17 At.t) ` SCALE: 1' • 300' 0.07 Ac.t) B7 AD.z) ` ` ` -(p. - •' - 6259E4 ' ` + • (0.14 AC.t) - • 740 ' ' ` 40.07 AC.t) 62IDE2 ` • -` (0.49 AU.0,` 4119E2 • • - 0.15Ac.t) �'•' `•` 4119E3 (D.09 AO.i) ' ` ` • ` • (0.19 AC.t) -, 624DEI - ` - • • - • x(7.93 AC.Y) . ` • • 6249E3 • . + . • • • • • (2.98 At.t)• + - + ' • • • • ' • - - 4119E ZS . . ` . ` . ` . ` . ` . ` . ` . ` I D.16 AC. t). . 6259E3 . • 6259EI• (0,70 AC,tY (0,39 AC.m)' + 41 • 59EZ - - ` ` (0,33 AC. 41SOE2 ' (0.15 AC. t) ` • • ' 6249EI + ` +(0.87 AC.t) + + 4119E( •_ , - -. ` ` `62L9. ` (1.20 AC.t) + (I. D9 AC.t)• NOTES: FLUCFCS %OF LEGEND: CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE TOTAL FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM atB El NNE FLATWDOOS, DISTURBED 1024% EXOTICS) 1.20M.o 0.1% V-200' AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND COE WETLANDS a118E2 NNE FLATWOOOS. DISTURBED 2s4E%EXOTICS) I15A,, 5.B% LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED. aJURISDICTIONAL (16.13 A0.t) 41 t9 E3 NNE FIATWOODS, DISTURBED l50•75% EXOTICS) OQAC.1 21% n 55 E2 NNE, DISTURBED(2sa EXOTICS) ."Acs 2e% FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE. ` , V SURVEYED WETLAND LINE 4159 E4 NNE. DISTURBED (75100% EXOTICS) 045M - 2.0% COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION 0219E2 CYPRESS. DISTURBED (2549% EXOTICS) OABACS 25% SYSTEM (FLUCFCS) (FOOT 1999). 6249E1 NNE (CYPRESS. DISTURBED 1624 %EXCTICSI GAOAcc H0% 0249E2 NNEICYRRESS DISTURBED (2&e9% EXOTICS) I09AC.c 55% PROPERTY BOIRDARY AND SURVEYED R4BE3 NNEOYN @SS. DISTURBED I5OT5 %EXOTICS) 295AC.t 151% WETLAND LINES PER XEPPLE ENGINEERING 62WEI NNE. HYDRIC. DISTURBED (U24% EXOTICS) 0.3:A'. 20% DRAWING NO. FALLER. OWG DATED V59E3 NNE. HYDRIC. DISTURBED (2 4W EXOTICS) I.75 AC.! B9% OCTOBER 26. 2004, 0259E4 NNE, HYDRIC, DISTURBED(M- 100%EXOTICS) O.14A, 07% Teo DISTURBEDIANO 001AC._ 04% COE WETLAND LINES SHOWN WERE 7401 DISTURBED LAND. HYDRIC 0.WACZ 1.5% REVIEWED ON-SITE BY ROBERT M, TEWIS TOTAL 1972A - 100.0% ON FEBRUARY 17, 2005. PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES. INC. FIGURE 2. FLUCFCS AND WETLAND MAP Consulting Ecologists ABELE PARCEL DRAWN BY: W.C. DATE: 1/26/04 3 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 252 of 513 an area nearly 200 acres in size (McFarlane 1992, Ehrlich el al. 1988, USFWS 1985). Red - cockaded woodpeckers are cooperative breeders and one or more non- breeding males may assist the breeding pair in brooding, feeding, and territorial defense. Egg laying typically occurs during April, May, and June (USFWS 1985), Clutch size is typically two to five eggs (Ehrlich et al. 1988, USFWS 1985). Both sexes are involved in incubating and feeding. The time from egg laying to fledging is approximately 40 days (USFWS 1985). METHODOLOGY The nesting season foraging survey was conducted for 14 consecutive days from April 29, 2005 through May 12, 2005. All surveys were conducted according to the USFWS draft SLOPES for the red - cockaded woodpecker. Per the SLOPES, the time -of -day requirements for the non - nesting survey are one hour after sunrise and ending four hours past sunrise or when local weather conditions are not favorable. Foraging surveys for the project generally began around 7:45 a.m. (one hour after sunrise) and ended by 10:45 a.m. (four hours past sunrise). Surveys were conducted by qualified ecologists traversing suitable habitat by foot. Transects were recorded on aerial photographs and wildlife observations were recorded. Visual observations were aided by binoculars. Relative weather conditions were also recorded for each survey period. RESULTS No red - cockaded woodpeckers were seen or heard during the April 29, 2005 through May 12, 2005 nesting season foraging surveys. Daily field observations for the nesting season surveys are attached as Appendix A, and maps showing the survey transects and station numbers are provided as Appendix B. Based on the nesting season foraging surveys, there is no evidence of use of the project site by red - cockaded woodpeckers. Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 253 of 513 REFERENCES Ehrlich, Paul R. et al. 1988. The Birder's Handbook; A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, New York. 785 pages. McFarlane, Robert W. 1992. A Stillness in the Pines; The Ecology of the Red - Cockaded Woodpecker. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, New York. 270 pages. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Recovery Plan for the Red - Cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pages. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Draft Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species, Red - Cockaded Woodpeckers. 3 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 254 of 513 APPENDIX A RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 255 of 513 ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: May 2, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0750 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the low 70's, cloudy, and little to no wind. End time of survey: L050 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the high 70's, partly cloudy, little to no wind. Observer: Alicia Kruse Station Time Field Notes 1 0750 Heard northern cardinal, common grackle, and blue -gray gnatcatcher. Observed and heard two blue jays foraging for food. 2 0820 Heard blue jay, downy woodpecker, northern cardinal, and mourning dove. Observed and heard two red - bellied woodpeckers foraging for food. 3 0850 Heard red - bellied woodpecker, mourning dove, great- crested flycatcher, and blue jay. 4 0920 Heard downy woodpecker, northern cardinal, and blue jay. Observed black vulture circle overhead. 5 0950 Heard mourning dove, red - bellied woodpecker, great - crested flycatcher, and northern cardinal. Observed two cattle egrets fly from north to south. 6 1020 Heard blue -gray gnatcatcher, blue jay, downy woodpecker, and common grackle. Observed and heard northern cardinal foraging for food. 1050 End of survey. *No red - cockaded woodpeckers observed or heard during survey. Note: Observations are summanua for time penoa norea. Passarella and Associates, Inc. toll 99CFC338 05/2/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 256 of 513 ABELE PARCEL RED- COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: May 3, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0815 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the low 70's, cloudy, and winds 0 -5 mph. End time of survey: l 1 l5 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the low 80's, partly cloudy, winds 5 -10 mph. Observer: Chris Emblidge and Kristen Triaka Station Time Field Notes 1 0815 Heard northern cardinal and traffic noise to the north. 2 0845 Heard red - bellied woodpecker, northern cardinal, blue jay, and great - crested flycatcher. Observed northern cardinal and downy woodpecker foraging on live pines. 3 0915 Heard northern cardinal, red- bellied woodpecker, and common grackles. Observed red - bellied woodpecker and downy woodpecker foraging on live pines 50t feet to northwest, northern cardinal, little blue heron flying west, and great egret flying west. 4 0950 Heard blue jay, northern cardinal, and red - bellied woodpecker. Observed red - shouldered hawk, red - bellied woodpecker foraging on pine snag 50t feet to the south, and blue jays. 5 1025 Heard red - bellied woodpecker to the south, blue jays, and northern cardinal. Ills End of survey. Note: Observations are summarized for time period noted. Passarella and Associates, Inc. I of l 98CEC338 05/3/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 257 of 513 - ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: May 4, 2005 Survey Transeet: Start time of survey: 0815 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the low 70's, cloudy, and winds 0 -5 mph. End time of survey: 1115 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the low 80's, partly cloudy, 5 -10 mph winds. Observer: Chris Emblidge and Kristen Trinka Station Time Field Notes 1 0815 Heard northern cardinal and traffic noise to the north. 2 0845 Heard red - bellied woodpecker, northern cardinal, blue jay, and great - crested flycatcher. Observed northern cardinal and downy woodpecker foraging on live pines. 3 0915 Heard northern cardinal, red - bellied woodpecker, and grackles. Observed red - bellied woodpecker, and downy woodpecker foraging on live pines 50f feet to northwest, northern cardinal, little blue heron flying west, and great egret flying west. 4 0950 Heard blue jay, northern cardinal, and red- bellied woodpecker. Observed red - shouldered hawk, red- beilied woodpecker foraging on pine snag 50f feet to the south, and bluejays. 5 1025 Heard red- bellied woodpecker to the south, blue jays, and northern cardinal. 1115 End of survey. Note: Observations are summarized for time period noted. Passarella and Associates, tne. 1 of t 98CFC338 05/4/05 ABELEPARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: May 5, 2005 Survey Transeet: Start time of survey: 0745 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 258 of 513 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the mid 70's, overcast, and no wind. End time of survey: 1045 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the low 80's, rain, overcast, and no wind. Observer: Matt Brosious Station Time Field Notes l 0745 Heard red - bellied woodpecker to the east and northern cardinal to the north. Observed and heard boat - tailed grackle fly to the west. 2 0805 Heard boat - tailed grackle to the north and red - bellied woodpecker to the east and west. 3 0822 Observed two northern cardinals on pine to the north and unknown warbler to the west. Heard red - bellied woodpecker to the south and northern cardinal to the east. 4 0845 Observed red - bellied woodpecker to the east on pine. Heard osprey to the south, northern cardinal to the south, and two red - shouldered hawks to the southeast. 5 0910 Observed northern mockingbird to the east on top of pine and northern cardinal to the east. Heard northern cardinal to the southwest. 6 0935 Heard northern cardinal to the north. 7 1000 Heard northern cardinals in surrounding trees and two red - bellied woodpeckers to the west and the northeast. Observed blue jay foraging in pine trees to the east. 8 1020 Heard northern cardinal to the west. 1045 End of survey. Note: Observations are summarized for time period noted. Passarella and Associates, Inc. I of I 98CEC338 05 /5/05 Agenda Item No. SF July 22, 2008 Page 259 of 513 ABELEPARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: May 6, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0800 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the 70's, partly cloudy, and light winds. End time of survey: 1100 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the 70's, partly cloudy, and light winds. Observer: John Stark Station Time Field Notes l 0800 Heard downy woodpecker, northern cardinal, and Carolina wren. 2 0830 Heard northern cardinal, downy woodpecker, blue jay, blue -gray gnatcatcher, and common grackle. 3 0900 Heard downy woodpecker, northern cardinal, and common grackle. 4 0930 Heard downy woodpecker and northern cardinal. 5 1000 Hurd pine warbler, northern cardinal, downy woodpecker, Carolina wren, and common grackle, 6 1030 Heard northern cardinal, pine warbler, and downy woodpecker. 1100 End of survey. Note: Observations are summanua for time penca noma. Passarella and Associates, Inc. I of t 98CEC338 05 16/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 260 of 513 ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: May 7, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0740 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the 60's, clear skies, and calm winds. End time of survey: 1040 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the 70's, clear skies, and tight breeze. Observer: Jean thnat Station Time Field Notes 1 0740 Heard traffic noise and northern cardinal. 2 0810 Heard and observed boat - tailed grackles. Heard red - bellied woodpecker, northern cardinals, great - crested flycatcher, blue jays, and American crow. 3 0840 Heard blue jays, red - bellied woodpecker, northern cardinals, and great - crested flycatcher. 4 0906 Heard northern cardinal, pileated woodpecker, and blue jays. Observed common grackle flying. 5 0935 Observed red - bellied woodpecker foraging in live pines. Heard northern mockingbird, great- crested flycatcher, red - bellied woodpecker, and gray catbird. 6 1005 Heard blue jays and red - bellied woodpecker. 7 1025 Heard traffic noise, rap music, and fish crow. 1040 End of survey. • Continuously heard traffic throughout the survey. Note: Observations are summarized for time period noted. Passarella and Associates, Inc. I of 1 98CEC338 05 /7/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 261 of 513 ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: May 8, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0745 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the low 60's, clear skies, and slight north winds. End time of survey: 1045 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the mid 70's, clear skies, and slight north winds. Observer: Doug Holt Station Time Field Notes 1 0745 Heard common grackle and mourning dove. 2 0805 Heard common grackle, fish crow, and northern flicker. 3 0825 Heard mourning dove, northern cardinal, northern flicker, and fish crow. 4 0845 Heard northern cardinal, fish crow, northern flicker, and red - bellied woodpecker. 5 0905 Observed northern flicker on branch of pine tree to the east. Heard blue j ay. 6 0925 Heard red - bellied woodpecker, northern flicker, and northern cardinal. 7 0945 Heard fish crow, blue jay, and mourning dove. 8 1005 Heard northern cardinal and blue jay. 9 1025 Heard northern flicker, fish crow, northern cardinal, and red - bellied woodpecker. E_ - I I Note: Observations are summarizes ror time penoa notea. Passarella and Associates, Inc. I of I 98CEC338 05/8/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 262 of 513 ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: May 9, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0747 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the low 70's, clear skies, and no wind. End time of survey: 1049 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the mid 80's, partly cloudy, and light southwest winds. Observer: Harry Spotts Station I Time Field Notes 1 0747 Observed common nighthawk, blue -gray gnatcatcher, and brown thrasher. 2 0801 Heard downy woodpecker and mockingbird. Observed banded water snake and mourning dove. 3 0908 Heard red - shouldered hawk and great horned owl. 4 0951 Heard and observed Carolina wren, brown thrasher, and blue jay. 5 1043 Observed great blue heron and northern cardinal. 1049 End of survey. note: uusct auom arc summartzcu for rune pens notes. Passarella and Associates, Inc. I of I 98CEC338 05/9105 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 263 of 513 ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: May 10, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0740 Weather conditions: Temperatures in high 60's, clear skies, and calm winds. End time of survey: 1045 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the 70's, clear skies, and light breeze. Observer: Jean Ihnat Station Time Field Notes 1 0745 Heard traffic noise, blue jays, and downy woodpecker. Observed fish crow and northern mockingbird harassing a young red - shouldered hawk and hawk ate a lizard or small frog. 2 0815 Heard and observed two red - bellied woodpeckers foraging in pines and two common grackles flew east. Heard great - crested flycatcher, northern cardinal, fish crow, and blue jay. 3 0845 Heard northern cardinals, blue jays, and pileated woodpecker. 4 0915 Heard gray squirrel, blue jay, red - bellied woodpecker, and great- crested flycatcher. Observed red- bellied woodpecker foraging in live pine. Heard and observed blue jay. 5 0945 Heard red - bellied woodpecker and northern cardinals. Heard and observed common grackle fly over and gray squirrel in cypress tree. Observed blue jay, 6 1015 Heard fish crow and red - bellied woodpecker. 1045 End of survey. * Heard traffic throughout the survey. Note: Observations are summarized for time period noted. Passarella and Associates, Inc. 1 of I 98CEC338 05/10/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 264 of 513 -- ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: May 1 1, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0740 Weather conditions: Temperatures in high 60's, clear skies, and calm winds. End time of survey: 1045 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the 80's, partly cloudy, and light breeze. Observer: Jean Ihnat Station Time Field Notes l 0745 Heard traffic and construction noise, blue jays, northern cardinal, and red- bellied woodpecker. Heard and observed common grackles. 2 0818 Heard blue jays, red - bellied woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, northern cardinal, ground dove, and downy woodpecker. Observed and heard red- bellied woodpecker foraging in live pines. 3 0845 Heard northern cardinal and red - bellied woodpecker. Heard and observed two mourning doves, red - shouldered hawk, blue jay, and four fish crows. 4 0915 Heard and observed northern cardinal, blue jays, and red- bellied woodpecker. Heard great- crested flycatcher. 5 0945 Heard red - bellied Woodpecker. 6 IOl5 Heard northern cardinals and red - bellied woodpeckers. 1045 End of survey. " Heard traffic throughout the survey. 'Note: Observations arc summarized for time period noted. Passarelta and Associates, Inc. I of t 98CEC338 05/11/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 265 of 513 ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: May 12, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0800 Weather conditions: Sunny, humid, low 70's, 0 -5 mph wind. End time of survey: 1050 Weather conditions: Sunny, humid, upper 70's, 5 -10 mph wind. Observer: Kristin Trinka Station Time Field Notes 1 0800 Heard blue jay, gray squirrel, and traffic noise to the north. Observed blue jay. 2 0825 Heard fish crow. Observed swallow -tail and fish crow. 3 0900 Heard blue jay. 4 0935 Heard traffic noise to the north. Observed fish crow. 5 1000 Heard bluejay and traffic noise to the north. 6 1020 Heard blue jay and traffic noise to the north. Observed blue jay. Note: Observations are summarized for time period noted. Passarella and Associates, Inc. I of l 98CRC338 05/12105 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 266 of 513 ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: April 29, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0740 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the low 70's, clear skies, and winds to the east (0 -5 mph). End time of survey: 1040 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the low 80's, clear skies, and winds to the east (0 -5 mph). Observer: Matt Brosious Station Time Field Notes Heard northern mockingbird to the east off -site and northern cardinal to 1 0740 the west. Observed unknown warbler flying in trees ten feet to the north. 2 0802 Heard fish crow to the east off property. Heard unknown warbler and red - bellied woodpecker to the north. 3 0819 Observed boat - tailed grackle fly to the southeast, red- bellied woodpecker to the west, and northern cardinal fly to the east. Heard and observed two red- bellied woodpeckers on swag 50 feet west 4 0837 and downy woodpecker foraging on pine then flew to the north. Observed northern cardinal fly to the west. 5 0855 Heard same woodpeckers from previous station. Heard downy woodpecker to the north and red - bellied woodpecker to 6 0915 the southwest. Observed downy woodpecker foraging on pine to the north. 7 0935 Heard northern cardinal to the southwest and fish crow to the south. 8 1000 Observed black vulture fly northwest overhead. Heard northern cardinal to the south. 9 1025 Heard northern cardinal to the southwest, boat - tailed grackle to the northeast, and red- bellied woodpecker to the cast off property. 1040 End of survey. Note: ueservattons are sumtnanzea tor time period noted. Passarella and Associates, rnc. t of I 98CEC338 04/29/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 267 of 513 _. ABELEPARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: April 30, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0642 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the mid 60's, partly cloudy, and light southwest winds. End time of survey: 0958 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the mid to upper 70's, clear skies, and no wind. Observer: Harry Spotts Station Time Field Notes l 0642 Observed and heard common nighthawk. Observed red - bellied woodpecker and red - winged black bird. 2 0718 Heard common crow and blue -gray gnatcatcher. Observed pine warbler in canopy of pine southwest of station. 3 0741 Observed northern cardinal, raccoon foraging, and downy woodpecker. Heard great - crested flycatcher. 4 0824 Heard red - shouldered hawk vocalize. Observed turkey vultures soaring. 5 0908 Observed red - bellied woodpecker, northern mockingbird, blue jay, and European starlings. 6 0951 Heard Carolina wren, white -eyed vireo. Observed American robin and cattle egrets. 0958 End of survey. Note: Observations are summarized tar time period noted. Passarella and Associates, Inc. 1 of 1 98CEC338 04/30/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 268 of 513 ADELE PARCEL RED- COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: May 1, 2005 Survey Traosect: Start time of survey: 0745 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the mid 80's, breezy, and cloudy. End time of survey: 0910 Weather conditions: Temperatures in the mid 80's, breezy, and cloudy. Observer: Doug Holt Station Time Field Notes 1 0745 Heard common grackle and fish crow. 2 0805 Heard northern flicker. 3 0825 No wildlife heard or observed. 4 0845 Heard northern flicker and red - bellied woodpecker. 5 0905 No wildlife heard or observed. 0910 Survey ended at 0910 due to rain. Note: Ubservatlons are summarized for time period noted. Passarella and Associates, Inc. 1 of 1 98CEC338 05 11/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 269 of 513 APPENDIX B RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY MAPS WITH STATION NUMBERS LEGEND: SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS OBSERVER. MATT BROSIOUS DATE. 4129105 NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY, 2005. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No. FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 78, 2004, PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: J.I. DATE: 6/7/05 LEGEND. SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS OBSERVER. HARRY SPOTTS DATE 4150105 NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY, 2003. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No. FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 28. 2004. PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC. ABELE PARCEL Covsulting Ecologists RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: J.I. DATE: 6/7/05 LEGEND' _... .... SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS OBSERVER: DOUG HOLT DATE 5%U05 NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY. Z005. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEi ENGINEERING DRAWING N0. FALLER.OWG DATED OCTOBER 28. 2004. PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC. ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: J.L DATE: 6/7/05 LEGEND: SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS OBSERVER ALICIA KRUSE DATE. 5'2!05 NOTES. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACOUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY, 2005. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No FA LER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 26, 2004 PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC. ABELE PARCEL COnsviting Ecologists RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: J.I. DATE: 6/7/05 NOTES. OBSERVER: CHRIS EMBLIDGE AND KRISTEN TRINKA AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACOUIRED LEGENU: THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A PLIGHT SURVEY TRANSECT AND DATE. 5/7105 DATE OF JANUARY, 2003. OBSERVATION STATIONS PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No. FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 20, 2004. PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC. ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: J.I. DATE: 6/7/05 NOTES AERIAL WERE ACQUIRED LEGEND. OBSERVER ELENA HOFFMAN THROUGHHCOLLIERPCOUNTY PROPERTY DATE 5/L105 APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT SURVEY TRANSECT AND DATE OF JANUARY, 2005. OBSERVATION STATIONS PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 28, 2004. PASSARELL_4 and ASSOCIATES INC. ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED — COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: J.I. DATE: 6/7/05 LEGEND _. SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS OBSERVER: MATT BROSIOUS DATE 5/5/05 NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY. 2003. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING N0. FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 2B. 2004. PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES. INC. ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: J.I. DATE: 6/7/05 LEGEND SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS OBSERVER JOHN STARK DATE. 5/6/05 NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY. 2003. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 28.2006. PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC. ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED — COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: J.I. DATE: 6/7/05 LEGEND: SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS OBSERVER: JEAN IHNAT DATE 517/05 NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY, 2003. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No. FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 28, 2004. PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES. INC. ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: J.1. DATE: 6/7/05 LEGEND: SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS NOTES tlBSERVER. DOUG HOLT. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACOUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE 5/8105 DATE OF ,JANUARY, 2003. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No. FALLER.OWG DATED OCTOBER 28.2004. PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES. IN(,. ABELE PARCEL ConsLdting ECOLO9'sts RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: J.I. DATE: 6/7/05 LEGEND SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS Max-19 NOTES OBSERVER HARRY SPOTTS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE 5/9/D5 DATE OF JANUARY, 2005. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERIIJG DRAWING N9. FALLER. DWG DATED OCTOBER Z6, 2004. PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES lj%"C. ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED— COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: J.t. DATE: 6/7/05 NOTES OBSERVER JEAN IHNAT. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED LEGEND. THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY DATE 5i10l05 APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT OBSERVATION STA SURVEY NSECT AND DATE OF JANUARY, 2003. AONB PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING NC. FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 28.2004_ PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC. ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED — COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: J.1. DATE: 6/7/05 LEGEND: SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS OBSERVER. JEAN IHNAT DATE. SAV05 NOTES' AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY. 2003. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No. FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 28, Z004, PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC. ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED— COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: J.t. DATE: 6/7/05 LEGEND SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS OBSERVER. KRISTIN TRINKA DATE 5112/05 NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY. 2003. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 28. 2006_ PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES IN(, . ABELE PARCEL COnsv2ting Ecologists RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: O.B. DATE: 7/1/05 ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON - NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY December 2005 Prepared For: Freestale Construction, Inc. 5307 Randolph Road Rockville, Maryland 20852 (301) 231 -6000 Prepared By: Passarella and Associates, Inc. 9110 College Pointe Court Fort Myers, Florida 33919 (239) 274 -0067 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 284 of 513 Project No. 98CEC338 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...................... ............................... Biology of the Red- Cockaded Woodpecker... Methodology.................... ............................... Results.............................. ............................... References ........................ ............................... Agenda Item No. 8F July 22. 2008 Page 285 of 513 Page ........................ l 1 .............................. I.......... ........... ..............................4 ........... ..............................4 ........... ..............................5 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 286 of 513 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Project Location Map ...................... ............................... ...............2 ...................... LIST OF APPENDICES Agenda Item No. 8r July 22, 2008 Page 287 of 513 Pa Re Appendix A. Red - Cockaded Woodpecker Non - Nesting Season Foraging Survey Field Observations ................................................ ............................... A-1 Appendix B. Red - Cockaded Woodpecker Non- Nesting Season Foraging Survey Maps with Station Numbers .................................................. .........:..................B -I In Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 288 of 513 - — INTRODUCTION The following report documents the red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoldes borealis) (RCW) non - nesting season foraging survey for the Abele Parcel (project). The survey was conducted per the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines in the draft Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES) for the RCW (USFWS 2002). The project site totals 19.721 acres and is located in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Figure 1). More specifically, the site is found at the southwest comer of Davis and Santa Barbara Boulevards in south Naples. County Barn Road is located approximately one half of a mile to the west and Collier Boulevard (CR 95 1) is two miles to the east, The parcel's current land uses include a mixture of undeveloped, forested upland and wetland habitats. The site's surrounding land uses are a mixture of residential development; disturbed land, and roads. Abutting the property to the north is Davis Boulevard; to the east is undeveloped land that has been partially cleared and filled; and to the south and west is the residential community of Falling Waters. Previous surveys have been conducted on -site and no RCW cavity trees or sightings have been recorded. Passarella and Associates, Inc. (PAD conducted a listed species survey on March 4, 2004, with additional observations on June 22, 2004, July 13, 2004, and July 30, 2004. PAI also conducted RCW nesting season foraging surveys for 14 days from April 29, 2005 through May 12, 2005. No RCW or RCW cavities were observed during these surveys. This report documents the observations recorded during the RCW non - nesting season foraging surveys conducted for 13 days from November 11, 2005 through November 23, 2005. The results of the 2005 non- nesting season foraging surveys found no RCWs or RCW cavity trees on -site. BIOLOGY OF THE RED- COCKADED WOODPECKER The RCW lives and breeds within old growth pine forests. The RCW forages preferentially in stands of live pines with trees that average a diameter of ten inches or greater (USFWS 1985). Dense pine stands or stands primarily composed of hardwoods are avoided. RCWs feed primarily on insects including beetles, ants, grubs, and caterpillars. A smaller percent of the diet may consist of seasonal fruits, berries, and seeds. The RCW roosts and nests in cavities excavated in live pine trees. Cavity trees are typically at least 60 to 80 years old and usually weakened by a fungal infection known as red -heart disease (McFarlane 1992, Ehrlich et al. 1988). Cavities are typically constructed on the main trunk just below the lowest branches. Numerous resin wells are maintained around the cavity entrance. The resin wells may help defend against ground dwelling predators and insect damage. RCWs live in family groups composed of a mated pair, offspring of the year, and unmated male helpers. The group's cavity trees are aggregated in clusters that typically occupy an area of about ten acres (USFWS 1985). Groups are highly territorial and may defend on an area nearly 200± acres in size (McFarlane 1992, Ehrlich et al. 1988, USFWS 1985). RCWs are cooperative breeders and one or more non - breeding males may assist the breeding pair in brooding, feeding, ROAD 1 -]5 P COLLIER COUNTY 61 July 22, 2008 n 1 � 2 GOLDEN GATE BLVD J SKIT l0l -_ 1_ RADIO RD - I � l K Q - T m _ a PROJECT LOCATION y DAVIS a vD SEC 8, TWP 50 S, RGE 26 E w c r II M _ J O IN l._ 2 1, -'-' - - RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD r PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES. INC. FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP ConsuRing Ecologists ABELE PARCEL DRAWN BY: W.C. DATE: 1/26/04 2 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 290 of 513 -- — and territorial defense. Egg lying typically occurs during April, May, and June (USFWS 1985). Clutch size is typically two to five eggs (Ehrlich et al. 1988, USFWS 1985). Both sexes are invotved in incubating and feeding. The time from egg laying to fledging is approximately 40 days (USFWS 1985). METHODOLOGY The non- nesting season foraging surveys were conducted for 13 days from November 11, 2005 through November 23, 2005. All surveys were conducted according to the USFWS draft SLOPES for the RCW. Per the SLOPES, the time -of -day requirements for the non - nesting survey are one hour after sunrise and ending four hours past sunrise or when local weather conditions are not favorable. Foraging surveys began around 8 :00 a.m. (one hour after sunrise) and ended by 11:00 a.m. (four hours past sunrise), The RCW surveys were conducted by qualified ecologists traversing suitable habitats by foot to randomly located observation stations. Transects and the observation station locations were recorded on aerial photographs and wildlife observations were noted. Visual observations were aided by binoculars. Relative weather conditions were also recorded at the beginning and end of each survey period. RESULTS No RC Ws were seen or heard or cavity trees found during the November 11, 2005 through November 23, 2005 non - nesting season foraging surveys. Daily field observations for the non - nesting season surveys are attached as Appendix A and aerial map showing the survey transects and observation station numbers are provided as Appendix B. 3 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 291 of 513 REFERENCES Ehrlich, P. R. et al. 1988. The Birders Handbook; A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, New York. 785 pages. McFarlane, R. W. 1992. A Stillness in the Pines; The Ecology of the Red - Cockaded Woodpecker. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, New York. 270 pages. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Recovery Plan for the Red- Cockaded Woodpecker, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pages. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species, Red - Cockaded Woodpeckers. u Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 292 of 513 APPENDIX A RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON - NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 293 of 513 ABELE PARCEL RED- COCKADED WOODPECKER NON - NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: November 15, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0750 Weather conditions: Clear skies, 0 mph winds, and temperature of 72 degrees. End time of survey: 1050 Weather conditions: Clear skies, 0 -5 mph winds, and temperature of 83 degrees. Observer: Chris Emblidge Station Time Field Notes 1 0750 Heard blue jays, red - bellied woodpecker to the southwest, and traffic noise from Davis Boulevard. 2 0825 Heard blue jays, European starlings, and red - bellied woodpecker to the west. Observed European starlings fly overhead and common yellow - throat. 3 0854 Heard blue jays, Carolina wren, red - shouldered hawk, and pileated woodpecker to the south. 4 0930 Heard red - bellied woodpecker to the east, blue jays, and red- shouldered , hawk. Observed red- bellied woodpecker foraging on pine snag 50± feet to the east and southern bald eagle flying north just above tree canopy. 5 1010 Heard blue jays, European starlings, and red - bellied woodpecker to the south. Observed red - bellied woodpecker foraging on live pine. 1050 End of survey. Note: Observations are summarimd for time period noted. Passarella and Associates, Inc. l of 1 98CEC338 11/15/05 Agenda Item No. 8r July 22, 2008 Page 294 of 513 ABELE PARCEL RED- COCKADED WOODPECKER NON - NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: November 16, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0730 Weather conditions: Clear skies, calm winds, and temperature in the mid 60's. End time of survey: 1015 Weather conditions: Clear skies, calm winds, and temperature in the mid 70's. Observer: Jason Hunt Station Time Field Notes 1 0730 Heard gray catbirds to the south, blue jays, and common grackles to the east. 2 0800 Heard common grackles and gray catbirds to the south. Observed red - bellied woodpeckers. 3 0830 Heard downy woodpecker, northern cardinal, red- bellied woodpecker, and gray catbird to the south. 4 0900 Heard pine warbler and gray catbird to the north. Observed blue -gray gnatcatcher to the east, and red - bellied woodpecker to the west. 5 0930 Observed northern mockingbird to the east, blue jays to the north, and downy woodpecker to the north. Heard gray catbird to the east and south. 6 1000 Heard common grackles fly to the north. Observed northern mockingbird to the east. 1015 End of survey. Note: Observations are summarized for time period noted. Passarelta and Associates, Inc. 1 of I 98CEC338 11/16/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 295 of 513 ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON- NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: November 17, 2005 Survey Transact: Start time of survey: 0745 Weather conditions: Clouds, no wind, and temperature of 72 degrees. End time of survey: 1045 Weather conditions: Partly Sunny, no wind, and temperature of 83 degrees. Observer: Chris Emblidge Station Time Field Notes t 0745 Heard blue jays, downy woodpecker, and pine warblers. Observed pine warblers. 2 0820 Heard pine warblers, blue jays, and common grackles. Observed common grackles fly overhead. 3 0905 Heard pileated woodpecker to the northeast and blue jays. 4 0945 Heard common grackles, pine warblers, red - bellied woodpecker, blue - gray gnatcatcher, and gray catbird. Observed red - bellied woodpecker foraging on pine snags 50t feet to the east and turkey vuttures. 5 1020 Heard red - bellied woodpecker to the south and pine warblers. Observed turkey vultures. 1045 End of survey. Note: Uoservanons are summarized for time period noted. Passarella and Associates, Inc. I of 1 98CFC338 11/17/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 296 of 513 �- -_ -- - ABELE PARCEL RED- COCKADED WOODPECKER NON - NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: November 18, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0740 Weather conditions: Overcast, slight breeze, temperatures in the mid 70's. End time of survey: 1041 Weather conditions: Overcast, calm, and temperatures in the low 80's. Observer: Chris Ryan Station Time Field Notes Traffic noise prevalent. Heard and observed pine warblers to the north. 1 0740 Heard northern cardinals to the east and common grackle to the east. Heard northern cardinal to the east, northern mockingbird to the 2 0755 northeast, and pine warbler to the west. Traffic noise still very loud. Hear blue jay to the southeast, pine warbler to the southwest, and 3 0811 Carolina wren to the southeast. Heard and observed fish crow fly overhead. Observed gray squirrel in pine to the north. Heard pine warbler to the south, blue jay to the north, and northern 4 0829 cardinal to the southwest. Heard and observed mourning dove to the east. Heard red- shouldered hawk to the southwest, gray catbird to the southwest, pine warbler to the northwest, northern cardinal to the 5 0851 northwest, killdeer to the northwest, blue -gray gnatcatcher to the southwest, and blue jay to the west. 6 0910 Heard pine warbler to the northwest, northern cardinal to the south, gray catbird to the west, and blue jay to the southwest. Heard and observed red - bellied woodpecker to the west, blue jay to the 7 0925 west, and downy woodpecker to the west foraging on pine. Heard multiple pine warblers in vicinity. Heard blue jay to the west, red- bellied woodpecker to the west. Heard 8 0941 and observed pine warblers to the north. Heard blue jay to the north, pine warbler to the north, and red - 9 0958 shouldered hawk to the northwest. Observed vulture circling to the south. Heard northern cardinal to the 10 1016 west and pine warbler to the southwest. Passaretla and Associates, Inc. l of l 98CEC338 11/18/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 297 of 513 11 1029 Traffic noise very loud. Heard northern cardinal to the northeast and pine warbler to the northwest. 1041 End of survey, r vtc, vwq rau VUJ me au l l l I R41 1L W[ Uunc pcnoa no tea, Passarellaand Associates, Inc. 2 of I 98CEC338 1 1/18/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 298 of 513 ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON - NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: November 19, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0755 Weather conditions: Partly cloudy, 0 -S mph winds, and temperature of 72 degrees. End time of survey: 1055 Weather conditions: Mostly sunny, 5 -10 mph winds, and temperature of 81 degrees. Observer: Chris Emblidge Station Time Field Notes 1 0755 Heard blue jays and gray catbirds. 2 0840 Heard blue jays, red - shouldered hawk, and common grackles. Observed common grackles. 3 0915 Heard Carolina wren. Observed turkey vultures and black vultures. 4 0948 Heard pine warblers and bluejay. Observed pine warblers and vultures. 5 1015 Heard blue jays, pileated woodpecker to the northwest, and red - shouldered hawk. Observed red - shouldered hawk. 1055 End of survey. Note: Observations are summarized for time period noted. Passarella and Associates, Inc. I of 1 98CPC338 11/19/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 299 of 513 ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON- NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: November 20, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0730 Weather conditions: Cloudy skies, no wind, and temperatures in the low 70's. End time of survey: 1035 Weather conditions: Partly cloudy skies, temperatures in the upper 70's, and no wind. Observer: Mike Myers Station Time Field Notes 1 0730 Heard blue jay to the northwest, mourning dove to the east, and common grackle to the west. Observed a blue -gray gnatcatcher foraging in a coco plum shrub to the west. 2 0810 Heard common grackle to the north. Observed European staring fly to the east, yellow - rumped warbler fly to the south, and common grackles fly to the southeast. 3 0840 Heard blue jay to the south and the east and a northern cardinal to the south. 4 0915 Heard blue jay to the east and gray catbird to the north. Observed a pine warbler fly to the east. 5 0940 Heard red - shouldered hawk to the southeast. 6 1015 Heard gray catbirds to the west. Observed a common grackle fly to the south. 1045 End of Survey. Note: Observations are summarized for time period noted. Passarella and Associates, Inc. I of 1 998CEC338 1 1/20/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 300 of 513 ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON - NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: November 21, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0745 Weather conditions: Mostly cloudy, 0 -5 mph winds, and temperature of 74 degrees. End time of survey: 1045 Weather conditions: Cloudy with rain, 5 -10 mph winds, and temperature of 78 degrees. Observer: Chris Emblidge Station Time Field Notes l 0745 Heard blue jays, gray catbirds, and common grackles. Observed blue jays and common grackles. 2 0815 Heard blue jays, fish crows, and red - bellied woodpeckers to the north. Observed gray catbirds and mourning doves. 3 0900 Heard blue jays, gray catbirds, Carolina wren, and red - bellied woodpecker to the east. Observed red - bellied woodpecker foraging on pine 50t feet to the east. 4 0940 Heard blue jays and fish crows. Observed gray squirrels and turkey vultures. 5 1018 Heard pine warblers and blue jays. Observed gray squirrel and pine warblers. 1045 End of survey. Note: Observations are summarized for time period noted. Passarella and Associates, Inc. 1 of I 98CFC33E 11/21105 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 301 of 513 ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON - NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: November 22, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0745 Weather conditions: Partly cloudy, 5 -10 mph winds, and temperature of 64 degrees. End time of survey: 1045 Weather conditions: Mostly sunny, 10 -15 mph winds, and temperature of 72 degrees. Observer: Chris Embiidge Station Time Field Notes 1 0745 Hear European starling. Observed European starling flying east. 2 0820 Heard blue jay and pine warbler. Observed pine warblers and yellow- j rumped warblers. 3 0856 Heard pine warblers, fish crows, and gray catbird. Observed pine warblers and gray catbirds. 4 0941 Heard dogs barking to the west, blue -gray gnatcatcher, red - shouldered hawk, and blue jay. Observed red - shouldered hawk fly to the west and gray squirrel. 5 1012 Heard pine warblers, northern cardinals, red - bellied woodpecker to the north, and gray catbird. Observed pine warblers, red - bellied woodpecker 50t feet to the north foraging on pine snag. 1045 End of survey. I mom. vV4W •4UVRJ M6 OUIIILLWIt[AU WI IILIM PGI IUU nutcu. Passarella and Associates, Inc. I of 1 98CEC338 11122/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 302 of 513 - - -- ARM, PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON - NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: November 23, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0730 Weather conditions: Clear, clam winds, and temperatures in the low 50's. End time of survey: 1030 Weather conditions: Clear, calm winds, and temperatures in the low 60's. Observer: Jason Hunt Station Time Field !Motes 1 0730 Heard blue jays to the north. Observed palm warblers to the south. 2 0800 Heard gray catbird to the south, pine warbler to the west, and common grackles to the north. 3 0830 Heard blue jays, gray catbirds and northern mockingbird to the east and north. Observed red - bellied woodpecker to the south. 4 0900 Heard red- bellied woodpecker to the north. Observed blue jay and northern cardinal to the east. 5 0930 Heard red - bellied woodpecker to the south, pine warbler to the north, and gray catbird to the east. 6 1000 Heard northern mockingbird to the south. Observed palm warblers to the north: Heard common grackles to the east. 1030 End of survey. !Vote: Vosermaons are summarlua Ior time perioa noted. Passarella and Associates, Inc. I of i 98CEC339 11123/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 303 of 513 -- - -- ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON- NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: November 11, 2005 Survey Transect; Start time of survey: 0730 Weather conditions: Low clouds, 0 -5 mph winds, and temperature of 72 degrees. End time of survey: 1030 Weather conditions: Mostly clear, 0 -5 mph winds, and temperature of 78 degrees. Observer: Chris Emblidge Station Time Field Notes L 0730 Heard blue jays and northern cardinal. Observed northern cardinal. 2 0815 Heard blue jays, common grackles, northern cardinal, and downy woodpecker to the north. Observed common grackles flying overhead and blue jays. 3 0850 Heard downy woodpecker to the north, blue jay, and Carolina wren. Observed downy woodpecker on live pine 50t feet to the north. 4 0930 Heard blue jay, pine warblers, and red - bellied woodpecker to the east. Observed pine warblers. 5 1010 Heard pine warblers, downy woodpeckers to the north, and European starlings. Observed European starlings flying northeast overhead. Note: Observations are summartzea for time penoa notea. Passarella and Associates, Inc. t of l k98CEC338 [ 1111105 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 304 of 513 - - -- ABELE PARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON - NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: November 12, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0735 Weather conditions: Clear skies, temperature in the low to mid 60's, and slight breeze to the south. End time of survey: 1045 Weather conditions: Partly cloudy, temperature in the mid 70's, and no wind. Observer: Mike Myers Station Time Field Notes 1 0735 Heard pileated woodpecker to the southeast. Observed blue jay fly to the south and a flock of 20t white ibis fly overheard to the east. 2 0800 Heard and observed red - bellied woodpecker foraging on pines to the north. Heard catbird to the north, blue jays to the northeast, and red - shouldered hawk to the south. Observed yellow - rumped warblers, pine warblers, blue -gray gnatcatcher foraging in the tree tops to the west, and northern cardinal fly from palmetto to the west. 3 0835 Heard blue jay to the north. Observed turkey vulture soaring high overhead to the south, anhinga flying overhead to the northeast, common grackle to the southeast, and yellow - rumped warbler foraging in pine to the north. 4 0900 Observed turkey vulture soaring high toward the south. Heard killdeer to the east. 5 0930 Heard a common grackle to the east. 6 1005 Observed turkey vulture soaring high to the east. 7 1020 No wildlife heard or observed. 1045 End of Survey, iw«. vuac,vauuau at sumum iuu [ur ume penoa no[ea. Passarella and Associates, Inc: I of I #98CEC338 1 1/12105 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 305 of 513 ABELEPARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON - NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: November l3, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0700 Weather conditions: Partly cloudy, temperature in the low to mid 60's, and no wind. End time of survey: 1000 Weather conditions: Partly cloudy, temperature in the mid 70's, and slight wind to the south. Observer: Mike Myers Station Time Field Notes Heard and observed three common grackles fly overhead to the north. 1 0700 Observed a tree swallow fly to the south. Observed four great blue herons flying overhead to the northwest and a 2 0735 flock of crows fly overhead to the west. Heard gray catbird to the north. Heard and observed common flicker to the west. Observed a mourning dove foraging on ground and then fly to the west. 3 0800 Observed common warblers flying over tree tops to the east. Observed blue jay fly to the east. Heard blue jay to the north. Heard and observed blue jay perched in pine tree to the west. Heard and 4 0830 observed two red - bellied woodpeckers foraging in pines trees to the southwest. Heard blue jay to the northwest. Observed anhinga fly overhead to the 5 0850 south. Observed yellow - rumped warblers foraging in pines to the northwest, a 6 0910 flock of 20t common grackles flying overhead to the southeast, and wood stork soaring high to the north. 7 0925 Observed a gray squirrel climbing around in pines to the southeast. Observed a common yellow - throat pearched on pepper to the south. 8 0940 Heard and observed osprey soaring to the southeast. 1000 End of survey. Note: Observations are summarized for time period noted. Passarelia and Associates, Inc. I of I P98CEC338 11/13/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 306 of 513 ABELEPARCEL RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON- NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS Date: November 14, 2005 Survey Transect: Start time of survey: 0730 Weather conditions: Clear skies, calm winds, and temperature in the mid 70's. End time of survey: 1030 Weather conditions: Clear skies, slightly breezy, and temperature in the mid to upper 70's. Observer: Chris Ryan Station Time Field Notes 1 0733 Heard traffic noise, northern cardinal to the north, and blue jay to the northeast. Observed unknown warbler in pine to the north. Heard pileated woodpecker to the west, small plane overhead, traffic 2 0745 noise very prevalent,, red - bellied woodpecker to the west, boat - tailed grackle flying overhead to the east, and northern cardinal to the south. Heard blue jays, traffic to the north, pine warbler to the northeast, boat - 3 0800 tailed grackle fly overhead to the north, and red - bellied woodpecker to the west. Observed two great egrets fly overhead to the north. 4 0820 Heard blue jay to the southwest, boat - tailed grackles to the southwest, red- shouldered hawk to the south, and pine warblers to the west. Heard blue jay to the south, red - shouldered hawk to the north, gray 5 0833 catbird to the north, and pine warbler to the south. Heard and observed boat - tailed grackle fly overhead to the south. Observed white ibis fly overhead to the west. 6 0848 Heard pine warbler to the east, blue jay to the northwest. Heard and observed common grackle to the north and flying southwest. Heard gray catbird to the northeast and west, red - bellied woodpecker to the northeast, red - shouldered hawk to the southwest, and nothern 7 0905 mockingbird to the southwest, common grackle to the west. Heard and observed red- bellied woodpecker to the north foraging in pine and blue jay calling in pine to the northeast. Observed pileated woodpecker foraging in pine to the west. Heard blue jay to the north, red- bellied woodpecker to the northeast, and 8 0923 red - shouldered hawk to the southeast. Heard and observed common grackles fly to the north. Observed unknown warblers to the east in melaleuca tree. Passarella and Associates, Inc. I of 2 M98CEC338 (1/14/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 307 of 513 9 0939 Heard gray catbird to the northwest. 