Agenda 06/09/2020 Item # 9B (Resolution - Hyde Park Village)06/09/2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing
be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve with
conditions a Resolution designating 642.52 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning
Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Hyde Park Village
Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 1,800 residential
dwelling units, of which a minimum of 300 and a maximum of 1000 will be multi-family dwelling
units; a minimum of 45,000 square feet of commercial development in the Village Center Context
Zone; a minimum of 18,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses in the Village
Center Context Zone; assisted living facilities subject to a floor area ratio in place of the square
footage cap in the Village Center Context Zone; a maximum of 10,000 square feet for any
recreation buildings in the Neighborhood General Context Zone and a maximum of 5,000 square
feet for any recreation buildings in the Neighborhood Edge Context Zone; a maximum of 30,000
square feet of wellness and commercial development in the Village Amenity and Wellness Center
Context Zone; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship
Receiving Area credit agreement for Hyde Park Village Stewardship Receiving Area and
establishing that 3548.24 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Hyde Park
Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located north of Oil Well Road and
west of the future Big Cypress Parkway in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier
County, Florida. [PL20180000622] (This is a companion to Agenda Item 11E)
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review staff’s findings and
recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)
regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding the petition; and ensure the
project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's
interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS: The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) was developed, i n
large part due to protect natural resource areas and agricultural lands. The RLSA encourages property
owners to voluntarily protect environmentally valuable land as a public benefit. The mechanism to achieve
the protection of environmentally valuable land is the designation of Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA) in
exchange for Stewardship Credits, which are used to entitle Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA). One of
the components of the SRA designation application is the Natural Resource Index Assessment Repo rt,
which documents the relative natural resource values of land within an SRA.
The Natural Resource Index Assessment documents the existing conditions and Natural Resource Index
(NRI) scores within the proposed SRA for Hyde Park Village SRA. It should be noted that the NRI scores
demonstrate that Hyde Park Village SRA meets the Suitability Criteria contained in the Collier County
Land Development Code (LDC). Please see the Environmental Review Section of this Staff Report for
further information.
Hyde Park Village SRA is one of the four SRAs that have either been submitted to Collier County for
review or have had pre-application meetings for an SRA designation. The other three SRA Villages located
within the vicinity of Hyde Park Village SRA along the future Big Cypress Parkway are Rivergrass Village
(approved by the Board on January 28, 2020), and Longwater Village (PL20190001836), and Belmar
Village (PL20190001837), both of which are currently under review.
Hyde Park Village SRA consists of four context zones, Neighborhood General, Neighborhood Edge,
Village Amenity and Wellness Center, and Village Center. Two points of ingress and egress are proposed
9.B
Packet Pg. 119
06/09/2020
to serve the SRA from Oil Well Road: one at the terminus of Desoto Boulevard, providing project and
public access through the Village Center; and the second, the main project access, is located about one-half
mile to the west. Two future interconnections to the east (to future Big Cypress Parkway) are provided.
One provides public access to the Village Center and the other provides access to and from future Big
Cypress Parkway for Hyde Park Residents. This SRA application for Hyde Park Village SRA will include
approximately:
• 1,800 dwelling units with a SRA density calculation of 2.8 units per acre (DU/AC);
o a minimum of 300 and a maximum of 1,000 will be multi-family dwelling units
• a minimum of 45,000 square feet of commercial development in the Village Center Context Zone;
• a minimum of 18,000 square feet of civic, institutional and governmental uses in the Village Center
Context Zone;
• a maximum of 10,000 square feet for any recreation buildings in the Neighborhood General Context
Zone;
• a maximum of 5,000 square feet for any recreation buildings in the Neighborhood Edge Context Zone;
• a maximum of 30,000 square feet of wellness and commercial development in the Village Amenity and
Wellness Center Context Zone; and
• assisted living facilities subject to floor area ratio in place of the square footage cap in the Village Center
Context Zone
The Village will also have other uses such as open space tracts, linear parks, and lakes. The required
minimum 35% open space is 224.88 acres, and 66% open space or 423.87 acres has been provided.
For further information, please see Attachment A - Proposed SRA Resolution
FISCAL IMPACT: The Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) 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 SRA is approved, a portion of the land could be developed, and the new
development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities.
The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 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 the
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 a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in
accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected
prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. 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: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed
the proposed SRA and has found it consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP.
See Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC
heard and continued Petition SRA-PL20180000622, Hyde Park Village SRA at the February 20, 2020 and
March 5, 2020, hearings. The CCPC voted 3-3 to deny this petition for the following reasons:
Planning Commissioner Edwin S. Fryer (supported the motion to deny). His reasons for not supporting
the project are as follows:
9.B
Packet Pg. 120
06/09/2020
- Failure to form viable solutions to staffs Conditions of Approval 2, 4, and 5 in the staff
report;
- Does not support “Lifestyle Signage” as depicted in Deviation 6.6.4 of the SRA
Document;
- Fiscal neutrality has miscalculations and flawed assumptions.
Planning Commissioner Mark Strain (supported the motion to deny). His reasons for not supporting the
project are as follows:
- Was not provided an open document on fiscal neutrality and therefore could not assess
the document;
- Housing diversity is insufficient;
- Reluctant of approving new deviations.
Planning Commissioner Patrick Dearborn (supported the motion to deny). His reasons for not supporting
the project are as follows:
- Petition should be approved with all staffs Conditions of Approval while omitting
Conditions 2, 4, and 5.
Planning Commissioners Karen Homiak, Karl Fry, and Stan Chrzanowski are in support of project but did
not support the motion of denial.
At the February 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting, Planning Commissioner Schmitt requested staff to indicate in
the Executive Summary that he supports the project. (See Attachment J) He was not present at the March
5, 2020 CCPC Meeting.
The agent has revised the SRA document to comply with some of the changes that were discussed at the
CCPC hearing. Those revisions include the following:
1. In Section 5.1.2.A - Neighborhood General (Development Standards Table):
• Added the footnote “Each dwelling unit shall be a minimum of 20’ in width” for single family
attached & two-family homes and zero lot & townhouses;
• Reduced the maximum zoned building height from 42 to 35 feet and the maximum actual
building height from 50 to 42 feet for Single Family Detached, Single Family Attached & Two-
Family, and Zero Lot Line & Townhouse
2. In Section 5.2.1.A - Neighborhood Edge (Permitted Uses and Structures):
• Corrected section and table references with multi-family dwelling units within the Neighborhood
Edge Context Zone
3. In Section 5.2.2.A Neighborhood Edge (Development Standards Table):
• Added the footnote “Each dwelling unit shall be a minimum of 20’ in width” for single family
attached & two-family villas, and zero lot & townhouses;
• Reduced the maximum zoned building height from 42 to 35 feet and the maximum actual
building height from 50 to 42 feet for Single Family Detached, Single Family Attached & Two-
Family Villas, and Zero Lot Line & Townhouse
4. In Section 5.4.2.A Village Center (Development Standards Table):
• Added the footnote “Minimum floor area does not apply to ALF/Group Housing Units;
• Modified the front yard setback from 0 to 10 feet for Multifamily and ALF/Group Housing Only
and Non-Residential and Mixed-Use Buildings
9.B
Packet Pg. 121
06/09/2020
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This petition requests the creation of the Hyde Park Village SRA. A
Village is described in LDC Section 4.08.07.C.2 as:
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and
mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages
shall be not less than 100 acres or more than 1,000 acres. Villages are comprised of
residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the
focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be
designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an
interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods.
Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall
include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Section
4.08.07 J.1. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the
extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for
the sharing of recreational facilities. The Village form of rural land development is
permitted within the ACSC subject to the limitations of Section 4.08.07 A.2.
In addition to meeting the above Village requirements and being consistent with the Growth Management
Plan, the applicant must prove that the proposal is consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The
burden then shifts to the Board, should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory
or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more
of the listed criteria.
Criteria for creation of SRA
1. Consider: Compatibility with adjacent land uses.
2. Consider: An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned
development.
3. Consider: Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient
housing, institutional, civic, and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on
lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2.
4. Consider: Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the
exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on
land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of
the land or parcel.
5. Consider: Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value grea ter than
1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state.
6. Consider: Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage
of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Gross acreage
includes only that area of development within the SRA that requires the consumption of
Stewardship Credits.
7. Consider: As an incentive to encourage open space, open space on lands within an SRA located
outside of the ACSC that exceeds the required thirty-five percent retained open space shall not
be required to consume Stewardship Credits.
8. Consider: An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas,
and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.6. An SRA may be
contiguous to or encompass a WRA.
9. Consider: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or
indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate
the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards.
10. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP.
11. Consider: Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 9 above [LDC Section 4.08.07 A.1.]
9.B
Packet Pg. 122
06/09/2020
and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07.
12. Consider: SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA District
Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are directed away from FSAs,
HSAs, WRAs, and Conservation Lands.
13. Consider: Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits
to implement SRA uses.
14. Consider: Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts.
The Board 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 Board hearing as these items relate
to these criteria. This item has been approved as to form and legality and requires a majority vote for
Board approval. Should there be a dispute as to any of the deviations to the Code requested by the
applicant, a vote of four is required. (HFAC)
ADDITIONAL LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Applicant is requesting a Deviation (Deviation
#6.6.4) for what is being termed as a “lifestyle” sign. Staff has opined that this type of sign is prohibited
by the Code.
The type of request to obtain a Sign Variance is as follows:
5.06.08 - Sign Variances
A. Applicability. A variance may be authorized by the Board of Zoning Appeals for any
required dimensional standard for a sign, including the following: height, area, and
location; maximum number of, and minimum setback for signs.