10 0955 Heard gray catbird to the north and traffic noise prevalent. Heard and observed a flock of fish crows fly to the northeast. Observed blue -gray gnatcatcher in melaleuca tree to the west and 11 1015 vulture circling to the northwest. Heard and observed common grackles fly to the southeast overhead. 1030 End of survey. Note: Observations are summarized for time period noted. Passarella and Associates, Inc. 2 of 2 B98CEC338 I l/14/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 308 of 513 APPENDIX B RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON - NESTING SEASON FORAGING . SURVEY MAPS WITH STATION NUMBERS LEGEND OBSERVER. CHRIS EMBLIOGE DATE. If-P-05 SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY. 2003. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 26. 20044. PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC. ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON- NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: F.L. DATE: 12/7/05 LEGEND'. OBSERVER. MIKE MYERS DATE II -12-05 SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY, 2003 PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING N0. FALLER. DWG DATED OCTOBER 26, ZODL. PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES. INC. ABELE PARCEL COnsidting Ecologists RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON- NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: F.L. DATE: 12/7/05 LEGEND OBSERVER MIKE MYERS DATE II -I5-05 SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY. 2003. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING N0. FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 28, 2004, PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON- NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: F.L. DATE: 12/7/05 LEGEND. OBSERVER. CHRIS RYAN DATE. II -14 -05 SURVEY TRANSECT AND V OBSERVATION STATIONS NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY, ZD03. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No. FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER PB, 2004, PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES, INC ABELE PARCEL COns?dt2ng ECOi092sts RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON- NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: F.L. DATE: 12/7/05 NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED LEGEND OBSERVER CHRIS EMBLIDGE THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY DATE 11-!5 -05 APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT SURVEY TRANSECT AND DATE OF JANUARY. 2003. _. OBSERVATION STATIONS PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER ?8. 2004, PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES. INC. ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON- NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: F.L. DATE: 12/7/05 LEGEND- OBSERVER JASON HUNT DATE II -Ib -05 .. ,� SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY. 2005. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No. FALLER..DWG DATED OCTOBER 28. 2004, PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED— COCKADED WOODPECKER NON— NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: F.L. DATE: 12/7/05 LEGEND OBSERVER. CHRIS EMBLIDGE DATE II -17-05 SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY, 2005. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No. FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 28, 200L PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES IM, ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON- NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: F.L. DATE: 12/7/05 LEGEND: OBSERVER. CHRIS RYAN DATE: 11-I8-05 -�. SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY, 2005, PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING NO. FALLER.OWG DATED OCTOBER 28. 2004 PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES. INC. ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON - NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: FA. DATE: 72/7/05 LEGEND. OBSERVER CHRIS EMBLIDGE DATE. II -19 -05 �.- SURVEY TRANSECT AND ... OBSERVATION STATIONS 14OTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY. 2003. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING N0. FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 28 2004 PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES. INC. ABELE PARCEL ConSidting Ecologists RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON- NESTING SEASON FORAGMG SURVEY DRAWN BY: F.L DATE: 12/7/05 LEGEND: SURVEY TRANSECT AND -rl OBSERVATION STATIONS No. 8F NOTES OBSERVER: MIKE MYERS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED DATE 11 -20 -05 THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY, 2003. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No FALLER. DWG DATED OCTOBER 28, Z004. PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED — COCKADED WOODPECKER NON— NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: F.L. DATE: 12/7/05 PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES. INC. ABELE PARCEL Considting ECOt092sts RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON- NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: F.L. DATE: 72/7/05 A ends Item No. 8F WWI J `w 'Y p��y W.dC Y^"—' i+v....eM:es x..A+ln �.✓inµyWl�IIP 'fu�usn'M k k ! f I r� Yip I �IIi w 3R NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED LEGEND OBSERVER. CHRIS EMBLIDGE THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY DATE- II ZI -05 APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT .... SURVEY TRANSECT AND DATE OF JANUARY. ZOOS. ..... OBSERVATION STAnONS PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KE! ENGINEERING DRAWING No FALLER. DWG DATED OCTOBER 28. 2004. PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES. INC. ABELE PARCEL Considting ECOt092sts RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON- NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: F.L. DATE: 72/7/05 LEGEND SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS NOTES OBSERVER. CHRIS EMBLIDGE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED DATE. II -22 -05 THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY, 2003. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING No FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 28 2004 PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER NON - NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: F,L. DATE: 12/7/05 LEGENDS OBSERVER JASON HUNT DATE 11 -Z3 -05 �_. SURVEY TRANSECT AND OBSERVATION STATIONS .,IMP AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WI IN A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY, 2003. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER KEI ENGINEERING DRAWING N0. FALLER.DWG DATED OCTOBER 28, ZOD6. P_ ASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC. ABELE PARCEL Consulting Ecologists RED- COCKADED WOODPECKER NON- NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY DRAWN BY: F.L. DATE: 12/7/05 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 322 of 513 EXHIBIT S DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF LISTED SPECIES In July 22, 20 8 Page 323 of 513 W d '�j�o lily r d s& Joe•` , • ®� •• i"•r 4• !{ �►�6 4. • r iii 4,40 - • � ift �• y� i Y� � Y Y• � � � • � � ci CI) • ,� f -awl, • r• Y r• A CIO a • � i a�� a• r � .�» • J O O • ° da • ® W _ • Y1gMl 1� ® -Ly { • a ® i ° a • tLa e•Aa 40 m & g b: UnlHJa3r110D li +C'.: •. ,, � Rio 6 a • • a a p° m SANTA BHREHBH NLVO -- W J BAIB NVDOl w U COUNTY bARN RG� - b o � w W Q I ome saoo—`> a a CC 1 o d C) Dtl N015DIJIAII c w ^ aU VU Jl by/ it G Ua 9,1110, 73781v e I ¢Iw /tlO 3tlON5AV9 ❑{S�N� STS 7J0 p15 - - UAIU 3HOH5 a� C ZN C RLL W �w W= LL o 0 d '�j�o lily r d s& Joe•` , • ®� •• i"•r 4• !{ �►�6 4. • r iii 4,40 - • � ift �• y� i Y� � Y Y• � � � • � � ci CI) • ,� f -awl, • r• Y r• A CIO a • � i a�� a• r � .�» • J O O • ° da • ® W _ • Y1gMl 1� ® -Ly { • a ® i ° a • tLa e•Aa 40 m & g b: UnlHJa3r110D li +C'.: •. ,, � Rio 6 a • • a a p° m SANTA BHREHBH NLVO -- W J BAIB NVDOl w U COUNTY bARN RG� - b o � w W Q I ome saoo—`> a a CC 1 o d C) Dtl N015DIJIAII c w ^ aU VU Jl by/ it G Ua 9,1110, 73781v e I ¢Iw /tlO 3tlON5AV9 ❑{S�N� STS 7J0 p15 - - UAIU 3HOH5 cpud response.rtf Agenda Iteg)2N(pg3{ A5 PM July 22, 2008 Page 324 of 513 Falling Waters CPUD Development Review Committee Response to the Developer submissions for CCPC hearing scheduled for June 27, 2008 Date of response: June 21, 2008 The committee finds as follows: That we, in recognition of the fact that we are not experts in: a) the technical terminology, (i.e. language such as, "any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the BZA, through the process outlined in the LDC ") b) legal implementation (that fact that the follow -on steps of SDP approval and building permits are not public processes and could result in substantial changes to what we have seen and agreed upon to date) or C) any other specifics of the Collier County zoning ordinance practices and implementation conditionally recommend the approval of the submitted Freestate CPUD, with the following caveats: That our recommendation is based on the CPUD Exhibits A -H submission we have in hand, version 18, and accompanying documents: 1 County Staff report Freestate CPUD 2) Freestate Ordinance (proposed) 3) Rezone Findings 4) PUD Findings 5) Environmental Impact Statement 6) Traffic Impact Statement 7) Application for Public Hearing and PUD Rezone That our recommendation is based primarily on the representations of exhibit G, with accompanying exhibits GA .A, G.2.6 and G.3.C, our interpretation of which is: In the spirit of Ordinance 99 -19, A) The minimum distance to the nearest structures to built will be 125 feet B) That a landscape buffer will be installed and kept up by the developer which will, when mature, substantially block the view of the buildings, excluding some architectural rooftop elements that may appear above the tops of some trees. Note here: page 9 of 15, 4.A paragraph 2 should read "two staggered rows of Saba/ Palms 12 foot to 22 foot clear trunk" in order for the text to agree with the Page 1 of 3 cpud response.rtf notations on the submitted Exhibit G. Agenda Iteg7;Nrp83f2.45 PM July 22, 2008 Page 325 of 513 C) That there will be an effective minimum overall buffer area width of 60 feet, when detention zones and lakes are included, (except at the preserve area, which is wider) D) That no structures, principal or accessory, trails nor other appurtenances will be built within the no -build zone and preserve area E) That the actual, eventual approved SDP and follow -on building permits will substantially be the same as the Exhibit C Master Plan: a) including the type, size, number and location of the four buildings shown b) including the type, size and location of other site elements including buffers, landscaping, water and dry detention zones, walls, fences, parking and circulation F) That no activities will be allowed in the CPUD that will be detrimental to the quality of life for the Falling Waters residents (referring to the inclusion of technical language allowing "any other use which is comparable... ") G) That Collier County recognizes the fact that a de facto activity center, as defined by county standards, and not appearing on the FLUE or in the GMP, already exists within two road miles of this CPUD, and that they commit to limiting the development in the proposed area of this CPUD in light of that fact, according to the GMP (see staff report, page 6) H) That the integrity of the perimeter security (an issue raised at the NIM in the fall of 2007) be resolved by enjoining the developer and the county to connect their respective walls at the SE corner of the development, specifically: 1) That the developer continues his proposed wall an additional 15 -20 feet south to the property line at the SE corner of his property and 2) that the county continues their proposed sound attenuation wall an additional 25 feet north and west to meet the developer wall at the property line at the corner of the FW property and further 3) That the developer be required to provide and maintain a full site construction perimeter security fence extending from the limit of the Phase I wall, south around the preserve area, south to the south buffer area, and east to the property line, which will remain in place until the Phase 11 wall is completed. This temporary fence should remain no longer than one year Page 2 of 3 S cpud response.rtf Agenda ItegJhM 2 :45 PM July 22, 2008 Page 326 of 513 until the wall is completed as shown on the Master Plan. That all the above represents the detailed specifics of the concerns of the majority of the 780 +/- Falling Waters residents as expressed by the letters sent to the county, asking that the county adheres to the standards of Ordinance 99 -19, as noted on page 18 of the staff reports for this project. composed this date by John Refuse Member of the Committee Page 3 of 3 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 327 of 513 Falling Waters March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, 02 3 5a-- i Nly("!�s < < r-3 V/ S RECEIVED APR u 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 328 of 513 March 28, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 Dear Ms Gundlach, ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very speck in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. 1 shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, 0 7 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 329 of 513 March 28, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, RECEIVED APR 0 2 7008 I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to NI DEPARTMENT on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very speck in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, 'PCL�rlc[`' � A, `parr n d of�,SO 4idd'on 4,c-ke, �r �% Agenda Item No. 8F July 22. 2008 Page 330 of 513 March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RECEIVED rr' 0 2 2008 Subject: Freestate CPUD ZONING DEPARTMENT Dear Ms Gundlach, I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99-19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resutted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, Ste- �0\I\e Qk-�- \1J 5 \'3"o �q NUQV 5 �- 3u��a Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 331 of 513 March 28, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2006 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. - 1 am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 332 of 513 March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive RECEIVED Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD APR 0 2 2008 Dear Me Gundlach, ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as s homeowner and resident of Failing Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99-19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, ,(4f `j Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 333 of 513 March 28, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review RECEIVED 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Ai'K 0 2 2008 Subject: Freestate CPUD ZONING DEPARTMENT Dear Ms Gundiach, I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Failing Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very speck in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adarla-ritly opposed to the approval of this CPUD "by the C60rity and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. 1 shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, �� i� Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 334 of 513 z, March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 subject: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, RECEIVED APR 0 2 "OR ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner of and the resident of CPUD ap ion o on record as being opposed to the approval now before you Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting In Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Failing Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detalling a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99-19. 1 shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, Fb Li ; ty C 13 �2NS fie_ r i Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 335 of 513 March 28, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive RECEIVED Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD APR 0 2 IOU ZONING DEPARTMEN' Dear Ms Gundlach, I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, L C - RICA %oudG �3,4 aISta tea!« l.%4, f.zcf 'FL ?Yi�Z Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 336 of 513 March 25, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 3 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99-19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with XMO SIT T— M.1'311207 I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, U March 17, 2008 Marcia: Agenda Item No. 8F GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB I met with the four of the Committee members who signed the attached letter. They are presently negotiating with Freestone but need some leverage from us. Falling Waters was very supportive in our efforts to have the EOC moved to a different location. -hey are asking us to send a similar letter to Nancy Gundlach, A.I.C.p., Department of Zoning and land Development Review for Collier County. If further action is needed on our part, I will inform you. Trust you agree with their request for us to send a letter. Sincerely, Dom RECEIVED APR 0 3 2006 ZONING DEPARTMENT Mailing Addressc600 Countryside Drive o Naples o Florida 34104x(239) 353- 1780oFax (239) 353 -3717 Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25,2M Dear Nancy Gundlach Agenda Item No. 8F July 2 J RECEIVED APR 0 3 2008 JANING DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware ru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December/07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 9949", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell iL Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised as at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly M j"ma"r -1/'� CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPQ Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach //'t e d m o68F �] F'ae RECEIVED APR 0 3 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19 ", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to bear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watererest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property". The County advised as at the time of purchase of ordinance 99.19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99-19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly In CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPC) Agenda Item No. 8r July 22, 2008 Page 340 of 513 Collier County Department Of Toning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner RECEIVED March 25, 2008 APR 0 2 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach 7nNiNr DEPARTMENT i am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December/07 January& February 108. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. "The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19 ", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watererest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPC) Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 341 of 513 March 28, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, It Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Agenda Item No. 8r July 22, 2001 Page 342 of 513 March 19, 2008 RECOVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT 1 write concerning the above, which is proposed to be built between Falling Waters and the Santa Barbara extension. As you will see from the address above, I am an owner and resident in the Falling Waters community. It is my understanding that in 1999, the then owner /developer was granted a permit to develop this parcel of land under Ordinances 99 -19 but subject to certain restrictions, for example, as regards the height of buildings and the amount of setback. We are informed that this was eventually agreed after much discussion between all the parties concerned, with concessions on all sides. It was because of this agreement that we decided to purchase property here. However, we now discover that a new owner /developer is seeking to have these Ordinances overturned and the restrictions withdrawn. We presume that when they purchased the property in 2005, they must have been fully aware of them. I wish to place on record my robust objection to the withdrawal of any of the restrictions agreed in 1999. In my view, to do so would be a travesty of justice and break previous commitments by the County. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the new owner /developer's request should be dismissed and that they should be required to adhere fully to the terms and conditions of the original permit under Ordinances 99 -19. d� I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this ' -- matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, �`� March 20, 2008 Nancy Gundlach AICP, Principal Planner Dept of Zoning & Land Development Review 2800 N Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 343 of 513 R 45p ?pN�hGO�A19 �B Q �FNr SCA NED I am writing this letter to voice my opposition to the subject proposed Freestone CPUD, as proposed at the public hearing held in October. The reason for opposing this application is that it removes most of the compromises to the rezoning of that parcel in 1999. The essence of that solution provided the screening and buildings that would not deter from the residential nature of our community. Unless the new owners are willing to create equivalent conditions that were contained on Ordinance 99 -19 to screen visual views of their buildings, I strongly urge the County to disapprove their application. With the current market do we need to be lax on our governing rules now? Yours Truly Myron Bertram E Will ,, U p Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 344 of 513 April 1, 2008 SCANNED RECEIVED APR 1 7 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT As a concerned resident of Falling Waters, I am writing to oppose approval of the current version of the Freestate CPUD. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This was a commercially viable, compatible solution for the county and our neighborhood. The current version of the proposed Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution We are currently in negotiations with the developer, with both sides working very hard to find a solution that will again benefit our residents and Collier County while still offering a financially viable plan for commercial development, at a neighborhood scale, to the developer. Key elements are buildings limited to 35 feet, a dense, high, secure landscape buffer and limitations on allowable commercial activities. Unless changes are made that bring the current application in line with the spirit of Ordinance 99 -19 including the key elements noted above, I will remain adamantly opposed to its approval. I ask the County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for their support in achieving this goal. Please include this letter and all others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank you. Sincerely, 7 it RECE ►VE pnl 1, Zoos APR ti 6 2051 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development RevjelfplNG DEPARTMENT 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22. 2008 Page 345 of 513 SCANNED As a concerned resident of Falling Waters, I am writing to oppose approval of the current _ version of tie- Freestate CPUD. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This was a commercially viable, compatible solution for the county and our neighborhood. The current version of the proposed Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. We are currently in negotiations with the developer, with both sides working very hard to find a solution that will again benefit our residents and Collier County while still offering a financially viable plan for commercial development, at a neighborhood scale, to the developer. Key elements are buildings limited to 35 feet, a dense, high, secure landscape buffer and limitations on allowable commercial activities. Unless changes are made that bring the current application in line with the spirit of Ordinance 99 -19 including the key elements noted above, I will remain adamantly opposed to its approval. I ask the County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for their support in achieving this goal. Please include this letter and all others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank you. Z 32 M 1t)C1 rp (—)prut= 19 -2- Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 346 of 513 LIOMNED March 25, 2008 8 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP li��C Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive 41)? Naples, FL 34104 2oN�N Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99-19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, 1705 -5 WINDY PINES DR NAPLES, FL 34112.2785 - F- _moo,�Q hRRRK KoS QD. L' o aAaAfit'. kizT RECEIVED LING DEPARTMEN't Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 347 of 513 March 28, 2008 SCANNED I I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, h MA, C April 1, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlacb, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Agenda Item No. 8F 22 2008 '�EMED APR 16 ZOOS ZONING DEPARTMENT SCANNED As a concerned resident of Falling Waters, I am writing to oppose approval ofthe current version of the Freestate CPUD. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This was a commercially viable, compatible solution for the county and our neighborhood. The current version of the proposed Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. We are currently in negotiations with the developer, with both sides working very hard to find a solution that will again benefit our residents and Collier County while still offering a financially viable plan for commercial development, at a neighborhood scale, to the developer. Key elements are buildings limited to 35 feet, a dense, high, secure landscape _ buffer and limitations on allowable commercial activities. Unless changes are made that bring the current application in line with the spirit of Ordinance 99 -19 including the key elements noted above, I will remain adamantly opposed to its approval. I ask the County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for their support in achieving this goal. Please include this letter and all others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank you. e Sincerely, j��� �(► lwir'C`l /'s "�� �`a.�. Collier County Government Community Development Service Division 2800 No Horseshoe Drive Naples Fla 34104 Atm; Nancy Gundlach Re; Letter of 4/11/08 Petition 2006 -ar -9486 My name is Al Bayman my address in Naples Fla is 2462 -2 Hidden Lake dr I am definatley against the proposed roa extension of Santa Barbara & the building of another shopping center. The proposed project will lower the value of my Condo a Considerable amount due to the noise of the road & the proposed .