This request for a deviation falls outside the scope of what could be requested as Sign Variance. It is
asking the Board to issue a deviation to the Code which is not dimensional , but instead content based.
In order to pass Constitutional muster, a sign code cannot discriminate based on content.
If the Board wishes to consider whether the Sign Code ought to be amended to allow for this type of
sign, then the County Attorney r ecommends that the Board direct staff to prepare and come forward
with an LDC amendment to the Sign Code, with the understanding that to pass Constitutional muster,
the Board at a minimum would need to allow similar advertising signs for all businesses, no t just
“lifestyle signs.” -JAK
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Petition SRA-PL20180000622, Hyde Park
Village SRA, to the Board subject to the following conditions of approval:
1) The companion Developer Contribution Agreement pertaining to transportation and public
utilities is required to be approved with this SRA request.
2) Per Housing, Grant Development, and Operations, it is recommended that a housing needs analysis be
performed to estimate the affordable housing demand generated by The Hyde Park Village proposal, as
well as a plan to address the supply of those units.
3) Per Housing, Grant Development, and Operations, absent conducting a housing needs analysis to
9.B
Packet Pg. 123
06/09/2020
estimate the affordable housing demand generated by The Hyde Park Village, as well as a plan to
address the supply of those units, staff proposes the following recommendation: The Hyde Park Village
should commit that at least 15% of the units that they propose may be sold at purchase prices near the
Moderate, and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Multi-Family Apts, & Single-Family Product
A, Single-Family Product B), will actually be set aside and sold to households that are certified to be in
those ranges.
Hyde Park Village
Residential Types Units Sales Price
15% of
Products
1, 2 & 3
1 Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 St.300 $168,000 45 Low
2 Single Family Product A 534 $282,000 80 Moderate
3 Single Family Product B 598 $344,000 90 Gap
4 Single Family Product C 368 $373,000 -
Total Residential 1,800 215
These 215 units would represent nearly 12% of the residential units in The Hyde Park Village and
should be certified for initial occupancy and comply with long-term monitoring requirements
similar to other developments in Collier County.
4) Per Housing, Grant Development, and Operations, the Hyde Park Village should also consider the
donation of a residential parcel to the County, an Affordable Housing Land Trust, or the County’s
designee in order to address the housing needs of households at the Very-Low income levels and
below. A contribution to the Collier County Local Housing Trust Fund may also serve to mitigate for
units unable to be made available on-site.
5) The deletion of deviation 6.6.4 “Lifestyle Signs.” These signs are not real estate signs. They are
advertising signs and a prohibited sign type. Staff recommends denial of this deviation.
Prepared by: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (PDF)
2. Letter of Concern (PDF)
3. Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (PDF)
4. SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App - Attachment B (PDF)
5. FLUE Consistency Review Memo - Attachment C (PDF)
6. NIM Materials - Attachment D (PDF)
7. Public Facilities Impact Assessment - Attachment E (PDF)
8. [Linked] Revised Economic Assessment 2020.03.02 - Attachment F (PDF)
9. [Linked] Application Back up Materials - Attachment G (PDF)
10. Attachment H - Revised public hearing signs (PDF)
11. Item No. 11198 (PDF)
9.B
Packet Pg. 124
06/09/2020
12. Attachment I - Waiver Applicant for hybrid quasi-judicial hearing- Hyde Park Village SRA
(PDF)
13. Attachment J - Planning Commissioner Schmitt approval (PDF)
9.B
Packet Pg. 125
06/09/2020
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.B
Doc ID: 11198
Item Summary: ***This item to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m.**** This item requires that
ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve with conditions a Resolution
designating 642.52 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District a s a
Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Hyde Park Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which
will allow development of a maximum of 1,800 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 300
and a maximum of 1000 will be multi-family dwelling units; a minimum of 45,000 square feet of
commercial development in the Village Center Context Zone; a minimum of 18,000 square feet of civic,
governmental and institutional uses in the Village Center Context Zone; assisted living facilities subject
to a floor area ratio in place of the square footage cap in the Village Center Context Zone; a maximum of
10,000 square feet for any recreation buildings in the Neighborhood General Context Zone and a
maximum of 5,000 square feet for any recreation buildings in the Neighborhood Edge Context Zone; a
maximum of 30,000 square feet of wellness and commercial development in the Village Amenity and
Wellness Center Context Zone; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the
Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Hyde Park Village Stewardship Receiving Area and
establishing that 3548.24 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Hyde Park
Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located north of Oil Well Road and west of
the future Big Cypress Parkway in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County,
Florida. [PL20180000622] (This is a companion to Agenda Item 11E)
Meeting Date: 06/09/2020
Prepared by:
Title: – Zoning
Name: Tim Finn
03/10/2020 11:55 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning
Name: Ray Bellows
03/10/2020 11:55 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 03/12/2020 3:27 PM
Growth Management Department Jeanne Marcella Level 1 Reviewer Completed 03/13/2020 11:36 AM
Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 03/20/2020 2:09 PM
Growth Management Department James C French Deputy Department Head Review Completed 03/23/2020 10:19 AM
County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 05/21/2020 10:15 AM
Office of Management and Budget Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 05/21/2020 11:41 AM
9.B
Packet Pg. 126
06/09/2020
Office of Management and Budget Laura Zautcke Additional Reviewer Completed 05/22/2020 9:08 AM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 06/02/2020 1:15 PM
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 06/02/2020 3:57 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 06/09/2020 9:00 AM
9.B
Packet Pg. 127
C-ounty
TO:
FROM:
HEARING DATE: MARCH 5,2020
SUBJECT:
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COTINTY PLANNING COMMISSION
ZONING DIVISION _ ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
SRA-PL20180000622; HYDE PARK VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP
RECEIVING AREA (SRA)
PROPERTY CANT/AGENTS:
Owner:
Winchester Land, LLC
1299 Zurich Way
Schaumberg,IL 60196
Applicant:
Michael Greenberg, Southwest Florida Regional President
Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC
5800 Ranch Blvd
Sarasota, PL 34240
Agents:
Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President
Hole Montes, Inc.
950 Encore Way
Naples, FL 34110
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire
Coleman, Yovanovich &
Koester, P.A.
4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 1 of43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
*J((J
to
I
A
o
ilTTINfrMi:IlITil]Ti tTltifi
2olll:.EEoaoJ
=I
U,
Icc
L
t
E
n
o
t
IoI
=I
I
-
o-
G
(,)
C.E
oN
NN(ooooo
@
oNJ(L
t-o
_o
E:fz
c
.o
oIL
Z-1
o-
G
Co
oooJ
SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
t2irouri
Pg
onlg olosao
ol
dt
N OA'18 uo
oE
Eo
\
otr
oo
o.xo
E
E
o.go
Page 2 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
E
cts
F;
t
!!EIil
Ic i
iiii
iirif!:i
id.g e
a E3'
E
l&
!E
&;t3
pt
,E
5xt
5:EExaiulrtS
55
EE
!HE
IIg
slEhIB
tIt
:
*
6
c
r*
EtaE
*3ii
ER
a
!
5
a
r Eiti E"tEr!iiEIt;!rti
:!iEi!5
P:i!eIE
EiiIIEg
iEIiqEi
;8z
,
i
B5i
a
i
iEriI
ECs
Pts9
I
a
o-S
T,*
!
!:lrftr :tdvcaoiYr a irdu lr nn
II
#
3
]vsl
'rfrE ^Jxlo,
a
F
;e
;E
:E
4,
>E
q
I
6
d
E
a
E
I
ii
:7li
5t
!E
o
6
1
Et;u
5
7
8
{
I
I
9P
B
7s.,
,8
ET
E'
E
9
g
l,
c
I I T !
5o
tE-c;t
9YEl!3
E=dkr
iE
iE
E'I
8.- E
z
o
o
5
!,t!i15,
iEE;r $
I.EuE;r
.6
UE2tP
EE 3iIi::
EE Hi59f,:
I
I I
iiI I
i!i
;li
zI
**
a
rilii
li
i
I
F
I
]"
r ii r I,I
Yc( uro.i
ru -J
E
I!
SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 3 of 43
I
E
:
r{i;
.$
3;
gtr
!Et
I5!llt
I
I
I-r
E{bl
il
i EIf!'
I
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a
Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating642.52 acreswithin
the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to
be known as the Hyde Park Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development
of a maximum of 1,800 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 300 dwelling units and
a maximum of 1,000 will be multi-family dwelling units; a minimum of 45,000 square feet of
commercial development in the Village Center Context Zone: a minimum of 18,000 square feet of
civic, governmental and institutional uses in the Village Center Context Zone; assisted living
facilities subject to a floor area ratio in place of the square footage cap in the Village Center Context
Zone; a maximum of 10,000 square feet for any recreation buildings in the Neighborhood General
Context Zone and a maximum of 5,000 square feet for any recreation buildings in the
Neighborhood Edge Context Zone; a maximum of 30,000 square feet of wellness and commercial
development in the Village Amenity and Wellness Center Context Zone (Irlote: As suggested by
staff, this Context Zone also allows several types of personal service uses including banks, credit
unions, child care, health services and offices, financial advisors, and similar types of uses
providing wellness related counseling services.); all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap
(1,685 two-way, adjusted, average weekday pm peak hour total trips); and approving the
Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Hyde Park Village Stewardship Receiving Area
and establishing that 3548.24 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Hyde
Park Village Stewardship Receiving Area.
GEOGRAPHI C LOCATION
The subject property, consisting of 642.52 acres, is located north of Oil Well Road and east of the
future Big Cypress in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida.
(see location map on page 2).