� ---- Traffic in the buildings.. I am very much opposed to this project & I hope it will be turned Down 1 received this letter on April 14" , so I could not respond Any earlier. My phone number in South Bend In is 1- 574.271 -0170 Thank you for any consideration to my request Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 349 of 513 RECEIVED APR 18 ZOOS ZONING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 350 of 513 SCANNED March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review RECEIVED 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 APR 1 2008 Subject: Freestate CPUD ZONING DEPARTMENT Dear Ms Gundlach, I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Failing Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Failing Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specttic-in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, loa_ , /is ,juttu.Ruppert 1940 Ca4cadekDrivel 5 NapLe , F1. 34112 T0: CoU.Ler County Depavtme nt of Zoning, avu' La %&Developm,ent c�o-Na wyC3undladv PrW,ipa.L Planner 2800 NOrt1vYorse9,4ge E)riNe Naplek FL. 34104 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 WARNED Naplek Apra 80", 2008 RECEIVED APR 10 208 ZONING 2ARTkENL._ _ — Ia. wvwrMng- th *UttP.ras-homeownera.vu'reiide w of Fa.U6no-WaterkovvVcLv&'81vd: ttrgo-on.recor&a- -beCng opposed' to- the/ appmvaZ, of the. Frrej&U&CPUa appUcarwvv now be for &yow. Ourconuru fluty addrew& th&wv- &ofdeveiopmentorvthwsavne/ neighborai#,parcaLn,1999, reu4att i� wordlna.nce/99 -19. That negot W,N betweewthe/'Developer, FaUutqWa.ters-avu'COULer County was- a good' fVL4t COMP romi sew arvs;ru#' frOMW.b9 nUa l effortkby al'partbeya#%&wvery *,,,c.f*t,de&U)A* g-aav u4ia4q� agreement o-w the/ natures of acceptmblei cowunerciaLl develop mint and the appopria tei buffer to- a*v adjacent e comuyuulity. Tu*rewWe&Lrvan.aq+w&upons compatiblesolotfovu Th& Freesia to CPUD wJ-* tv-ww#eaw the/ level of develop mewX, wh ae- dzc#vzgt,ng the bu f iwk wrtttaw into- a v crdi na noe, Wk than. 10 years olal. M* appUcattovv ig4A40f �pr" conunLtme by the/ County aru' o f jerk anv Alcompa4 -0,A& soUd, fo I a vw a do ma ntiy oppow& to-the/ approval of 6 * CPU'D by the/ COuM.ty av& wal, remaivv so- undesy cAaxige* are made/ that br tW thL& appU ca. S' wn .L#vUtieiwLth.OrdZna4tce99 -19. I aqw Cower County not to- break the ,6r word to- u4, now. Pie~ f nciude. th w letter a*ul, alL odwrk yaw receive, from Fa.U4*tW WaOpwk restdentk Lvvyour report- to- dul Pla nning,Camowuoyvanc' $cc. Dieter Pranks 1972 Cascades Drive 6 Naples, 34112 Collier County Depa$ment of Zoning and Land Development Ms. Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples n. 34104 — — April 7 2 08 -- - Dear Mrs. Gundlachl Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 352 of 513 SCANNED RECEIVED ZONING DEPARTMENT The purpose of this letter is to voice opposition to the subject proposed by Freestone CPUD and as propposed at the public hearing meeting held in October at the Calusa School on Santa Barbara Blvd. The reason for opposing this application is that it removes much of the compromise solution to the rezoning of that parcel in 1999. The essence of that solution provided buffering, screening and buildings that would not deter from the residential nature of our community. Unless the new owners are willing to create equivalent conditions that were contained in Ordinance 99 -19 to buffer and screen visual views of their buildings. I strongly urge the county to disapprove their application as it deminishes the quality of our lives especially concerning all the noise from future extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard to be expected. Yours truly, -4-=' Dieter Pranke Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 353 of 513 March 28, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 - Dear Ms Gundlach, -- ZOWN0 DEPART -"FNIT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99-19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. 1 am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, 1 / / ?7 d��,, t,Cz 14� J/ � a3c/ (o a� !1// 37�a�P Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 354 of 513 March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, /7 J � Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 355 of 513 March 28, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RECEIVED Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Al'k o 2 Z008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Failing Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will - remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 356 of 513 Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review RECEIVED 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Dear Ms. Gundlack: APR 0 2 2008 I am currently a resident of Falling Waters Gated Community on Davis Boulevar� NG DEPARTMENT and have been a full time resident since June 30, 2006. I am writing to object to any changes to the terms and conditions as outlined in Ordinance 99 -19 currently under consideration and requested by Freestate CPUD. The developer purchased this property next to Falling Waters in 2005 with the full knowledge of this agreement and now wants to undo the agreement to fit his needs without consideration of what it means to us in Falling Waters, economically or to our quality of life. After negotiation, Ordinance 99 -19 changed the zoning of the area to Commercial from Residential (A large concession on our part). For Collier County to break their word to us now and allow the MAJOR changes AGAIN as the developer is requesting at this stage is wrong and should not be allowed. Over one half of Falling Waters was built and sold with the knowledge that the agreement reached in 1999 would govern the development next door. The other half, including my wife and myself, were in residence and accepted the rezoning in good faith that this would be the governing resolution. Now, almost 10 years later, a further rezoning is being requested The Ordinance 99 -19 or its negotiated equivalent should be upheld or the rezoning changes as requested by the Developer denied. Best RReegards, Cc: Falling Waters Freestate CPUD Committee a 3 7d A /7 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 357 of 513 March 28, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 _ ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Failing Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, %7u�iQiR- � FG 3fF1lZ. Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 358 of 513 Dr. Fred & Linda Von Gunten 2352 Magnolia Lane, #2 Naples,FL 34112 -7587 March 29, 2008 Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Dr Naples, FL 34104 Dear Nancy Gundlach, I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before YOU. RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. Please include this letter and all others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank you. Sin ly, Ms. Linda K. Von Gunten �f 2352 Magnolia Ln #2 Falling Waters Naples,FL,34112 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 359 of 513 Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner RECEIVED March 25, 2008 APR 0 2 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach ZnNING DEPARTMENT i am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. 1 was made aware tbru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of - our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". _ This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 January& February 108. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to bear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPC) Agenda Item No, 8F July 22, 2008 Page 360 of 513 March 28, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive RECEIVED Naples, FL 34104 APR 0 2 2008 Subject: Freestate CPUD ZONING DEPARTMENT Dear Ms Gundlach, v, I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. i am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. 1 shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, ;4 93 /0d /4 B�al�d n , 14s/ �,Z 3Y -11.2 e23'9) S"3d 3,0 ;)/ Agenda Item No. 8F July 22. 2008 Page 361 of 513 March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive RECEIVED Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD APR 0 2 2008 ,- Z3NING DFpgRTiv!=�IT Dear Ms Gundlach, I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Failing Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. 1 shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, Ala, Ell Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 362 of 513 March 28, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. 1 shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours ,sincerely, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 363 of 513 Dr. Fred & Linda Von Gunten 2352 Magnolia Lane, #2 March 29, 2008 Naples,FL 34112-7587 Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review RECEIVED 2800 North Horseshoe Dr Naples, FL 34104 APR 0 2 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach, ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. Please include this letter and all others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission_,ynd BCC. Thank D5/Fred L. Von I 52 Magnoli n #2 Falling W rs Nanles 34112 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 364 of 513 2350 Hidden Lake Court # 1 I Naples, FL 34112 March 25, 2008 Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner RECEIVED Department of Zoning and Land Development Review APR 0 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 2 2008 Dear Ms. Gundlack: ZONING DEPARTMENT I am currently a resident of Falling Waters Gated Community on Davis Boulevard and have been a full time resident since June 30, 2006. 1 am writing to object to any changes to the terms and conditions as outlined in Ordinance 99 -19 currently under consideration and requested by Freestate CPUD. 'rhe developer purchased this property next to Falling Waters in 2005 with the full knowledge of this agreement and now wants to undo the agreement to fit his needs without consideration of what it means to us in Falling Waters, economically or to our quality of life. After negotiation, Ordinance 99 -19 changed the zoning of the area to Commercial from Residential (A large concession on our part). For Collier County to break their word to us now and allow the MAJOR changes AGAIN as the developer is requesting at this stage is wrong and should not be allowed. Over one half of Falling Waters was built and sold with the knowledge that the agreement reached in 1999 would govern the development next door. The other half, including my wife and myself, were in residence and accepted the rezoning in good faith that this would be the governing resolution. Now, almost 10 years later, a further rezoning is being requested. The Ordinance 99 -19 or its negotiated equivalent should be upheld or the rezoning changes as requested by the Developer denied. Best Regards, Richard Kahn Cc: Falling Waters Freestate CPUD Committee Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 365 of 513 March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 Subject: Freestate CPUD ZONING DEPARTMENT Dear Ms Gundlach, I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. - I am adamantly opposed to the- app. ovaI ofifft CPUO by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, /Ja/��YZF Z7/4 �r Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 - __ Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 366 of 513 March 25, 2008 RECEIVED _ APR 0 2. ZQ08 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 9909. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 367 of 513 March 28, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Failing Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, S� �C C C)k� L (� e, , — v �i0 r�, `t-L ��(j� Collier Countv Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 368 of 513 RECEIVED APR 0 2 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19 ", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly � t�G //JIq ;,71e ?Z c' CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPQ Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 369 of 513 Dr. Fred & Linda Von Gumen 2352 Magnolia Lane, #2 March 29, 2008 Naples,FL 34112 -7587 Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review RECEIVED 2800 North Horseshoe Dr Naples, FL 34104 APR 0 2 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach, ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. Please include this letter and all others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning CommissiogFd BCC. Th*nk, S' D on 1 5 2 Eagnoli n 42 Falling W Naoles_ .34112 / Ov )t Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach / Age des Iterr�do. 4F. '0'o 2008 P e f 513 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thra the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19 ", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan". We say, "stick to it". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too mach to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that We in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99-19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly 49TAM®R P. .. , M-W, Ii�►/, CC • Tom Henning Commissioner } Planning Commission (CCPQ �J Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25,2M Dear Nancy Gundlach Agend�)tem Page 37 of 513 J . . RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware #rDEPARTMENT last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to a east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December/07 January& February /08. This community's position and my persomal.position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the properly development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 9949 ", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to am it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly a� CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPC) f O Dear Mr Opet, Subj: Letter to Nancy Gundlach 3 -25 -2006 Date: 3/2512008 5:43:02 P.M. Eastem Daylight Time From: To: dunning68@aot.com 5a& v/fafex6 March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda %mll'Pof IF July 22, 2008 Page 372 of 513 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, ®John 9altes 2345 Hidden Lake Dr Apt 6 Naples, FL 34112.7593 Tuesday, March 25, 2008 AOL: dunning68 Dear Mr Opet, Subj: Letter to Nancy Gundlach 3 -25 -2008 Date: 3/25/2008 5:43:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: To: dunning68rgaol.com March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, AgendaVm1No bF July 22, 2008 Page 373 of 513 RECEIVEr APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99-19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, 6z //-/ 5 Tuesday, March 25, 2008 AOL: dunning68 O Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 374 of 513 RECEIVED Collier County APR 0 2 2008 Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach ZONING DEPARTMENT Principal Planner March 25, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings - in December /07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19 ", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to bear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly .1,L /";�, —� h/ /`� �vC75A J CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPQ Agenda, Ite/n 1 �>> age 35 of Collier County [ �4 Department Of Zoning and Land Development � Nancy Gundiach Principal Planner RECEIVED March 25, 2008 APR 0 2 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach ZONING DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December/07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that five in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99-19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly xl:�� 23 ,�I-,1/ Z CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPQ Dear i Jr Opet, Subl: Letter to Nancy Gundlach 3 -25 -2006 Date: 3/25/2008 5:43:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: i.mmorgar. net To: dunning68 @aol_com� ° J 6) I w March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda m WS bF July 22. 2008 Page 376 of 513 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Failing Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99-19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, Tuesday, March 25, 2008 AOL: dunning68 O Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 377 of 513 Collier Countv Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach RECEIVED Principal Planner APR 0 2 2008 March 25, 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT Dear Nancy Gundlach i am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 January& February 108. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19 ", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPC) O ft Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 378 of 513 March 25, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will - - remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach Agenda Item No. 8F July 22. 2008 Page 379 of 513 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our conamanities Master Association meetings in December/07 January& February /08. _ This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. "The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised as at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly 1 CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPQ Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 380 of 513 March 25, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Failing Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99-19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99-19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, ! � � �W 2- Falling Waters Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 SCANNIt6 March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 ' C EI VED Subject: Freestone CPUD BAR272W ZOMNr3 DEPARTMENT Dear Ms Gundlach, 1 am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99-19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development. while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless chanq_es are made that briny this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, �, Agenda Item No. 8F /1 p AW JJuIqully 22, 2008 SC�O513 March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RECEIVED Subject Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, MAR 2 7 20 ZON" &EPARTUEiv-__ I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99-19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. - — -- I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, a3�l�l ✓fiG�U�c��a LA, t17lt�P4 ` 1-f C' 3C -((I� r Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 383 of 513 Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner RECEIVED Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 APR 0 2 2008 Dear Ms. Gundlack: ZONING DEPARTMENT I am currently a resident of Falling Waters Gated Community on Davis Boulevard and have been a full time resident since June 30, 2006. I am writing to object to any changes to the terms and conditions as outlined in Ordinance 99 -19 currently under consideration and requested by Freestate CPUD. The developer purchased this property next to Falling Waters in 2005 with the full knowledge of this agreement and now wants to undo the agreement to fit his needs without consideration of what it means to us in Falling Waters, economically or to our quality of life. After negotiation, Ordinance 99 -19 changed the zoning of the area to Commercial from Residential (A large concession on our part). For Collier County to break their word to us now and allow the MAJOR changes AGAIN as the developer is requesting at this stage is wrong and should not be allowed. Over one half of Falling Waters was built and sold with the knowledge that the agreement reached in 1999 would govern the development next door. The other half, including my wife and myself, were in residence and accepted the rezoning in good faith that this would be the governing resolution. Now, almost 10 years later, a further rezoning is being requested. The Ordinance 99 -19 or its negotiated equivalent should be upheld or the rezoning changes as requested by the Developer denied. Best Regards, ���� Cc: Falling Waters Freestate CPUD Committee Falling Waters Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 384 of 513 March 25, 2008 Arn 0 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, white decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours �sincerely, Falling Waters Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 _K _ Subject: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach. Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 385 of 513 March 25, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT 1 am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you, Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincere objections in your report on this Falling Waters Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 .. Subject: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 386 of 513 March 25, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT 1 am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99-19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, v )-0) -3 lAw�14W(�'q rVJrL�rf Falling Waters Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach. Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 387 of 513 March 25, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT 1 am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. i shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC_ Yours sincerely, G' /(/,f "0C s (�G 3 f-1 /1 Falling Waters Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach. Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 388 of 513 March 25, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, J _,_p._. qj, ,- 3`f11;;" Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Dear Ms. Gundlack: Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 389 of 513 ,3.3d•o8 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am currently a resident of Falling Waters Gated Community on Davis Boulevard and have been a full time resident since June 30, 2006.1 am writing to object to any changes to the terns and conditions as outlined in Ordinance 99 -19 currently undeer consideration and requested by Freestate CPUD. — The developer purchased this property next to Falling Waters in 2005 with the full knowledge of this agreement and now wants to undo the agreement to fit his needs without consideration of what it means to us in Falling Waters, economically or to our quality of life. After negotiation, Ordinance 99 -19 changed the zoning of the area to Commercial from Residential (A large concession on our part). For Collier County to break their word to us now and allow the MAJOR changes AGAIN as the developer is requesting at this stage is wrong and should not be allowed. Over one half of Falling Waters was built and sold with the knowledge that the agreement reached in 1999 would govern the development next door. The other half, including my wife and myself, were in residence and accepted the rezoning in good faith that this would be the governing resolution. Now, almost 10 years later, a further rezoning is being requested The Ordinance 99 -19 or its negotiated equivalent should be upheld or the rezoning changes as requested by the Developer denied. Best Regards, / Cc: Falling Waters Freestate CPUD Committee f2a A "4!544.E .73"s1'g,07 z?d141,otl2 /t/P,Fts 3 yc // 2 7 7:ir ?/z •/�3 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 390 of 513 March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive RECEIVED Naples, FL 34104 Subject Freestate CPUD APR 0 2 2008 Dear Ms Gundlach, ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99-19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, a em No. 86/t /fit l4/�2, 2008 ag 91 of 513 Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25, 7008 Dear Nancy Gundlach I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of — our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December/07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99-19. "We believed, we were duly protected". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99-19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly - FL CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPC) RECEIVED APR 0 2 Z008 ZONING DEPARTMENT Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Agenda Item No. 8F Jul 2008 /agJgJ of 513 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 Dear Ms. Gundlack: ZONING DEPARTMENT I am currently a resident of Falling Waters Gated Community on Davis Boulevard and have been a full time resident since June 30, 2006.1 am writing to object to any changes to the terms and conditions as outlined in Ordinance 99 -19 currently -- under consideration and requested by Freestate CPUD. The developer purchased this property next to Falling Waters in 2005 with the full knowledge of this agreement and now wants to undo the ageement to fit his needs without consideration of what it means to us in Falling Waters, economically or to our quality of life. After negotiation, Ordinance 99 -19 changed the zoning of the area to Commercial from Residential (A large concession on our part). For Collier County to break their word to us now and allow the MAJOR changes AGAIN as the developer is requesting at this stage is wrong and should not be allowed Over one half of Falling Waters was built and sold with the knowledge that the agreement reached in 1999 would govern the development next door. The other half, including my wife and myself, were in residence and accepted the rezoning in good faith that this would be the governing resolution. Now, almost 10 years later, a further rezoning is being requested. The Ordinance 99 -19 or its negotiated equivalent should be upheld or the rezoning changes as requested by the Developer denied. Best Regards, Cc: Falling Waters Freestate CPUD Committee Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 393 of 513 March 28. 2008 RECEIVED 0 2 2008 __ Dear Ms Gundlach, ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Failing Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD "6yThe'C60—nty and wiltr" remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, Qlc S, -Jos 2137, 2- Agenda Item No. 8F ` 08 RECEIVE[) f� January 31, 2008 F. � _ b 2W8 ZONING DEPARTMENT Nancy Gundlach Collier County Department of Zoning & Land Development 2800 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Project 2005080017 Dear Ms Gundlach, First, I appreciate the time you took to meet with me in your office on January 23, 2008. The purpose of this letter is to voice opposition to the subject proposed Freestone CPUD, as proposed at the public hearing meeting held in October at the Cal usa School on Santa Barbara Blvd. The reason for opposing this application is that is removes much of the compromise solution to the rezoning of that parcel in 1999. The essence of that solution provided buffering, screening and buildings that would not deter from the residential nature of our community. Unless the new owners are willing to create equivalent conditions that were contained in Ordinance 99 -19 to buffer and screen visual views of their buildings, I strongly urge the County to disapprove their application. Yours truly, am(d es E. NNinehesterr 2347 M (,mo6a Lane, Apt. 1 Naples, FL 34112 RECEIVED FEB -5 M ZONING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No. 8F IZAA L8 'zLi �/GCG c/% /U V(CG�Cl/ /GC( �llX(l�c.