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT :
The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) was developed, in large part due to
protect natural resource areas and agricultural lands. The RLSA encourages property owners to
voluntarily protect environmentally valuable land as a public benefit. The mechanism to achieve
the protection of environmentally valuable land is the designation of Stewardship Sending Areas
(SSA) in exchange for Stewardship Credits, which are used to entitle Stewardship Receiving Areas
(SRA). One of the components of the SRA designation application is the Natural Resource Index
Assessment Report, which documents the relative natural resource values of land within an SRA
The Natural Resource Index Assessment documents the existing conditions and Natural Resource
Index (NRI) scores within the proposed SRA for Hyde Park Village SRA. It should be noted that
the NRI scores demonstrate that Hyde Park Village SRA meets the Suitability Criteria contained in
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 4 of 43
REOUESTED ACTION:
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Please, see the Environmental Review Section
of this Staff Report for further information.
Hyde Park Village SRA is one of the four SRAs that have either been submitted to Collier County
for review or have had pre-application meetings for an SRA designation. The other three SRA
Villages located within the vicinity of Hyde Park Village SRA along the future Big Cypress
Parkway are Rivergrass Village (approved by the BCC on January 28, 2020), and Longwater
Village (PL20190001836), and Belmar Village (PL20190001837), both of which are currently
under review.
Hyde Park Village SRA consists of four context zones, Neighborhood General, Neighborhood
Edge, Village Amenity and Wellness Center, and Village Center. Two points of ingress and egress
are proposed to serve the SRA from Oil Well Road: one at the terminus of Desoto Boulevard,
providing project and public access through the Village Center; and the second, the main project
access, is located about one-half mile to the west. Two future interconnections to the east (to future
Big Cypress Parkway) are provided. One provides public access to the Village Center and the other
provides access to and from future Big Cypress Parkway for Hyde Park Residents. This SRA
application for Hyde Park Village SRA will include approximately:
1,800 dwelling units with a SRA density calculation of 2.8 units per acre (DU/AC);
o a minimum of 300 and a maximum of 1,000 will be multi-family dwelling units
a minimum of 45,000 square feet of commercial development in the Village Center Context
Zone;
a minimum of 18,000 square feet of civic, institutional and govemmental uses in the Village
Center Context Zone;
a maximum of 10,000 sqrure feet for any recreation buildings in the Neighborhood General
Context Zone;
a maximum of 5,000 sqrure feet for any recreation buildings in the Neighborhood Edge Context
Zone;
a maximum of 30,000 square feet of wellness and commercial development in the Village
Amenity and Wellness Center Context Zone; and
assisted living facilities subject to floor area ratio in place of the square footage cap in the Village
Center Context Zone
The Village will also have other uses such as open space tracts, linear parks, and lakes. The
required minimum 35% open space is224.88 acres, and660/o open space or 423.87 acres has been
provided.
For further information, please see Attachment A - Proposed SRA Resolution
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
a
o
a
o
a
a
Page 5 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
This section of the staff report identifies the land uses, zoning classifications, and maximum
approved densities for properties surrounding boundaries of Hyde Park Village SRA:
North:Sparsely developed with single-family residential, with a current zoning
designation of Estates (E), (one unit per 2.25 acres)
East:Undeveloped land, with a current zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile
Home Overlay with Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO)
(1 unit per 5 acres). Immediately to the east future Big Cypress Parkway, then
approved Rivergrass Village SRA
South:Oil Well Road, a two-lane arterial roadway (planned to be widened to 6 lanes
- LRTP) , then sparsely developed with single-family residential, with a current
zoning designation of Estates (E), (one unit per 2.25 acres)
West:Faka Union Canal, then sparsely developed single-family residential, with a
current zoning designation of Estates (E), (one unit per 2.25 acres)
SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Aerial (County GIS)
Page 6 of 43
ilr
.-{,, '
i'
t'
,r
I
: i 'r '\/E
."
:{
N
I
a
t'tr
,
o
6
o
i, rr3lr' AVE Nl
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed SRA. The subject properly is designated
Agricultural/Rural (Agricultural/Rural Mixed-Use District) and is within the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Property owners
within this FLUM designation may develop their property under the baseline conditions, which
are agriculture and related uses, essential services, residential at a maximum density of one
dwelling unit per five acres, parks and open space, earth mining, etc., or may choose to participate
in the Stewardship Program. The Stewardship Program provides for the protection of valuable
habitats by designation as a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) where land-use layers are removed,
which generates Stewardship Credits that can be used to entitle mixed-use developments known
as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) on lands appropriate for development. SRAs may vary
in size and must contain a mixture of uses, as provided for in the RLSAO policies contained in the
FLUE. Details of the RLSAO are provided in the RLSAO Policies and RLSAO Attachment C,
Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics, in the FLUE as well as the implementing RLSAO
zoning overlay in the LDC, Land Development Code - also referred to as the LDC Stewardship
District.
Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed this SRA petition and reached the following
conclusions (see Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review Memo dated Dec. 27,2019, for full
analysis):
1. The requisite credits are either approved or pending approval, in sufficient number to enable
development of the project.
2. The proposed Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) for the project may be deemed consistent
with the Future Land Use Element, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay.
3. Comprehensive Planning also requests:
a) Make the 1 80-unit multi-family dwelling figure part of Section 5.4. 1 , Village Center Context
Zone, Allowable Uses and Structures.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and
recommends the following:
Policy 3.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP
"The County shall acquire o sfficient amount of right-of-way to facilitate arterial and
collector roads as appropriate to meet the needs of the Long-Range Transportation Plan
or other adopted transportation studies, plan or programs, appropriate turn lanes,
medians, bicycle and pedestrian features, drainage canals, a shoulder sfficient for pull
offs, and landscaping areas. Exceptions to the right-of-way standard may be considered
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
PageT of43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
when it can demonstrate, through a trffic capacity analysis, that the maximum number of
lanes at build-out will be less than the standard. "
Long-Range Transportation Plan
In 2016, Collier County began the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study. This
study evaluated several corridor alternatives to enhance trafhc operations and safety conditions
based on current and future travel demands. While the County was studying the corridor, the
Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization adopted an amendment (May 25,2078) to the 2040
Long Range Transportation Plan that added a new needed roadway that became known as Big
Cypress Parkway between Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road. The County continued
forward with the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study, which included
coordination with Collier Enterprises as it related to their SRA development at the time (Rural
Lands West SRA). In May 2019, the Board adopted Viable Alternative 2+, which included the
following improvements :
o Randall Boulevard (8th Street NE to Everglades Boulevard - 6 lanes)
. Randall Boulevard (Everglades Boulevard to Big Cypress Parkway - 4 lanes)
o Oil Well Road (Everglades Boulevard to Oil Well Grade Road - 6 lanes)
o Everglades Boulevard (Randall Boulevard to Oil Well Road - 4 lanes)
o Additional regional roadway needs to enhance access, safety, and mobility:
o Vanderbilt Beach Road (l6th Street NE to Big Cypress Parkway)
o Everglades Boulevard (Vanderbilt Beach Road Ext. to Randall Boulevard)
o Big Cypress Parkway (Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road)
Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with
this SRA request.
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states
"The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applicotions,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development,
with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall
not approve any petition or application that would directly occess a deficient roadway
segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that
is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway
segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to
operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning
period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application
has significant impacts if the trffic impact statement reveals that any of the following
occur;
a. For linl<s (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project trffic is
equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 8 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
b. For linlrs adjacent to linlrs directly accessed by the project where project trffic is equal
to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
c. For all other links, the project trffic is considered to be significant up to the point where
it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant
and submitted as part of the trffic impact statement that addresses the project's
significant impacts on all roadways. "
Staff finding: In evaluating the Hyde Park Village SRA, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) dated November 4,2019 for consistency using the applicable 2018 and
current 2019 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR).
According to the SRA document and noted above, the applicant is requesting a maximum of 1,800
residential dwelling units, up to 45,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial retail/office uses,
and 18,000 square feet of civic, govemmental and institutional uses. The TIS provided with the
petition outlines a potential development scenario for 1,500 single-family residential dwelling
units, 300 multi-family dwelling units, up to 18,000 square feet of govemmental and institutional
uses, and up to 45,000 square feet of retail/office uses.
Staff has evaluated the TIS and has found that the scenario presents an accurate trip generation
calculation, reasonable trip distribution on the surrounding network, and reflects a reasonable
development potential with the proposed SRA. The SRA document establishes the total trip cap
commitment of +l- 1,685 PM peak hour two-way trips.