�1. e// f D 233N dlognoliu Lane #2 .Naples, Florida, 34112 239_- 93 -33xx Collier County RECEIVED Department of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach FEB - 5 2008 Principal Planner Re: Freestate CPUD ZONING DEPARTMEN January 29, 2008 Dear Ms. Gundlach 1 am currently a resident of Falling Waters Gated Community on Davis Boulevard and have been a full time resident since June 1, 1998. 1 am writing to object to any changes to the terms and conditions as outlined in Ordinance 99 -19 currently under consideration and requested by Freestate CPUD. The developer purchased this property next to Falling Waters in 2005 with the full knowledge of this agreement and now wants to undo the agreement to fit his needs without consideration of what it means to us in Falling Waters, economically or to our quality of life. After negotiation, Ordinance 99 -19 changed the zoning of the area to Commercial from Residential (A large concession on our part). For Collier County to break their word to us now and allow the MAJOR changes AGAIN as the developer is requesting at this stage is wrong and should not be allowed. Over one half of Falling Waters was built and sold with the knowledge that the agreement reached in 1999 would govern the development next door. The other half, including my wife and myself, were in residence and accepted the rezoning in good faith that this would be the governing resolution. Now, almost 10 years later, a further rezoning is being requested The Ordinance 99 -19 or its negotiated equivalent should be upheld or the rezoning changes as requested by the Developer denied Best Regards, Ray McCabe CC: Planning Commission (CCPC) Tom Henning Collier County Commissioner 1 . . JOHN P. BALIO 2415 Hidden Lake Drive, #9 Naples, FL 34112 239- 530 -0261 February 18, 2008 Ms. Nancy Gundlach, AICP Principal Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Dear Ms. Gundlach: My wife and I are residents of Falling Waters Community off Davis Blvd., Naples, Florida. We have been made aware that the Developer of land to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD" is seeking a change in zoning. Evidently, ten years ago, the Developer, our Community and the County Commissioners, after a lengthy hearing and debate, agreed to "Ordinance 99 -19 ". Based on the representations of the Developer and the County's concern, our Community went along with the change of zoning. We now understand that the Developer is seeking an additional change in zoning. In other words, he has not kept his word with the compromise and representations that he would not seek an additional variance. We believe that should this change be approved, the value of our premises will be substantially reduced and only add difficulty to sell. Our commitment ten years ago was based on the premise that the Developer would not seek an additional change in the zoning and that the County would not permit it. We therefore respectfully request that "Ordinance 99 -19" should continue in full force in effect and that the re- zoning change denied. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. truly P.S. Because the Developer has reneged brh his representation made ten years ago, maybe the Commissioners and the County should return the premise to the original zoning before "Ordinance 99 -19" was passed. m t July 22, 2008 Plage 397 of 513 GundlachNancy From: BudJoyR @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 4:44 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Freestone CPUD I am currently a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters Gated Community on Davis Boulevard. 1 was made aware of the proposed development to the east of our property known as " Freestate CPUD" and I wish to go on record as being opposed to the application now before you. I object to any changes of the terms and conditions as outlined in Ordinance 99 -19 currently under consideration and requested by Freestate CPUD. I have no objection to the developer proceeding with the property development, however, I feel he must adhere to the original terms and conditions. The developer purchased this property next to Falling Waters in 2005 with the full knowledge of the original agreement and now wants to increase the level of the development and decrease the buffers to this residential community. This application by the developer ignores prior commitments by the county which were written into an ordinance 10 years ago. This ordinance should be upheld and the changes requested by the developer be denied. Sincerely, James C. Remer. 2370 Hidden Lake Court # 7 Naples, FL 34112 -7827 Its Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance. 3/5/2008 GundlachNancy From: GIRARD STRAUS [gstraus @prodigy.net] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:01 AM To: GundlachNancy Cc: Bob Jenkins Subject: Ordinance 99 -19 Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner Dear Nancy Gundlach: AgendEPW W* July 22, 2008 Page ` i" %A1MtN LJ 398 of 513 I am writing to you because I am a homowner and resident of Falling Waters Davis to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Develper, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unamimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into and ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. Please include this letter and all others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Sincerely, Girard Straus 2345 Hidden lake Drive Unit 7 Naples, FI 34112 3/6/2008 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 ^y of 513 Dept of Zoning and Land development review 3 march 2008 Attn : Ms Nancy Gundlach The purpose of this letter is to voice opposition to the subject proposed Freestone CPUD, as proposed at the public hearing meeting held in October at the Calusa School on Santa Barbara Blvd. The reason for opposing this application is that is removes much of the compromise solution to the rezoning of that parcel in 1999. The essence of that solution provided buffering, screening and buildings that would not deter from the residential nature of our community. Unless the new owners are willing to create equivalent conditions that were contained in Ordinance 99 -19 to buffer and screen visual views of –lwir buildings, I stron --ly urge the County to cl– sapprove their application. Yours truly, C . 0� lorence M. Obrecht 2326 Magnolia Ln. #5 — Naples 34112 9�� 2375 Hidden Lake Dr. #1 Naples, Fl. 34112 March 3, 2008 Collier County RECEIVED Department of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach MAR - 5 2008 AICP Principal Planner ZONING DEPARTMENT 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl. 34104 Dear Nancy Gundlach: Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 400 of 513 ANNED I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. Please include this letter and all others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, J. F. Dielenhein qq- t 3 Agenda Item No. 8F SCR'! uEp13 13 RECEIVED MAR 1 12008 ?0 G E u %. of p� r,'RE^ em No. 81 �CjAR}IVe. ; y ""008 V PageD02 of 513 MAR } } 2008 Collier County Department Or Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gandlach Principal Planner ZONING DEPARTMENT I am witting this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before YOU Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99-19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. Please include this letter and all others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank you. Sincerely, � /� Rsste�' 8F SCANNED m0a e40�ef 13 ZONING KDEPAR`7.MME0NT U ,mot_ J e,,I�d�Rt�, X19 ?�F 0CA. %Nb rJuly22,2008 VVf"� 'F�age 404 of 513. GundlachNancy From: Chevy215 @aol.com Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:10 AM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Fwd: Freestate CPUD Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Nancy Gundtach @colliergov.net Subject: Freestate CPUDDate: March the 8th I am currently a resident of Falling Waters Gated Community on Davis Blvd. & have been a resident since August 2002. I am writing to object to any changes to the terms & conditions as outlined in Ordinance 99 -19 currently under consideration & requested by Freestate CPUD. The developer purchased this property next to Falling Waters in 2005 with the full knowledge of this agreement & now wants to undo the agreement to fit his needs without consideration of what it means to us in Falling Waters, economically or to our quality of life. After negotiation, Ordinance 99 -19 changed the zoning of the area to Commercial from Residential (A large concession on our part). For Collier County to break their word to us now & allow the MAIOR changes AGAIN as the developer is requesting at this stage is wrong & should not be allowed. Over one half of Falling Waters was built & sold with the knowledge that the agreement reached in 1999 would govern the development next door. The other half, including my wife & myself, were in residence & accepted the rezoning in good faith that this would be the governing resolution. No, almost 10 years later, a further rezoning is being requested. The Ordinance 99 -19 or its negotiated equivalent should be upheld or the rezoning changes as requested by the Developer denied. Sincerely yours, Edward and Rosemary Chevalier 2375 Hidden Lake Drive, Naples Florida 34112 Its Tax Time! Get tips. forms and advice on AOL_Money & Finance. 3/11/2008 SCANNED Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 RECEIVEDage 405 of 513 MAR 'Z 1 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT March 19, 2008 I write concerning the above, which is proposed to be built between Falling Waters and the Santa Barbara extension. As you will see from the address above, I am an owner and resident in the Falling Waters community. It is my understanding that in 1999, the then owner /developer was granted a permit to develop this parcel of land under Ordinances 99-19 but subject to certain restrictions, for example, as regards the height of buildings and the amount of setback. We are informed that this was eventually agreed after much discussion between all the parties concerned, with concessions on all sides. It was because of this agreement that we decided to purchase property here. However, we now discover that a new owner /developer is seeking to have these Ordinances overturned and the restrictions withdrawn. We presume that when they purchased the property in 2005, they must have been fully aware of them. I wish to place on record my robust objection to the withdrawal of any of the restrictions agreed in 1999. In my view, to do so would be a travesty of justice and break previous commitments by the County. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the new owner /developer's request should be dismissed and that they should be required to adhere fully to the terms and conditions of the original permit under Ordinances 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will inciude my views and objections in your report uri this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, 9C 0 �. Gal Penning 2389 Hidden Lake Court C Naples, FL 34112 tt(l (239) T75-4612 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 406 of 513 SCANNED March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will Include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, 12 March 2008 Nancy Gunlach Principal Planner Community Development And Environmental Services Dear Ms Gunlach Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 SCaANNED I am writing this letter in support of the Falling Waters communities position regarding the development of the property abutting our community. In all honesty I feel this is a wasted effort on our part to have anyone connected to the County government caring about our problems concerning this project I feel that the conditions that were outlined in Ordinance 99-19, as described to our Master Association should be adhered to. When we purchased our unit at 2355 Hidden lake Dr., wiere led to believe that the land being developed for the road extending Santa Barbara Blvd to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd was "protected land and couldn't be developed" that was the start of a long line of "shady deals" regarding this area. I join my neighbors in sincerely requesting you and your committee to uphold Ordinance 99-19 in total, all rezoning changes requested by the developer should be denied. Sincerely r; 2355 Hidden Lake Naples Fl. 34112 cc: Commissioner Tom Henning j� EC E I V E D cc: Planning Commissioner Mark Strain Chairman MAR 17 NOB ZONING DEPARTMENT N LUELLA/PETER GRANDAZZA 1645 Windy Pines Dr. #4 Naples, Fl. 34112 March 25,1008 Nancy Gundlach, ALCP Dept. of Zoning 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, Fl. 34104 Dear Ms. Gundlach: Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 408 of 513 SCANNED RECEIVED 14AR 2 7,W ZON140 DEPARTMENT 1 am currently a resident of Falling Waters Gated Community on Davis Blvd. and have been a resident for 15 years. I am writing to object to any changes to the terms and conditions as outlined in Ordinance 99 -19 currently under consideration and requested by Freestate CPUD. The developer purchased this property with the full knowledge of this aggreement and now wants to undo it. For Collier Coiunty to break their word to us now and allow the Major changes is wrong and should not be allowed. The Ordinance 99-19 or its negotiated equivalent should be upheld or the rezoning changes as requested by the developer denied. Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F Sick 2, 2008 D RECEI VEp MAR 21 2X8 20NfNG DEPApr,._ March 25, 2008 1 am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99-19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99-19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, Mr. Henry J. Cappello Apt l 2338 Magnolia Ln Naples, FL 34112 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 410 of 513 - SCANNED Collier County 03 -25 -2008 Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach - Principal Planner Dear Nancy Gundlach I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware through the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPOD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 and January 108. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however. must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19 ". The Developer, the community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it" In [date] we purchased our new home at Falling Waters. Our home is located in [name[ Association, which; will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of this ordinance, "We believed, we were duty protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the '86 homeowners that live in this community. Please stop this process today. Yours truly Gerhard 3aade 2004 Cascades Dr. # 4 Naples F. 34112 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 411 of 513 Nancy Gundlach SCA ` NED AICP , Principal Planner Dept. pf Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Ft. 34104 I am writing this letter as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer of Falling Waters and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that brings this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. Please include this letter and all others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank you, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 412 of 513 SCANNED Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19 ", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly a A.t k c , -) �-k..-,• 9.,446R4 E ..1exj% tL -r CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPQ RECEIVED APR 0 1 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT AgernbRA 0.18F July 22, 2008 SCP► of F, p GundlachNancy From: SUSAN MCPHAIL (smcphail903 @verizon.net] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 7:44 PM To: GundlachNancy Cc: funluvnnow @aol.com Subject: Development Freestate CPUD Dear Nancy Gundlach, The purpose of this letter is to voice opposition to the subject proposed Freestate CPUD, as proposed at the public hearing meeting held in October at the Calusa School on Santa Barbara Blvd. The reason for opposing this application is that it removes much of the compromise solution to the rezoning of that parcel in 1999. The essence of that solution provided buffering, screening and buildings that would not deter from the residential nature of our community. Unless the new owners are willing to create equivalent conditions that were contained in Ordinance 99 -19 to buffer and screen visual views of their buildings, I strongly urge the County to disapprove their application. Yours truly, Susan Lombard - McPhail 2348 Hidden Lake Drive #6 Naples, Florida 34112 4/1/2008 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 SCAB NOn RECEIVED MAR 2 l 2008 ZON11N0 March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, 1 am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 SWiNNau RECEIVED Collier County MAR 2 7 W Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach ZONING DEPARTMENT Principal Planner March 25, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach T am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19 ", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly NCO %sr Flo/Lio(q 3 v /ice CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPQ SCANNED Agenda Item No. 8F RJuly 22, 2008 EC EPag_e 4416 of 513 W R 171008 v/fQtGlr6 Z01IN0 DEpgF1T44EN7 -- March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, ...�_� I am writiggthis letter now as a homeowner. and r arin� :�. _ y on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, It "i 4 Zip �A9et�008 fipp& L745 11f Vt March 19, 2008 sUANNED Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review �E 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 MAR E7 VEp Subject: Freestone CPUD ZONING D EPAHTM �� I write concerning the above, which is proposed to be built between Fa�rng Waters and the Santa Barbara extension. As you will see from the address above, I am an owner and resident in the Falling Waters community. It is my understanding that in 1999, the then owner /developer was granted a permit to develop this parcel of land under Ordinances 99 -19 but subject to certain restrictions, for example, as regards the height of buildings and the amount of setback. We are informed that this was eventually agreed after much discussion between all the parties concerned, with concessions on all sides. It was because of this agreement that we decided to purchase property here. However, we now discover that a new owner /developer is seeking to have these Ordinances overturned and the restrictions withdrawn. We presume that when they purchased the property in 2005, they must have been fully aware of them_ I wish to place on record my robust objection to the withdrawal of any of the restrictions agreed in 1999. In my view, to do so would be a travesty of justice and break previous commitments by the County. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the new owner /developer's request should be dismissed and that they should be required to adhere fully to the terms and conditions of the original permit under Ordinances 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sm7ely, W Dear MT Opet, Subj: Letter to Nancy Gundlach 3 -25 -2008 Date: 32512008 5:43:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: rgan'13,` ret To: dunning68 @aol.com Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agendal %%O bF July 22, 2008 SUANN5ED RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2W8 ZONING DEPARTMENT March 25, 2008 I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. �-�- I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless _— changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, F L anlpa ymon 23 Hidden Lake Dr. #3 Naples, FL 34t t 2. Tuesday, March 25, 2008 AOL: dunning68 Nancy Gundlach AICP, Principal Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 419 of 513 SCANNED RECEIVED MAR 2 71008 Dear Nancy Gundlach ZONING DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Failing Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware through the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 and January /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19 ". The Developer, the community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". In May 2003 we purchased our new home at Falling Waters. Our home is located in Cascades Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of this ordinance, "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. Please stop this process today. Yours truly, Bradley J. Weigel 1972 Cascades Blvd. Unit 2 Naples, FL 34112 - J�,rw SCANNED THAI -J- AVAd�(At�x2fJo.8F July 22, 2 ° 8 23 9C AMGIkda4, or t IYW PC F( 3 q March 19, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Ike Department of Zoning and Land Development Review F� 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ?oR15 �1CO Naples, FL 34104 *, Subject: Freestone CPUD ,H aFpg9T FNT_. I write concerning the above, which is proposed to be built between Falling Waters and the Santa Barbara extension. As you will see from the address above, I am an owner and resident in the Falling Waters community. It is my understanding that in 1999, the then owner /developer was granted a permit to develop this parcel of land under Ordinances 99 -19 but subject to certain restrictions, for example, as regards the height of buildings and the amount of setback. We are informed that this was eventually agreed after much discussion between all the parties concerned, with concessions on all sides. It was because of this agreement that we decided to purchase property here. However, we now discover that a new owner /developer is seeking to have these Ordinances overturned and the restrictions withdrawn. We presume that when they purchased the property in 2005, they must have been fully aware of them. I wish to place on record my robust objection to the withdrawal of any of the restrictions agreed in 1999. In my view, to do so would be a travesty of justice and break previous commitments by the County. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the new owner /developer's request should be dismissed and that they should be required to adhere fully to the terms and conditions of the original permit under Ordinances 99 -19. I ,;..all be grateful if you will include _ny views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, A10l- 1944-(W C G, ES S T 1C - roM`T6 Ll S 13 Y E} NCO LV 1i✓G `Tic I`-q P,7 Alvp OF ' l r� �ESLIk- %112'6 DEC�4�5C I/i Y' �?d,4 LIT% OF 00 r� To"1 ?-rtY �E�Efat o i HL 4/ew G�✓ C- 4 ia44K to ✓. %*pjIAn Kb7 d ..2608 C o l %ER �a+...r i'y �Uiy z2, 200 Page 421 of 513 1q� 6 I (fc,,4 ,� �-� ✓� QE ✓�it SCANNED RAC E1VEp C�'"17Q 1421. "OWI/yG 3 2 �ieirJC,PAI /��Cty� �EPARTMEN,. i�5 0. ✓7Qine..c w,d e.� � FA ll�.,! (- JA�n�, S lQ�► S tai ✓d� �. c.l, 7 To a// /—' a tA-& CPU '6 e A Ardw W. cJ ,C F sf4t C P" 4 s-QQ ks /z Lr7 "PA le f� devt,16p� W2; tl r.0 �:J7o a-r. dt nGt-„ ca less l,�4.J /o y fcun 3 o id ��P CA Kati/ i q� aces 411A 4" Cam m ; frna n {S by 71- �7 —T A"1a u�0a�eCL� Igo f/� appo✓RY 0-P f-AfS CPtoQ aL",� y a-y, d w, ii ss c h4 Y,�s %p 116,1 tV 0rjL"A- . ciz 9g_ 19 su 6a7, 11'�,d b y Agenda Ifa J�p�% _ — Jul 2, 29 VFD SCANNED Page V08 �pN/NG pfPgRTM fNr March 19, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD I write concerning the above, which is proposed to be built between Falling Waters and the Santa Barbara extension. As you will see from the address above, I am an owner and resident in the Falling Waters community. It is my understanding that in 1999, the then owner /developer was granted a permit to develop this parcel of land under Ordinances 99 -19 but subject to certain restrictions, for example, as regards the height of buildings and the amount of setback. We are informed that this was eventually agreed after much discussion between all the parties concerned, with concessions on all sides. It was because of this agreement that we decided to purchase property here. However, we now discover that a new owner /developer is seeking to have these Ordinances overturned and the restrictions withdrawn. We presume that when they purchased the property in 2005, they must have been fully aware of them. I wish to place on record my robust objection to the withdrawal of any of the restrictions agreed in 1999. In my view, to do so would be a travesty of justice and break previous commitments by the County. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the new owner /developer's request should be dismissed and that they should be required to adhere fully to the terms and conditions of the original permit under Ordinances 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, 1 ,eY 6�P,3 7z��� �K�z. SCANNED Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22; 2008 Page 423 of 513 RECEIVED MAR 2 1 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT March 19, 2008 I write concerning the above, which is pr'opo'sed tote built between Falling Waters and the Santa Barbara extension. As you will see from the address above, I am an owner and resident in the Falling Waters community. It is my understanding that in 1999, the then owner /developer was granted a permit to develop this parcel of land under Ordinances 99 -19 but subject to certain restrictions, for example, as regards the height of buildings and the amount of setback. We are informed that this was eventually agreed after much discussion between all the parties concerned, with concessions on all sides. It was because of this agreement that we decided to purchase property here. However, we now discover that a new owner /developer is seeking to have these Ordinances overturned and the restrictions withdrawn. We presume that when they purchased the property in 2005, they must have been fully aware of them. I wish to place on record my robust objection to the withdrawal of any of the restrictions agreed in 1999. In my view, to do so would be a travesty of justice and break previous commitments by the County. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the new owner /developer's request should be dismissed and that they should be required to adhere fully to the terms and conditions of the original permit under Ordinances 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely', / �_ vrw� yiuR�v .'ANNEW Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 424 of 513 March 19, 2008 RECEIVED MAR 2 1 20(18 ZONING OEPARTME I write concerning the above, which is proposed to be built between Falling Waters and the Santa Barbara extension. As you will see from the address above, I am an owner and resident in the Falling Waters community. It is my understanding that in 1999, the then owner /developer was granted a permit to develop this parcel of land under Ordinances 99 -19 but subject to certain restrictions, for example, as regards the height of buildings and the amount of setback We are informed that this was eventually agreed after much discussion between all the parties concerned, with concessions on all sides. It was because of this agreement that we decided to purchase property here. However, we now discover that a new owner /developer is seeking to have these Ordinances overturned and the restrictions withdrawn. We presume that when they purchased the property in 2005, they must have been fully aware of them I wish to place on record my robust objection to the withdrawal of any of the restrictions agreed in 1999. In my view, to do so would be a travesty of justice and break previous commitments by the County. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the new owner /developer's request should be dismissed and that they should be required to adhere fully to the terms and conditions of the original permit under Ordinances 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, _ Faltl&)g luwlPt -a �; �z uc s $ ldd, �3yS M�gv�a i IQ fie, No. 8F cr 1 July 22, 2008 SlONNNE NQQ �eS rL, age 425of513 Co���2rCoe i` o� Z0,�N Qhd Lao %a DeveloPrrq e bk?a,rt �+ `� CEIVED is��d.la�ln, ��I"'�`�a� �fac4�ltr MAR 25 2008 Nooavt,y ` `1 a.soo moYt,� }tar5e��O��rcJe ZONING DEPARTMENT Nai\e5 J)ap-r W $e ra Q �ba..<.." 1', acre 9 o44X --)&Z q q --ti01 I 4� � C- POb, ac 'Ib e? July f .-f 05 4 13 Jill r� W /// �-/� wa.&C aIW �-- E� JANAN� ^^''�— Agenda Item No. 8F l � s D July 22, 2008 Page 427 of 513 Nancy Gundlach RECEIVED AICP , Principal Planner Dept. pf Zoning and Land Development Review MAR 2 U$ 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl. 34104 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer of Falling Waters and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that brings this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. Please include this letter and all others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank you, Thomas Lazge� 2375 Hidden Lake Dr Apt 7 Naples Ft. 34112 Agenda Item No. 8F SCANNED Page 1428 of 5108 From: Barbara & Ralf -Peter Gntbe 1972 Cascades Dr. # 10 Naples, FL 34112 -2715 To: Nancy Gundlach AICP 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34112 Subject: Freestate CPUD We are residents of Falling Waters (Davis Blvd). 10 years ago we were promised Ord. 99 -19 by the county commisioners. We agreed to its terms. Now we expect the developer to do likewise. Please „Stick to it" All changes to the developer must be denied. Kind regards C/ RECEIVED MAR 2020 ZONING DEPARTMENT This letter is to express my concern over the subject proposal, which I understand seeks to overturn certain terms and conditions agreed to in 1999 and incorporated into law under Ordinances 99 -19. I am an owner in Falling Waters, and wish to express my opposition to any modifications of the restrictions agreed to in 1999, which restrictions should have been known to the new developer at the time he purchased the land. Please include my objection in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank you. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http: / /www.yahoo.com /r /hs No. 8F S �.J1"1 2008 3� of 513 GundlachNancy From: Pete Clegg ]pwclegg @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:11 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Freestone CPUD This letter is to express my concern over the subject proposal, which I understand seeks to overturn certain terms and conditions agreed to in 1999 and incorporated into law under Ordinances 99 -19. I am an owner in Falling Waters, and wish to express my opposition to any modifications of the restrictions agreed to in 1999, which restrictions should have been known to the new developer at the time he purchased the land. Please include my objection in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank you. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http: / /www.yahoo.com /r /hs 12 March 2008 Nancy Gunlach Principal Planner Community Development And Environmental Services Dear Ms Gunlach Agenda Item No. 8F Jul 22 2008 I am writing this letter in support of the Falling Waters communities position regarding the development of the property abutting our community. In all honesty I feel this is a wasted effort on our part to have anyone connected to the County government caring about our problems cone ming this project. I feel that the conditions that were outlined in Ordinance 99 -19, as described to our Master Association should be adhered to. When we purchased our unit at 2355 Hidden Lake Dr., we were led to believe that the land being developed for the road extending Santa Barbara Blvd to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd was "protected land and couldn't be developed" that was the start of a long line of "shady deals" regarding this area I join my neighbors in sincerely requesting you and your committee to uphold Ordinance 99 -19 m total, all rezoning changes requested by the developer should be denied. Sincerely Hard S 2355 en Lake Dr- s Fl. 34112 cc: Commissioner Tom Henning cc: Planning Commissioner Mark Strain Chairman RECEIVED MAR 17 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT GundlachNancy From: denisemaccadni@aol.com Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 7:20 AM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Freestate CPUD Application Dear Ms. Gundlach: Agend,?RgFhW. AF July 22, 2008 Page 431 of 513 SCANNED As a homeowner and full -time resident of Falling Waters, I am writing you to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed this issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed -upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 year old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are trade to bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. Please include this e-mail and all other a -mails and letters you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Denise Maccarini 2355 Hidden Lake Dr. #1 Naples, FL 34112 Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar for your browser. 2/28/2008 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 432 of 513 RECEIVED March 28, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ma Gundlach, APR 0 7 2006 ZONING DEPARTMENT 1 am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed'to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this We neighboring. parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99-19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with - Ordinance 99-19. - -- — I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, b0y {.6<_ -r- Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 RECL VED APR 0 7 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT April 1, 2008 As a concerned resident of Falling Waters, I am writing to oppose approval of the current version of the Freestate CPUD. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This was a commercially viable, compatible solution for the county and our neighborhood. The current version of the proposed Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. We are currently in negotiations with the developer, with both sides working very hard to find a solution that will again benefit our residents and Collier County while still offering a financially viable plan for commercial development, at a neighborhood scale, to the developer. Key elements are buildings limited to 35 feet, a dense, high, secure landscape buffer and limitations on allowable commercial activities. Unless changes are made that bring the current application in line with the spirit of Ordinance 99 -19 including the key elements noted above, I will remain adamantly opposed to its approval. I ask the County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for their support in achieving this goal Please include this letter and all others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank you. Sincerely, Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Dear Ms. Gundlack: Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 434 of 513 RECEIVED APR 0 7 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am currently a resident of Falling Waters Gated Community on Davis Boulevard and have been a full time resident since June 30, 2006.1 am writing to object to any changes to the terms and conditions as outlined in Ordinance 99 -19 currently under consideration and requested by Freestate CPUD. The developer purchased this property next to Falling Waters in 2005 with the full knowledge of this agreement and now wants to undo the agreement to fit his needs without consideration of what it means to us in Falling Waters, economically or to our quality of life. After negotiation, Ordinance 99 -19 changed the zoning of the area to Commercial from Residential (A large concession on our part). For Collier County to break their word to us now and allow the MAJOR changes AGAIN as the developer is requesting at this stage is wrong and should not be allowed. Over one half of Failing Waters was built and sold with the knowledge that the agreement reached in 1999 would govern the development next door. The other half, including my wife and myself, were in residence and accepted the rezoning in good faith that this would be the governing resolution. Now, almost 10 years later, a further rezoning is being requested. The Ordinance 99 -19 or its negotiated equivalent should be upheld or the rezoning changes as requested by the Developer denied. Best Regards, Cc: Falling Waters Freestate CP Committee Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 435 of.513 RECEIVED APR 0 7 '1008 ZONING DEPARTMENT March 27, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Sub: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, As a homeowner in the Falling Waters (Davis Blvd) development, I was advised that the Freestate CPUD is seeking approval for a modification to the previous agreement with Falling Waters, Collier County, and the Developer. We were made aware of that (Ordinance 99 -19) agreement before our purchase in 2000 and we are opposed to the requested changes regarding the buffer between the communities and allowable building heights. We believe the builder should be held to the previous agreement! We understand that you are preparing a report, on the impact of these proposed changes, and that is the reason we are addressing our concerns to you. Thank you for your time and I hope our views will be considered in your report. Sincerely, Urban and Darleen Schultz 2405 Hidden Lake Drive #8 Naples, FL 34112 Dear Mr Opet, Subj: Letter to Nancy Gundlach 5-25 -2008 Date: 3/252008 5!43:02 P.M. Eastem Daylight Time From: To: dunning6bLaol.com Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, AgendNFAAf AF July 22, 2008 Page 436 of 513 RECEIVED APR 07: ZONING DEPARTMENT March 25, 2008 I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, Tuesday. March 25, 2008 AOL: dunning68 it ii April 1, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Agenda Item No. 8F PaRLIEW2291VED APR 0 7 2008 ZONING DEPARTMEN i As a concerned resident of Falling Waters, I am writing to oppose approval of the current version of the Freestate CPUD. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This was a commercially viable, compatible solution for the county and our neighborhood. The current version of the proposed Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. We are currently in negotiations with the developer, with both sides working very hard to find a solution that will again benefit our residents and Collier County while still offering a financially viable plan for commercial development, at a neighborhood scale, to the developer. Key elements are buildings limited to 35 feet, a dense, high, secure landscape buffer and limitations on allowable commercial activities. Unless changes are made that bring the current application in line with the spirit of Ordinance 99 -19 including the key elements noted above, I will remain adamantly opposed to its approval. I ask the County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for their support in achieving this goal. Please include this letter and all others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank you. Sincerely, Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Agenda Item No. 8F,, July 22, 2008 Page 438 of 513 RECEIVED APR 0 7 2006 ZONING DEPARTMENT March 19, 2008 I write concerning the above, which is proposed to be built between Falling Waters and the Santa Barbara extension. As you will see from the address above, I am an owner and resident in the Falling Waters community. It is my understanding that in 1999, the then owner /developer was granted a permit to develop this parcel of land under Ordinances 99 -19 but subject to certain restrictions, for example, as regards the height of buildings and the amount of setback. We are informed that this was eventually agreed after much discussion between all the parties concerned, with concessions on all sides. It was because of this agreement that we decided to purchase property here. However, we now discover that a new owner /developer is seeking to have these Ordinances overturned and the restrictions withdrawn. We presume that when they purchased the property in 2005, they must have been fully aware of them. I wish to place on record my robust objection to the withdrawal of any of the restrictions agreed in 1999. In my view, to do so would be a travesty of justice and break previous commitments by the County. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the new owner /developer's request should be dismissed and that they should be required to adhere fully to the terms and conditions of the original permit under Ordinances 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach Ja 439 f 513 �� RECEIVED APR 0 8 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thra the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan". We say, "stick to it". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property". The County advised as at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99-19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly qA Ltt,� C)- Al CJLo K� c, T �'t.t i o z CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPQ Dear Mr Opet, Subj: Letter to Nancy Gundlach 3 -25 -2008 Date: 3125/2008 5:43:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: To: dunnmg68 @aoi.com March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, AgendNFAVAF JUIV 22 2008 P Ea &VED APR 4 7 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, / Tuesday, March 25, 2008 AOU dunning68 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 441 of 513 Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19 ", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly el;c. GA-V- a 3 r6 lK x�C�o 9 ' CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPC) EMM March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 442 of 513 I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Failing Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, Call RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT �Aflenda Item No. 8F A 13 13 E'all'ng Waters at Davis Boulevard �44asterAssociation 7275 FALLING WATERS BOULEVARD NAPL.ES. FL 34112 March 14, 2008 Ms. Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, On behalf of the residents of Falling Waters Davis, the undersigned committee members are writing to oppose the Freestate CPUD application for re- zoning of this abutting parcel. The current proposal deviates substantially from Ordinance 99 -19, the comprehensive result of the previous effort to re -zone this same parcel, less than ten years ago. Freestate CPUD, in its current form, seeks to dramatically increase the level of development while at the same substantially decrease the buffering components, for the monetary benefit of the developer and the detriment of our community. The request for increased allowable uses, heights of buildings, and decreased buffer zone components will render this re -zone incompatible with our residential community and is in conflict with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Future Land - Use Element Unless substantial amendments are made to align this application with Ordinance 99- 19, Falling Waters Davis remains unanimously opposed to the Freestate CPUD. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly, Wayne Morgan L..' Robert Jenkins o-, , Ray McCabe John Rafuse` Jim Winchester < """ "{� Jerry Smit RECEIVED MAR 1 7 Z008 ZONING DEPARTMENT ^AN?NED R— "t( (je�4W113 MAR - 5 2008 ZONING DEPgATMENT Dept. of Zoning and land development review 2 March 2008 Attn : Ms Nancy Gundlach I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before You Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the butters written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. '['his application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. 1 am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. Please include this letter and all others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank you. SINCENF,LY: H. MAR IFNSF,N K U. tiF:N 2.332 Magnolia In fi3 Nales 34112 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 o piag ,J!:gf,513 A Nancy Gundlach AICP , Principal Planner Dept. pf Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl. 34104 I am writing this letter as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer of Falling Waters and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that brings this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. Please include this letter and all others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank you, Mr. & Mrs. Anthony Jakubowski 1705 Windy Pines Dr. #7 Naples, Fl. 34112 SOQom! Agenda Item No. 8F AKrVF ge1446of513 Collier County Department of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner Dear Nancy Gundlach; We are writing this letter now as homeowners and residents of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUB seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. We strongly oppose the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. Please include this letter and all others you receive in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank You Sincerely, Billy & Donna Waits 2378 Magnolia Ave 94 Naples, FL 34112 Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 4, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach Agenda Item No. 8F SCANNEV7 2008 7 of 008 RECEIVED MAR - 5 &3 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPIJD ". - ---+.a This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". In 2001 we purchased our new home at Falling Waters. Our home is located in the Water Crest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. _. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly ne and Elizabeth Morgan 2355 Hidden Lake Drive#2 Naples Fl. 34112 Tel 732 -1944 CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPQ *4 1. Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 tPN GC f513 D Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner I am currently a resident of Falling Waters Gated Community on Davis Boulevard and have been a full lithe resident since leqr9B I am writing to object to any changes to the terms and conditions as outlined in Ordinance 99 -19 currently under consideration and requested by Freestate CPUD. The developer purchased this property mart to Falling Waters in 2005 with the full knowledge of this agreement and now wants to undo the agreement to fit his needs without consideration of what it means to us in Falling Waters, economically or to our quality of life. After negotiation, Ordinance 99 -19 changed the zoning of the area to Commercial from Residential (A large concession on our part). For Collier County to break their word to us now and allow the MAJOR changes AGAIN as the developer is requesting at this stage is wrong and should not be allowed Over one half of Falling Waters was built and sold with the knowledge that the agreement reached in 1999 would govern the development nest . t arr. The other half, including my wife and myself, were in residence and acce, . ed the rezoning -- imgand fic4' , *s wouldAAk% �b°solution. �almost IO years later, a further rezoning is being requested The Ordinance 99 -19 or its negotiated equivalent should be upheld or the rezoning changes as requested by the Developer denied. Best Regards, no v.,,,,,, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 449 of 513 SCE! NN 7-*� Collier County Department Of Zoning and lrnd Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. Please include this letter and all others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Thank you. -- -. Sincerely, N Agenda Item No. 8F � +p [3RECE1V 50 of 513 MAR - 5 2008 2DIYIWQ DEPgRTMEW Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner Dear Nancy Gundlaeh I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made swam through the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December/07 stud January MS. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same- " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, most adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19". The Developer, the community and the County Commissioners leas than LO years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plea ". We say, "stick to it ". In [date] we purchased our new home at Falling Waters. Our home is located in [name] Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of this ordinance, "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Nanning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. Please stop this process today. Years truly Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 S CA ia?�44tgf 513 Collier County Department Of Zoning and Lnd Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner The purpose of this letter is to voice opposition to the subject proposed Freestone CPUD, as proposed at the public hearing meeting held in October at the Calusa School on Santa Barbara Blvd. The reason for opposing this application is that is removes much of the compromise solution to the rezoning of that parcel in 1999. The essence of that solution provided buffering, screening and buildings that would not deter from the residential nature of our community. Unless the new owners are willing to create equivalent conditions that were contained in Ordinance 99 -19 to buffer and screen visual views of their buildings, I strongly urge the County to disapprove their application. Yours truly, 9 �n o � _ '140 9� y� LTC i� r4 s l u. , Vg �Aqenda Item No. 8F ply 22, 2008 �afJ2,�513 MqR , S QED IoN,Na DEPA Ct� &2- Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 453 of 513 SCAk'NED Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 4, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of - our property known as "Freestate CPUD". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 Januarv& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to bear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". In 2001 we purchased our new home at Falling Waters. Our home is located in the Water Crest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly Wayne and Elizabeth Morgan 2355 Hidden Lake Drive#2 Naples Fl. 34112 Tel 732 -1944 CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPQ r C Collier County Department of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 y A tbof 513 March 7, 2008 REGE�v�� MAR � � 2099 �pN1NG DBPAR�g'ENj Dear Nancy Gundlach, I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard and have been a resident since January 2001. I am writing to object to any changes to the terms and conditions as outlined in Ordinance 99 -19 currently under consideration and requested by Freestate CPUD> The developer purchased this property next to Falling Waters in 2005 with the full knowledge of this agreement and now wants to undo the agreement to fit his needs without consideration of what it means to us in Falling Waters, economically or to our quality of life. After negotiations, Ordinance 99 -19 changed the zoning of the area to Commercial from Residential (A large concession on our part). For Collier County to break their word to us now and allow the MAJOR changes AGAIN as the developer is requesting at this stage is wrong and should not be allowed. Over one half of Falling Waters was built and sold with the knowledge that the agreement reached in 1999 would govern the development next door. The other half, including my wife and myself, were in residence and accepted the rezoning in good faith that this would be the governing resolution. Now, almost 10 years later, a further rezoning is being requested. The Ordinance 99 -19 or its negotiated equivalent should be upheld or the rezoning changes as requested by the Developer denied. Sincerely, Walter Sullivan Peggy Sullivan Dear Sir, 2036 Cascades Dme Naples, FL 34112 -7762 Freestone CPUD Agenda Item No. 8F �a July 22, 220008 t7 CAN NM RECEIVED MAR 1 1 2W8 ZONING DEPARTMENT 1 March 2008 We write concerning the above, which is proposed to be built between Falling Waters and the Santa Barbara extension. As you will see from our address above, we are owners and residents in the Cascades section of Falling Waters. It is our understanding that in 1999, the then owner /developer was granted a permit to develop this parcel of land under Ordinances 99 -19 but subject to certain restrictions, for example, as regards the height of buildings and the amount of setback. We are informed that this was eventually agreed after much discussion between all the parties concerned, with concessions on all sides. It was because of this agreement that we decided to purchase property here. However, we now discover that anew owner /developer is seeking to have these Ordinances overturned and the restrictions withdrawn. We presume that when they purchased the property in 2005, they must have been fully aware of them. We wish to place on record our robust objection to the withdrawal of any of the restrictions agreed in 1999. In our view, to do so would be a travesty of justice and break previous commitments by the County. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the new owner /developer's request should be dismissed and that they should be required to adhere fully to the terms and conditions of the original permit under Ordinances 99 -19. We shall be grateful if you will include our views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. o rs sincerely, Ralph d Mrs E.R. L ender Q , Lx,04*uW r� March 6, 2008 Collier County Department of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner Dear Nancy Gundlach, a tem No. 8F oe ttss 01RD RECEIVED MAR 13 20 20NIN11 DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard and have been a resident since January 2001. 1 am writing to object to any changes to the terms and conditions as outlined in Ordinance 99 -19 currently under consideration and requested by Freestate CPUD> The developer purchased this property next to Falling Waters in 2005 with the full knowledge of this agreement and now wants to undo the agreement to fit his needs without consideration of what it means to us in Falling Waters, economically or to our quality of life. After negotiations, Ordinance 99 -19 changed the zoning of the area to Commercial from Residential (A large concession on our part). For Collier County to break their word to us now and allow the MAJOR changes AGAIN as the developer is requesting at this stage is wrong and should not be allowed. @ Over one half of Falling Waters was built and sold with the knowledge that the agreement reached in 1999 would govern the development next door. The other half, including my wife and myself, were in residence and accepted the rezoning in good faith that this would be the governing resolution. Now, almost 10 years later, a further rezoning is being requested. The Ordinance 99 -19 or its negotiated equivalent should be upheld or the rezoning changes as requested by the Developer denied. Sinc Victere o tis Virginia Katis SCANNED fir.. ,,,. Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD RApenda Item No. 88F E �3 MAR 2 12008 ZONING DEPARTMENT March 19, 2008 I write concerning the above, which is proposed to be built between Falling Waters and the Santa Barbara extension. As you will see from the address above, I am an owner and resident in the Falling Waters community. It is my understanding that in 1999, the then owner /developer was granted a permit to develop this parcel of land under Ordinances 99 -19 but subject to certain restrictions, for example, as regards the height of buildings and the amount of setback. We are informed that this was eventually agreed after much discussion between all the parties concerned, with concessions on all sides. It was because of this agreement that we decided to purchase property here. However, we now discover that a new owner /developer is seeking to have these Ordinances overturned and the restrictions withdrawn. We presume that when they purchased the property in 2005, they must have been fully aware of them. I wish to place on record my robust objection to the withdrawal of any of the restrictions agreed in 1999. In my view, to do so would be a travesty of justice and break previous commitments by the County. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the new owner /developer's request should be dismissed and that they should be required to adhere fully to the terms and conditions of the original permit under Ordinances 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, aw 3 70 `�;Wa a SCANNED Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Agenda Item No. 8F Pa �s1) MAR 2 5 2008 Z01V1N0 DEPARrAgENr March 19, 2008 I write concerning the above, which is proposed to be built between Falling Waters and the Santa Barbara extension. As you will see from the address above, I am an owner and resident in the Falling Waters community. It is my understanding that in 1999, the then owner /developer was granted a permit to develop this parcel of land under Ordinances 99 -19 but subject to certain restrictions, for example, as regards the height of buildings and the amount of setback. We are informed that this was eventually agreed after much discussion between all the parties concerned, with concessions on all sides. It was because of this agreement that we decided to purchase property here. However, we now discover that a new owner /developer is seeking to have these Ordinances overturned and the restrictions withdrawn. We presume that when they purchased the property in 2005, they must have been fully aware of them. I wish to place on record my robust objection to the withdrawal of any of the restrictions agreed in 1999. In my view, to do so would be a travesty of justice and break previous commitments by the County. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the new owner /developer's request should be dismissed and that they should be required to adhere Hilly to the terms and conditions of the original permit under Ordinances 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, a3�1� dd�r I "V! Ct. Nab [es. Fl. �3tl 11 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 SCAB Page 459 of 513 ?� RECEIVED MAR 2 5 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT March 19, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD I write concerning the above, which is proposed to be built between Falling Waters and — — - the Santa Barbara extension. As you will see from the address above, I am an owner and resident in the Falling Waters community. It is my understanding that in 1999, the then owner /developer was granted a permit to develop this parcel of land under Ordinances 99 -19 but subject to certain restrictions, for example, as regards the height of buildings and the amount of setback. We are informed that this was eventually agreed after much discussion between all the parties concerned, with concessions on all sides. It was because of this agreement that we decided to purchase property here. However, we now discover that a new owner /developer is seeking to have these Ordinances overturned and the restrictions withdrawn. We presume that when they purchased the property in 2005, they must have been fully aware of them. I wish to place on record my robust objection to the withdrawal of any of the restrictions agreed in 1999. In my view, to do so would be a travesty of justice and break previous commitments by the County. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the new owner /developer's request should be dismissed and that they should be required to adhere fully to the terms and conditions of the original permit under Ordinances 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this " matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. I " """"" " Yours sincerely, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 RE I C E 1. ff&60 of 513 �-. MAR 15 2008 � 9Y p C ZONING DEPARTMENT SCANNED March 19, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD I write concerning the above, which is proposed to be built between Falling Waters and the Santa Barbara extension. As you will see from the address above, I an an owner and resident in the Falling Waters community. It is my understanding that in 1999, the then owner /developer was granted a permit to develop this parcel of land under Ordinances 99 -19 but subject to certain restrictions, for example, as regards the height of buildings and the amount of setback. We are informed that this was eventually agreed after much discussion between all the parties concerned, with concessions on all sides. It was because of this agreement that we decided to purchase property here. However, we now discover that a new owner /developer is seeking to have these Ordinances overturned and the restrictions withdrawn. We presume that when they purchased the property in 2005, they must have been fully aware of them. I wish to place on record my robust objection to the withdrawal of any of the restrictions agreed in 1999. In my view, to do so would be a travesty of justice and break previous commitments by the County. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the new owner /developer's request should be dismissed and that they should be required to adhere fully to the terms and conditions of the original permit under Ordinances 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. — — -- Yours sincerely, -� 1� RECEIVED MAR [52008 TONING DEPARTMENT b OWL y� A� 32n No. 8F 22, 25 Paagg e 461 of 513 13 SCAi,jNED (JA. '1 AWL •'Avtk- V�4 ri %GLv lil% L - -ice �- OfO Ct peri.661 amdi A, �e lk- ay\,-1 m 41,x-5 aC l_e Jkq� -Q tDMVI t MC. ,V d) Vcgf qW O-t akka- `41�2 &a I�AU �4 e C-01D A d-v d- GY-el(1sq c. � -�/u 1�D CeN� O�dl.�y�Q�,e►.e x -e-4A� �CPM b dI� II � iCQt(A�/� iC� S Tii0r Comte-} -mtVI U �44-t- 00(Ui ouva a SpX S <nqe r Agenda Item No. 8F July 22,,2008 Page 462 of 513 i�1 jv E UJ��e9�S r;��l� tom, vin aGt� Oat g\ g de-w avu�w COW AA 191A K� -s ; °' J✓�- . 2370 Magnolia Avenue #1 Naples, FL 34112 March 21, 2008 Ms. Nancy Gundlach, AICP Principal Planner Dept. of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Dear Ms. Gundlach: Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 463 of 513 SCA' N ED RECEIVED MAR 1510M i ZONING DSPxMVSNT We are writing this letter as homeowners and residents of Falling Waters of Davis Blvd. to say we are opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application as it is now formulated and presented to you. Our community addressed the issue of development on the neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in ordinance 99 -19. At that time, the negotiation among the then developer of the parcel, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise among all participating parties. It is a very specific agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community, namely, Falling Waters. The result was an agreed compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD wishes to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into the ordinance of 1999. This application ignores the prior commitments of the County and offers an incompatible solution. We are totally opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County unless it is compatible with Ordinance 99 -19. Do include this letter with others you receive from Falling Waters residents in your report to the Planning Commission and BCC. Sincerely, Nazaro Simoi6elli Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 465 of 513 RECEIVEDSCANNED MAR 2 7 20 ZONING DEPARTMENT March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Failing Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99-19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, V� e decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. - I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, I � 74"e C2 s 1z V Dear Mr Opet, Subj: Letter to Nancy Gundlach 3 -25 -2008 Date: 3/25/2008 5:43:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: v: To: dunning68@aoi.com March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, AgendNOWJ SF July 22, 2008 Page 466 of 513 SCANNED RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2108 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, _ resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very spec in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, Tuesday, March 25, 2008 AOL: dunning68 0 Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 e((��qq�� I SV/'11V EM RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2008 ZONING DEAARTMEN° I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19 ", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from Y , — 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours true„ j CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPQ a Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach Agenda Item No. 8F _July 22; 2008 Page 468 of 513 RECEIVED AVN 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I an a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the beat Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December/07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 9949 ", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50it and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPC)� Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 469 of 513 J o (!A� March 28, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. I The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the Coun4 and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. 1 shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in yourlreport on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, V011ier (county Department of Zoning and Land Development Attn: Ylancy 5undlach Principal planner Dear Ylancy, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 470 of 513 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT My husband and I bought here in falling Waters back in 2000, we finally were able to close in Ylovember of 2002. We had the opportunity to purchase on Marco Island since we did own a condo there and were Snow Birds for over 20 yrs. Our choice was to move in Falling maters on Davis Blvd., here in Ylapies. It is a beautiful area, we feel a prime location being close to everything. Over one half of Falling Waters was built and sold with — - _ the knowledge that the agreement reached in 1999 would govern the development next door. ` ke Ordinance 99-19 or its negotiated equivalent should be upheld or the rezoning changes as requested the Developer denied. I As an owner and resident of Palling Waters we are very opposed to the approval of the Freestate MUD I application tkat is now before you. Pease, pleas right thing and do not approve tkis application. Respectfully, Mr. and Mrs. Emanuel Lemos 2345 3 j&6 Lake Dr. # 4 Maples, A 34112 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 471 of 513 do the Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 472 of 513 March 28, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 Dear Ms Gundlach, ZONING DEPARTMENT 1 am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. I The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the Count and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. - I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, your°report on this ail . -xr 3 C am\ J July 22, 2008 G� ctic, l `l F( Fq 20 t-1601, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 - -._ Page.474,of543-. Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, March 25, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT 1 am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99-19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 475 of 513 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December/07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 9949", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99-19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPQ Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 476 of 513 1rlarch 19, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review R ECE I VE D 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 APR 0 2 2008 Subject: Freestone CPUD ZONING DEPARTMENT I write concerning the above, which is proposed to be built between Fallink Waters and the Santa Barbara extension. As you will see from the address above, I am an owner and resident in the Falling Waters community. It is my understanding that in 1999, the then owner /developer was granted a permit to develop this parcel of land under Ordinances 99 -19 but subject to certain restrictions, for example, as regards the height of buildings and the amount of setback. We are informed that this was eventually agreed after much discussion between all the parties concerned, with concessions on all sides. It was because of this agreement that we decided to purchase property here. However, we now discover that a new owner /developer is seeking to have these Ordinances overturned and the restrictions withdrawn. We presume that when they purchased the property in 2005, they must have been fully aware of them. I wish to place on record my robust objection to the withdrawal of any of le restrictions agreed in 1999. In my view, to do so would be a travesty of justice and break previous commitments by the County. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the new owner /developer's request should be dismissed and that they should be required to adhere fully to the terms and conditions of the original permit under Ordinances 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. d Yours sincerely, C`_J4-t� Netp<<5, F---- Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 477 of 513 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19 ", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPC) .2 36S- 111 �d« ���k` /7u1� * /rte V f, 11 r, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 478 of 513 March 25, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review RECEIVED 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 APR 0 2 2008 - - Subject: Freestate CPUD - - -- ZONING DEPARTMENT Dear Ms Gundlach, I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Failing Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. G Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. a The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. 1 am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. 1 shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, !1 it ' -J FL 5 �/// Z- Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Dear Ms. Gundlack: Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 479 of 513 RECEIVED AeN 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am currently a resident of Falling Waters Gated Community on Davis Boulevard and have been a full time resident since June 30, 2006.1 am writing to object to any changes to the terms and conditions as outlined in Ordinance 99 -19 currently under consideration and requested by Freestate CPUD. The developer purchased this property next to Falling Waters in 2005 with the full knowledge of this agreement and now wants to undo the agreement to fit his needs without consideration of what it means to us in Falling Waters, economically or to our quality of life. After negotiation, Ordinance 99 -19 changed the zoning of the area to Commercial from Residential (A large concession on our part). For Collier County to break their word to us now and allow the MAJOR changes AGAIN as the developer is requesting at this stage is wrong and should not be allowed. Over one half of Falling Waters was built and sold with the knowledge that the agreement reached in 1999 would govern the development next door. The other half, including my wife and myself, were in residence and accepted the rezoning in good faith that this would be the governing resolution. Now, almost 10 years later, a further rezoning is being requested. The Ordinance 99 -19 or its negotiated equivalent should be uphelior the rezoning changes as requested by the Developer denied. Best regards, , eoj Cc: Falling Waters Freestate CPUD Committee Comer County Department Of Zoaheg and Land Development Nancy Gundlac6 Principal Plannev March 25, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundhdu Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 480 of 513 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Falling Water, off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposal Development to the east of our properly Iwwa as "Freestate CPUD ". This sabjed was seise highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December/07 .hnuary& February AWL This community's psdtloa and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must al tere to the terms and eondWom es outlined In "Orftanee Will ", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of has-been concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years age, each made pnmdm mad agreed to a negotiated workxbie plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "FaBiag Weems, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to bar it, or sasell it. Not too mach to ask ". Our hotste Is located within the Watercrest Association, within, will in part, abut to this developed property", The County advised as at the time of purchase of ordinance 99-19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Comsisslaaers and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be crating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 706 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter buMag height from 35ft to 50ft and stay wb9t the ordinance as laid out in 99-19. Please Include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Flours truly � C C * Tam HosnLce Commissioner • Planning Commission (CCPC) rd- Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 481 of 513 RECEIVED Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner APR 0 2 2008 Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2900 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 ZONING DEPARTMENT Dear Ms. Gundlack: I am currently a resident of Falling Waters Gated Community on Davis Boulevard and have been a full time resident since June 30, 2006.1 am writing to object to any changes to the terms and conditions as outlined in Ordinance 99 -19 currently under consideration and requested by Freestate CPLJD. I The developer purchased this property next to Falling Waters in 2005 with the full knowledge of this agreement and now wants to undo the agreement to fit his needs without consideration of what it means to us in Falling Waters, economically or to our quality of life. After negotiation, Ordinance 99 -19 changed the zoning of the area to Commercial from Residential (A large concession on our part). For Collier County to break their word to us now and allow the MAJOR changes AGAIN as the developer is requesting at this stage is wrong and should not be allowed. Over one half of Falling Waters was built and sold with the knowledge that the agreement reached in 1999 would govern the development next door. The other half, including my wife and myself, were in residence and accepted the rezoning in good faith that this would be the governing resolution. Now, almost 10 years later, a further rezoning is being requested The Ordinance 99-19 or its negotiated equivalent should be upheld' or the rezoning changes as requested by the Developer denied. Best Regards, Falling Waters Freestate CPUD Committee Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 482 of 513 March 25, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. i Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99-19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, wile decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the County and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. i I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, J Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 483 of 513 ECEIVED APR 0 3 2008 NING DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Falling Waters o$ Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thra the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 January& February /0& This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may he included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We say, "stick to it ". "Fading Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to bear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99-19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPQ Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25, 2008 Dear Nancy Gundlach INUM RECEIVED APR 0 3 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of oar property known as "Freestate CPUD". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December /07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19 ", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99 -19. "We believed, we were duly protected ". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live is this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99-19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPQ Agenda Item No. 8F Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25, 2008 RECEIVED Dear Nancy Gundlach APR 0 3 2008 I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made afiare thriiOWNG DEPARTMENT last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD ". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December/07 January& February /08. This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 9949", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable phiu ". We say, "stick to it ". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property ". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 9949. "We believed, we were duly protected". Should the County Commissioners and Phmning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly E rl r- /-f r-0b Ff //,y,r ,07 CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPC) Agen&994 189.18F July 22, 2008 Page 486 of 513 GundlachNancy From: Paul & Carol Runstedler [caprunstedler @hotmail.com] A, Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2006 12:14 PM CANNED To: GundlachNancy Subject: Freestate CPUD I am currently a resident of Falling Waters Gated Community on Davis Blvd. & have been a resident since December 1992. I am writing to object to any changes to the terms & conditions as outlined in Ordinance 99 -19 currently under consideration & requested by Freestate CPUD. I The developer purchased this property next to Falling Waters in 2005 with the full knowledge of this agreement & now wants to undo the agreement to fit his needs without consideration of what it means to us in Falling Waters, economically or to our quality of life. After negotiation, Ordinance 99 -19 changed the zoning of the area to Commercial from Residential (A large concession on our part). For Collier County to break their word to us now & allow the MAIOR changes AGAIN as the developer is requesting at this stage is wrong & should not be allowed. Over one half of Falling Waters was built & sold with the knowledge that the agreement reached in 1999 would govern the development next door. The other half, including my wife & myself, were in residence & accepted the rezoning in good faith that this would be the governing resolution. No, almost 10 years later, a further rezoning Is being requested. I The Ordinance 99 -19 or Its negotiated equivalent should be upheld or the rezoning changes as requested by the Developer denied. , Sincerely yours Paul & Carol Runstedler 2348 Hidden Lake Dr. #7 Naples, FL 34112 4/3/2008 Collier County Department Of Zoning and Land Development Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner March 25, 2088 Dear Nancy Gundlach 14AA44 -4 "/p'N8.8F iyy22„2518 �C .3P�2'gA6G8�of 513 RECEIVED APR 0 7 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Falling Waters off Davis Boulevard. I was made aware thru the last Public Information Session, regarding the proposed Development to the east of our property known as "Freestate CPUD". This subject was also highlighted at our communities Master Association meetings in December/07 January& February 108. — — This community's position and my personal position are one of the same. " The -- developer may proceed with the property development, however, must adhere to the terms and conditions as outlined in "Ordinance 99 -19", regarding Berm, height of buildings, a solid security and privacy wall, landscaping, preserve and to the types of business concerns that may be included. "The Developer, the Community and the County Commissioners less than 10 years ago, each made promises and agreed to a negotiated workable plan ". We any, "stick to it". "Falling Waters, their neighbor, should not be able to see it, to hear it, or smell it. Not too much to ask ". Our home is located within the Watercrest Association, which, will in part, abut to this developed property". The County advised us at the time of purchase of ordinance 99-19. "We believed, we were duly protected". Should the County Commissioners and Planning Board kowtow to the wants and needs of this developer they will be creating a great injustice to the rights and property values of the 786 homeowners that live in this community. We respectfully request that the County deny the Developers request to alter building height from 35ft to 50ft and stay with the ordinance as laid out in 99 -19. Please include this letter in your report to the Planning Commission. Yours truly Mr. Ronald A. Lucas^ 2351 Ilid&n lake Ur - �--� —� Naples, PI, 34112 CC * Tom Henning Commissioner * Planning Commission (CCPQ Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 488 of 513 March 28, 2008 RECEIVED APR 0 7 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Falling Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very specific in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. I The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the Count and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, 7.il / Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestate CPUD -- Dear Ms Gundlach, Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 PIt 1VtD APR 0 7 2008 ZONING DEPAR-WEN I March 28, 2008 I am writing this letter now as a homeowner and resident of Failing Waters to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the Freestate CPUD application now before you. Our community addressed the issue of development on this same neighboring parcel in 1999, resulting in Ordinance 99 -19. That negotiation, between the Developer, Falling Waters, and Collier County, was a good faith compromise arising from substantial efforts by all parties and is very speck in detailing a unanimous agreement on the nature of acceptable commercial development and the appropriate buffers to an adjacent residential community. This resulted in an agreed upon, compatible solution. I The Freestate CPUD seeks to increase the level of development, while decreasing the buffers written into an ordinance less than 10 years old. This application ignores prior commitments by the County and offers an incompatible solution. I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this CPUD by the Count and will remain so unless changes are made that bring this application in line with Ordinance 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in youl)report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, RECEIVED APR 10 2008 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 a3NN March 19, 2008 Ms Nancy Gundlach, AICP Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Freestone CPUD I write concerning the above, which is proposed to be built between Fallurk Waters and the Santa Barbara extension. As you will see from the address above, I am an owner and resident in the Falling Waters community. It is my understanding that in 1999, the then owner /developer was granted a permit to develop this parcel of land under Ordinances 99 -19 but subject to certain restrictions, for example, as regards the height of buildings and the amount of setback. We are informed that this was eventually agreed after much discussion between all the parties concerned, with concessions on all sides. It was because of this agreement that we decided to purchase property here. However, we now discover that a new owner /developer is seeking to have these Ordinances overturned and the restrictions withdrawn. We presume that when they purchased the property in 2005, they must have been fully aware of them. 1 wish to place on record my robust objection to the withdrawal of any of the restrictions agreed in 1999. In my view, to do so would be a travesty of justice and break previous commitments by the County. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the new owner /developer's request should be dismissed and that they should be required to adhere fully to the terms and conditions of the original permit under Ordinances 99 -19. I shall be grateful if you will include my views and objections in your report on this matter to the Planning Commission and BCC. Yours sincerely, C�'-t 0 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 493 of 513 ORDINANCE NO. 08 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004 -41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE (C -2) AND THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C -4) ZONING DISTRICTS TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) TO BE KNOWN AS FREESTATE CPUD, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, CONSISTING OF 16.8 +/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, D. Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing Charles S. Faller, III, of FFT Santa Barbara I, LLC, and FFT Santa Barbara H, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the Commercial Convenience (C -2) and the General Commercial (C -4) Zoning Districts to a Page 1 of 2 Revised 7/2108 MMSS Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 494 of 513 Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD), in accordance with Exhibit A through Exhibit J attached hereto and incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is /are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by a supermajority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of 2008. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA M Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: By: Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN Marjorie M. Student- Stirling Assistant County Attorney Exhibit A: Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: List of Request Deviations from LDC Exhibit F: List of Developer Commitments Exhibit G: Enhanced Landscape Buffer (Composite Exhibit) Exhibit H: Buffer Deviation Exhibit I: Temporary Security Fence Exhibit I: Building "A" South Elevation Plan Page 2 of 2 Revised 7/2/08 MMSS Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 FREESTATE Page 495 of 513 COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A PERMITTED USES 1 EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3 EXHIBIT C CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN 4 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION 5 EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS 6 EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 8 EXHIBIT G ENHANCED LANDSCAPE BUFFER 12 EXHIBIT G.1.A ENHANCED BUFFER CROSS SECTION 1.A 13 EXHIBIT G.2.6 ENHANCED BUFFER CROSS SECTION 2.B 14 EXHIBIT G.3.0 ENHANCED BUFFER CROSS SECTION 3.0 15 EXHIBIT H BUFFER DEVIATION 16 EXHIBIT I TEMPORARY SECURITY FENCE 17 EXHIBIT J BUILDING "A" SOUTH ELEVATION PLAN 18 FREESTATE CPUD (Rev 20) (2) / / I ry r+— FMPUD EXHIBIT A FOR FREESTATE CPUD PERMITTED USES Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 496 of 513 A maximum of 150,000 square feet of commercial /office land uses shall be permitted. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: Commercial Tract A. Principal Uses: 1. Amusement and recreation services (Groups 7911 — 7941, 7991, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7997 — 7999 (including only Judo /Karate instruction, gymnastics instruction, scuba /diving instruction, sporting goods rental and Yoga instruction), excluding Group 7929) 2. Apparel and accessory stores (Groups 5611 — 5699) 3. Auto and home supply stores(Group 5531) 4. Automotive repair, services and parking (Groups 7514, 7515, 7542 (accessory to convenience store, car wash not to exceed one stall)) 5. Building construction (Groups 1521 — 1542, 1711 — 1799, including offices only with no outdoor storage or assembly). Any roll up doors shall be restricted to portions of buildings not visible from public right -of -way. 6. Building materials, hardware and garden supply (Groups 5231 — 5261) not to exceed 60,000 square feet for any single business entity. 7. Business services (Groups 7311 -7338, 7352, 7359 — 7379, including only rental and leasing of appliances electronic equipment, furniture, party supply, office machines, pianos, dishes and tableware, televisions, and video equipment, 7384, and 7389) 8. Communications (Groups 4812 — 4822, 4841) 9. Depository institutions (Groups 6021 — 6099) 10. Eating and drinking places (Group 5812; however cocktail lounges and similar uses are permitted in conjunction with a restaurant use. Outdoor seating and service shall be permitted and shall close at 11:00 p.m.; however, no outdoor amplified entertainment (music or television) shall be permitted for any restaurants and no bar areas with outside seating shall be permitted. 11. Educational facilities (Groups 8231 — 8244, 8299) 12. Engineering, accounting and related services (Groups 8711 — 8721, 8741 — 8743, 8748) 13. Executive, legislative and government (Groups 9111, 9199, 9221, 9311) 14. Food stores ((Groups 5411 — 5499 (including convenience stores with fuel pumps and accessory car wash) not to exceed 60,000 square feet for any single business entity)) 15. General merchandise stores (Groups 5311 -5399) 16. Health services (Groups 8011 — 8049, 8071 — 8092, 8099) 17. Holding and investment offices (Groups 6712 — 6799) 18. Home furniture and furnishings (Groups 5712 — 5736) 19. Insurance brokers, agents and carriers (Groups 6311 — 6411) 20. Legal services (Group 8111) 21. Membership organizations (Groups 8611 — 8651, 8699) 22. Miscellaneous repair services (Groups 7622 — 7641, 7699) 23. Miscellaneous retail (Groups 5912 — 5961, 5992 — 5999, including retail office supply) FREESTATE CPUD (Rev 20) (2) 777 -rrV>" Page 1 of 18 FMPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 24. Motion pictures and video rental (Groups 7822, 7841) Page 497 of 513 25. Museums and art galleries (Group 8412) 26. Non depository credit institutions (Groups 6111 — 6163) 27. Personal services (Groups 7212, 7215, 7219, 7221 — 7299) 28. Real estate (Groups 6512 — 6552) 29. Security and commodity brokers and services (Groups 6211 — 6289) 30. Social services (Groups 8322 — 8351, 8399) 31. Travel agents (Group 4724) 32. U.S. postal service (Group 4311, excluding full service distribution facilities) 33. No outdoor uses are permitted except as follows: a. Outdoor seating associated with Group 5812 b. Gas pumps associated with a convenience store C. Car wash associated with a convenience store d. Temporary sidewalk sales 34. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) through the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). B. Accessory Uses /Structures: 1. Outdoor dining and drive - through facilities. Outdoor seating and service shall be permitted and shall close at 11:00 p.m.; however, no outdoor amplified entertainment (music or television) shall be permitted for any restaurants and no bar areas with outside seating shall be permitted. 2. Caretaker /manager residence, which may be a permanent site -built structure. 3. Water management facilities and related structures. 4. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 5. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls. 6. Accessory uses and structures commonly associated with commercial development including but not limited to garbage and recycling receptacles, storage. 7. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) through the process outlined in the LDC. Preserve Tract A. Principal Uses: Preserve /open space uses associated with native vegetation preserve. 2. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) through the process outlined in the LDC. B. Development Standards: 1. No principal structures shall be permitted within the preserve area. FREESTATE CPUD (Rev 20) (2) %j7 no— Page 2 of 18 FMPUD EXHIBIT B FOR FREESTATE CPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 498 of 513 DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. TABLE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MINIMUM LOT AREA 20,000 Sq. Ft. NA MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 100 Ft. NA MINIMUM YARDS (External) From Santa Barbara Boulevard right -of -way 25 Ft. SPS From Davis Boulevard right -of -way 25 Ft. SIPS From Southern Project Boundary 125 Ft. SPS ' From Western Project Boundary 125 Ft. SPS ' t-rom- 10 Ft. 5 Ft. Rear 5 Ft. 5 Ft. Side3 5 Ft. 5 Ft. Preserve 25 Ft. 10 Ft. MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 20 Ft. or'' /: sum of Buildinq conea 35 Ft. 20 Ft. ActuaI5 45 Ft. 20 Ft. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 700 Sq. Ft. NA MAX. GROSS LEASABLE AREA (Entire 150,000 Sq. Ft. NA ' Whichever is greater. 2 Per subdivided lot, excluding parking areas under buildings. 6 Except that buildings shall not encroach into required building perimeter landscape areas. 4 Except that water management facilities, fences, signage and the like shall be in accordance with the LDC. 6 No microwave or other towers may protrude above the maximum actual height. --° 6 Fences/walls shall be constructed in accordance with Exhibit G. FREESTATE CPUD (Rev 20) (2) Page 3 of 18 FMPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22. 2008 Page 499 of 513 I I 1 I . \: %M, \\ N likk Al I ,VIII +I � •7 I I. r 'I �..�nL - I 0 Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 EXHIBIT D Page 500 of 513 FOR FREESTATE CPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 114 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE NORTH 75 FEET THEREOF AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 208 AT PAGE 19. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00 °59'07" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, FOR A DISTANCE OF 75.00 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89 °55'30" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED ALSO BEING A POINT 100.00 FEET WEST OF AND PERPENDICULAR WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 8; FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE RUN SOUTH 00 059'07" EAST, AND BEING PARALLEL WITH AND 100.00 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 8, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,294.27 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 8; THENCE RUN NORTH 89 048'01" WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 565.38 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 8; THENCE RUN NORTH 00 056'01" WEST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,291.54 FEET TO A POINT 75.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND PERPENDICULAR WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE AFORESAID SECTION 8; THENCE RUN NORTH 89 055'30" EAST, AND BEING PARALLEL WITH AND 75.00 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 8, FOR A DISTANCE OF 564.17 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED, CONTAINING 16.760 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. FREESTATE CPUD (Rcv 20) (2) '%� Page 5 of 18 FMPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 EXHIBIT E Page 501 of 513 FOR FREESTATE CPUD LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.05.08.C.9, Architectural and Site Design Standards, which establishes that the fagade of all freestanding buildings within a commercial PUD are to be considered primary facades, to allow those building facades within the Free State CPUD which face the native vegetation preservation area and/or are not facing a public road right -of -way to be considered as non -primary building facades for purposes of the architectural and site design standards. For Building B the south fagade must provide a minimum of 15% glazing and three of the following: a. architectural details similar to that provided for the primary building fagade such as stucco banding or applied architectural features. b. glass service or access doors. C. covered entries for each access door. d. vegetative planting clusters within the building foundation planting areas For Building A the western fagade must provide three of the following: a. architectural details similar to that provided for the primary building fagade such as stucco banding or applied architectural features. b. glass service or access doors. C. covered entries for each access door. d. vegetative planting clusters within the building foundation planting areas The elevation facing south of Building A shall be as depicted on Exhibit J, dated October 18, 2007. For buildings with more than 1 story and facing the Falling Waters development those building facades above the first floor will be considered as primary facades. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.05.08.E.1, Architectural and Site Design Standards, which requires that for a corner lot no more than 80% of the off - street parking area, may be located between a primary fagade and an abutting street with no single side containing more than 65% of the required parking, to allow the Freestate CPUD to allow up to 90% of the required parking area to be located between the primary fagade and the abutting street and a single side to allow no more than 75% of the required parking area for the entire project. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Subsections 5.03.02.B.9, and 5.03.02.E.3, fences and walls, relating to height and placement of fences and walls between uses. The applicant seeks the deviation which requires that wall heights are measured from existing grade, rather than an altered grade to allow a wall up to 10 feet in height, which exceeds the 8 feet height limitation of Subsection 5.03.02.E.3. This portion of the deviation is applicable only to that portion of the project area adjacent to the proposed Collier County public well easement in the event that Collier County is required to place a wall within the required buffer adjacent to the Falling Waters project. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from Subsection 5.03.02.E.2, fences and walls, which requires construction of a masonry wall between non - residential and residential land uses, to permit construction of a chain link fence for a portion of the project adjacent to the Preserve area FREESTATE CPUD (Rev 20) (2) -� Page 6 of IS FMPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 as shown on the Master Plan. The remainder of the site shall have a masonry w9R9I16&R;8f 513 as depicted on Exhibits C, G, GA.A., G.23 and G.3.0 of the CPUD. 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.06.02.C.4, Buffer Requirements, which requires a minimum 20 foot wide Type D landscape buffer for properties greater than 15 acres in size or located within an Activity Center to allow a minimum 10 foot wide Type D landscape buffer adjacent to Davis Boulevard, with compensating vegetation planting areas as shown on the buffer deviation Exhibit H, where the 20 foot wide buffer cannot be maintained due to required State FDOT turn lane / sidewalk improvements. FREESTATE CPUD (Rev 20) (2)?)Yr* J1 Page 7 of 18 FMPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 EXHIBIT F Page 503 of 513 FOR FREESTATE CPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Regulations for development of the Freestate CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this CPUD Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this CPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. UTILITIES A. A wellfield easement approximately 50 feet by 120 feet in size with appropriate access shall be provided over and across the area as identified on the CPUD Master Plan. The development's required 20 -foot wide Type D landscape buffer and 15 -foot wide Type B landscape buffer shall be located outside of the well easement area and a 20 -foot wide access easement shall be provided between Davis Boulevard and the well site. In addition, a minimum 20 -foot wide County Utility Easement (CUE) is required from the Davis Boulevard right - of -way to the well site easement. The conveyance of the wellfield easement shall occur prior to SDP approval for the area within the development phase that contains the respective well site, access and utility easements (county utility easements). Forty -five days after the request by the County, the developer shall provide the following items at no cost to Collier County: 1. Legal descriptions and sketches of the well site easement and the utility and access easement from the well site to the public right -of- way. 2. Attorney opinion of title which shall identify all parties, if any, holding liens against the agreed upon easement areas, and to which is attached a copy of the deed(s) evidencing record title, and hard copies of said liens, if any, against the property. 3. At the time of conveyance of the wellfield easement to the County, the County shall pay to the developer cash equal to the fair market value of the wellfield easement or in the alternative the County shall grant the appropriate impact fee credit to the developer. 2. TRANSPORTATION A. Santa Barbara Boulevard is programmed in the Collier County 5 -Year Work Program, Capital Project # 60091. Payment in lieu of sidewalks and bike lanes for the Santa Barbara Boulevard frontage shall be required. The amount shall be determined utilizing FDOT's 2004 Transportation Costs, as amended. Payment shall be required within 30 days of approval of the zoning petition by the Board of County Commissioners. B. Certificates of occupancy (CO s) may be issued upon a determination that this portion of the project complies with the appropriate standards for the the issuance of COs, for only 26,000 square feet of the project until such time as the Santa Barbara Boulevard extension shall be substantially complete. FREESTATE CPUD (Rev 20) (2) Page 8 of 18 FMPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 504 of 513 Access to the project shall be limited to one right-in/right-out turning movement onto Davis Boulevard until the Santa Barbara extension shall be substantially complete. If the County has not entered into a contract for the construction of the Santa Barbara Boulevard extension by the second anniversary date of the approval of this Ordinance, then the developer may at its sole discretion pursue one of the following: 1. The developer may construct a temporary access to the project from Davis Boulevard to the project entrance within the Santa Barbara Boulevard right - of -way area. All improvements within the Santa Barbara right -of -way shall be subject to the review and approval of the transportation administrator, or designee, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld; or 2. The developer may construct two southbound lanes of the Santa Barbara Boulevard extension project in accordance with the County's roadway plans for the segment of Santa Barbara Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to the southernmost entrance of the subject property. Said roadway segment shall be utilized as a two -way road until such time as all travel lanes of the Santa Barbara Boulevard extension project are open and available for public usage. The developer shall be eligible to receive road impact fee credits equal to the cost of construction of the two lanes of travel lanes for the Santa Barbara Boulevard extension constructed pursuant to this Subsection. 3. Upon completion of either of the options referenced in this Subsection, the developer shall be allowed to apply for COs for the remainder of the project. C. If turn lanes serving this project are constructed by the County as part of the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension, then payment in lieu of construction shall be required for the turn lanes serving this project and payment to the County shall be made within 120 days of receipt of written request from the County. D. The petitioner must pay in lieu for any turn lane(s) being constructed as part of the Davis Boulevard improvements within 120 days of the final adoption of this CPUD. Upon approval of the payment amount, payment shall be made to the Collier County Transportation Services Division. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL A. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) permits shall be provided prior to SDP approval; B. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) technical assistance shall be provided prior to SDP approval or plat approval. C. The following items shall be required prior to the SDP approval. 1. Approved preserve management plan and conservation easement. 2. Florida Black Bear Management Plan. 3. Big Cypress Squirrel Protective Plan FREESTATE CPUD (Rev 20) (2) '-rry)y yy Page 9 or 18 FMPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 Page 505 of 513 D. The following items shall be required prior to any vegetation removal. 1. A Big Cypress Squirrel survey 2. A full nesting and foraging Red - Cockaded Woodpecker survey, unless written technical assistance form Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and /or US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), is provided. 4. LANDSCAPE A. A minimum 20 foot wide planted landscape buffer shall be provided adjacent to the south and west boundaries of the proposed project, except adjacent to the preserve area and proposed Collier County wellfield easement. The buffer shall include a vegetated berm and shall be approximately 4 feet in height as measured from natural ground elevation at the property line and must be planted with vegetative material as described below. Two staggered rows of LDC required canopy trees, 10 feet to 12 feet in height, shall be provided at 25 feet on center in the proposed project's buffer (except for the buffer shown in cross - section 3C which shall provide a single row). Additionally, two staggered rows of sabal palms, 12 foot to 22 foot clear trunk, at staggered heights shall be provided on the berm at 10 feet on center. A continuous single row of 7 gallon native hedges shall be planted 4 feet on center. Where dry detention areas are provided adjacent to the buffer area, such detention areas shall be planted with water tolerant plant material such as red maple, cypress, in order to provide additional vegetative buffering. Irrigation shall be provided for plantings on both sides of any required wall. (Refer to Exhibits G, GA A, G.2.13, and G.3.C.) Adjacent to the proposed County wellfield easement, a 15 foot wide Type B buffer, see section 5.6 below for additional landscape requirements, shall be installed at the time the County develops the site as a wellfield. B. The development side of the perimeter 8 -foot high wall shall be planted with a single hedge row consisting of a minimum 3- gallon plantings, 24 inches in height and 3 feet on center, except that the portion at the rear of Building D shall not be required to provide the hedge. That portion of the wall near the southeastern corner of the site must be extended south to the southern property line along the Santa Barbara Boulevard right -of -way. 5. PLANNING A. All building and parking lot lighting shall include "cutoff' type fixtures or shields to direct the lighting downward and to minimize glare onto adjacent properties or public rights -of -way. B. The developer shall construct the landscape buffers in accordance with Exhibit G of the CPUD, concurrent with the initial site development work (except that portion adjacent to the proposed Collier County wellfield easement, which shall be installed at the time of wellfield development by Collier County). The buffers shall be constructed and vegetated prior to the issuance of the first FREESTATE CPUD (Rev 20) (2) 1yyyyy7,y Page 10 or 18 FMPUD Agenda Item No. 8F July 22, 2008 certificate of occupancy for the property. The wall that is shown onPeRfiiib *(3f 513 shall be constructed in phases. That portion of the wall extending from the -- preserve area northward to Davis Boulevard, and from Santa Barbara Boulevard west approximately 130 feet (along the southernmost project access), must be installed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project. The remainder of the wall must be constructed concurrent with the site development and infrastructure installation supporting the southernmost building shown on the CPUD Conceptual Master Plan, and must be complete prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the southern most building. C. All buildings constructed within the Freestate CPUD shall have a unifying architectural style, design features, and color palate. D. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the developer must install temporary chain link security fencing near the northern and eastern limits of Phase One construction clearing, generally located as shown on Exhibit I. The temporary fencing shall extend far enough into the uncleared areas of the Phase Two construction area for a sufficient distance so that it appears that the fencing is continuous. The temporary fencing must remain in place until clearing for Phase Two construction of the project commences. FREESTATE CPUD (Rc 20) (2) Wh -rky_ Page 11 of 18 FMPUD LL Mm CO 0 �N O W ' O Y T+lJ � � m � c0 c d d m Q I owd kC1, 'x sn• 'i. 1'' - � - a� Ili /,I t■ Ar ev'JLG _ Q— IA � yy � .. � • 1Rg - \ } !� - � % \! , C 4 - �_ (\ \ � |� :} - � - |�: ' - \ \�� - %t: |\ \M \i, -- o - \� %595 \ - � | LL °on Q-� O w a� =gym m� m � m c LL m m Q r I� e 'i I � v+w�nm�m mm zrtw ai 3 z � au :awu :3 �I'11OII IY II M1 MR f� Y Ell III 1 .[ e _3 Wg LL 00 n °J °o LO O N O ZN E N d 5 - N T� m a a�:E g !Ili v �s� a