According to the TIS, the project impacts the following County roadways:
Link
JJt+
Roadway Link
Location
2018
AUIR
Existing
LOS
P.M. Peak
Hour Peak
Direction
Service
Volume/Peak
Direction
2018
AUIR
Remaining
Capacity
2019
AUIR
Remaining
Capacity
12r.2 Oil Well
Road
Oil Well
Grade to
Ave Maria
Blvd
B 2,000/West 7,464 1,458
t2t.t Oil Well
Road
Desoto
Blvd to
Oil Well
Grade
B 1,100/West 564 558
120.0 Oil Well
Road
Everglades
Blvd to
Desoto
Blvd
B 1,1O0/West 541 526
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 9 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
I 19.0 Oil Well
Road
Immokalee
Road to
Everglades
Blvd
C 2,00O/East 863 808
135 Everglades
Blvd
Golden
Gate Blvd
to Oil Well
Road
B 800Atrorth 44s 339
1 18.0 Wilson
Blvd
Immokalee
Road to
Golden
Gate Blvd
B 900/South 560 549
133.0 Randal
Blvd
Everglades
Blvd to
Desoto
Blvd
C 90O/East 261 248
132.0 Randal
Blvd
Immokalee
Road to
Everglades
Blvd
E 900/East 40 64
t12.0 Vanderbilt
Beach Rd
Logan
Blvd to
Collier
Blvd
C 3,000/East 1,052 1 1 s6
111.2 Vanderbilt
Beach Rd
Livingston
Rd to
Logan
Blvd
C 3,000/East 859 712
t7.0 Golden
Gate Blvd
Collier
Blvd to
Wilson
Blvd
C 2,300lEast 590 s70
123.0 Golden
Gate Blvd
Wilson
Blvd to
18th Street
NE/SE
B 2,30OiEast 1,095 1,016
1 23 1 Golden
Gate Blvd
1Sth Street
NE/SE to
Everglades
Blvd
B 2,300lBast 1,105 7,025
t24.0 Golden
Gate Blvd
Everglades
Blvd to
Desoto
Blvd
B 1.010/East 783 778
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 10 of43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
46.0 Immokalee
Road
Oil Well
Road to
SR 29
C 900/East 322 288
45.0 Immokalee
Road
Wilson
Blvd to
Oil Well
Road
C 3,3O0/East 891 476
44.0 Immokalee
Road
Collier
Blvd to
Wilson
Blvd
D 3,300/East 681 362
43.2 Immokalee
Road
Logan
Blvd to
Collier
Blvd
D 3,200lBast 188 284
43.r Immokalee
Road
I-75 to
Logan
Blvd
D 3,50O/East 530 553
30.2 Collier
Blvd
Vanderbilt
Beach
Road to
Golden
Gate Blvd
B 3,000/South 1,662 1,638
3 1.1 Collier
Blvd
Golden
Gate Blvd
to Pine
Ridge
Road
C 3,000Arlorth 1,142 1,071
31.2 Collier
Blvd
Pine Ridge
Road to
Green
Blvd
C 3,00OAtrorth 1 )I 60 1,043
The companion Developer Agreement fulfills the mitigation necessary to comply with the Growth
Management Plan Transportation Element Policy 5.1.
Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with
this SRA request.
Policy 7.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states:
"Collier County shall apply the standards and criteria of the Access Management Policy
as adopted by Resolution and as may be amended to ensure the protection of the arterial
and collector system's capacity and integrity. "
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page1lof43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Staff finding: The Hyde Park Village SRA is proposing two access points on Oil Well Road and
two on the future Big Cypress Parkway. Staff recommends approval of the proposed access points
shown on the master plan for this petition. Nothing in this development order will vest the
developer to anything more than a right in/right out at the locations.- Directional and full median
openings may be contemplated at the time of Site Development Plan or Plat and Plan. To be
explicit regarding a future signalized intersection, a provision of the companion Developer
Agreement includes provisions for proportionate fair share payment for these roadway
improvements.
Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with
this SRA request.
Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states
"The County shall require, whereverfeasible, the interconnection of local streets
between developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network.
The LDC shall identify the circumstances and conditions that would require the
interconnection of neighboring developments and shall also develop standards and
criteriafor the safe interconnection ofsuch local streets."
Staff finding: The Land Development Code requires the applicant to create an interconnected street
system designed to disperse and reduce the length of automobile trips (4.08.07.J.3.a.iii). The
proposed Hyde Park Village SRA's Master Plan shows potential-future interconnections to
adjacent roadways along the future Big Cypress Parkway. The north and west perimeters of the
project are adjacent to estate zoning-parcels where interconnections are not desirable.
StaffRecommendation: Transportation Planning stafffinds this petition consistent with the GMP
subject to the following Conditions of Approval below and recommends approval with the
following conditions:
Conditions ofApproval
A. The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with this SRA request.
Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this SRA petition and the criteria.
Environmental Review: LDC Section 4.08.07.4.1.d requires that Stewardship Receiving Areas
(SRA) with lands greater than one acre and a Natural Resource Index (NRI) value greater thanI.2
shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state. There
are no areas within the proposed SRA that contain acreages with an NRI score above 1.2. The
majority land within the SRA boundary was cleared of native vegetation and converted to row
crops and improved pasture lands. Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use
Element, preservation of listed species habitat and other native areas in the Rural Lands
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 12 of 43
STAFF ANALYSIS:
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Stewardship Area is addressed by the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA)
SSA 7 has been approved for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA.
Evaluation of Suitability Criteria in LDC section 4.08.07.A:
o Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, transient housing,
institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands that
receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than I .2 (LDC Section 4.08.07.A. l.b). There
are no areas having an NRI value greater than 1.2; therefore, residential, commercial,
manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, transient housing, institutional, civic and
community service uses may be sited on these lands.
Conditional use essential services and government essential services, with the exception of those
necessary to serve permitted uses andfor public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives a
Natural Resource Indexvalue of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel
(LDC Section 4.08.07.4.1.c). There are no areas having an NRI value greater than I .2; therefore,
conditional use essential services, except for those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public
safety, and governmental essential services may be sited on these lands.
Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and hsve an Index Value greater than 1.2 sholl
be retained os open spoce and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state (LDC
Section 4.08.07.A.1 d). T\ere are no areas having an NRI value greater thanl.2.
a
a
a An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall
buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07.J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to, or
encompass, a WRA (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.g). The project does not encroach into an FSA,
HSA, or WRA; it provides the required buffers as indicated on the SRA Master Plan.
SSA credits required for SRA Designation;
Environmental Planning staff reviewed this petition in conjunction with GIS staff who provided
the following information regarding generation of stewardship credits:
The Stewardship credits for Hyde Park Village SRA are generated from SSA 7 located on
properties within and adjoining the Camp Keais Strand, a major flow way system connecting
Corkscrew Marsh at its northern end and adjoining the Okaloacoochee Slough. The credit
calculation is based on the total acreage of Hyde Park, which is 642.52 acres. The minimum open
space requirement is 224.88 acres; the applicant has proposed 423.87 acres of open space.
Therefore, the total acreage that consumes credits is 443.53 acres. Therefore, Hyde Park requires
3,548.24 Stewardship Credits.
Of the six Natural Resources Index Factors on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet, only Land Use
- Land Cover (FLUCFCS) and Listed Species Habitat are prone to change over time. In this SRA
application, minor changes to the Land Use * Land Cover Classifications have not occurred as a
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 13 of43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
result of detailed onsite FLUCFCS mapping conducted in June 2017. Minor changes have
occurred to the Listed Species Habitat factor that affects index scoring for the SRA; however, no
NRI value exceeded 1.2 within the SRA boundary.
Hyde Park Village SRA credits are generated from Stewardship Sending Area 7, which has
4,03 4.20 available credits.
Site Description.
The subject property consists of 642.52 acres of disturbed lands. Past land uses include intense
agricultural activity and fill pits authorized by the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) through an Environmental Resource Permit issued in 1998. There is a 1.56-acre
Conservation Easement dedicated to SFWMD in the southeast corner of the project site. A
FLUCFCS map detailing land use is contained in Exhibit 2 of the Natural Resource Index
Assessment. The vegetated area is 1.92 acres, which is classified as Exotic Wetland Hardwoods
(1.08 acres) and Australian Pines (0.84 acres). The vegetation does not meet the LDC definition
of native vegetation for preservation purposes. Wetland mitigation for impacts to this area will be
addressed through the Environmental Resource Permitting process.
Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME) & Future Land Use Element (FLUE)
r e I at e d t o Env ir onmental P I anning :
Environmental Planning staff has found this project to be consistent with the CCME & FLUE.
Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element, preservation of listed species
habitat and other native areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is addressed by the creation of
the required Stewardship Sending Areas. SSA 7 has been approved for the petitioner to obtain
credits for the development of the SRA.
Listed Species
Listed species surveys were conducted in February 2018 and October 2019 for wildlife species
listed by the FWCC and the USFWS as endangered, threatened or species of special concem (see
Exhibit 3 of the Natural Resource Index Assessment). The February 2018 survey did not find any
listed species present within the Hyde Park Village SRA boundary. The current wildlife survey
conducted in October 2019 and a site visit conducted by staff in December 2079 revealed the only
threatened species observed onsite was the little blue heron (Egretta caerulea). The Natural
Resource Index Assessment states pedestrian transects were spaced approximately 50 to 200 feet
apart and the transects are shown in Appendix A of the Natural Resource Index Assessment. There
were no protected plant species identified on-site.
Environmental supports this petition subject to the following condition of approval:
1. Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a listed species management plan must be
provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the Florida
panther (Puma concolor coryi) and all other listed species.
Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water and northeast wastewater
service areas of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water, wastewater, and
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 14 of43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
irrigation quality (l Q.) water services will be extended to the project from the Northeast Utility
Facilities O{EUF) site at 825 39th Ave NE (adjacent to the Collier County fairgrounds).
Pending Board approval, utility services will be provided in accordance with the Developer
Contribution Agreement (DCA) that accompanies this petition. The CCWSD will extend
transmission mains through a County Utility Easement to be provided along the north side of the
development. Additionally, the CCWSD will construct an interim 1.5 MGD wastewater treatment
facility at the NEUF site to serve the project. The developer will be responsible for design,
permitting, construction, and conveyance of utility system infrastructure internal to the SRA
pursuant to the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Ord. No. 2004-31,
as amended).
Deviation #3 in subsection 6.8 "Other Deviations" was added at the request of Public Utilities to
allow the I.Q. water distribution system constructed within the SRA to be conveyed by the
developer to the CCWSD for ownership and maintenance, in accordance with the DCA. Residents
and businesses will receive individually metered irrigation services and will pay standard I.Q.
rates. Perimeter berms and common areas may be irrigated from on-site water sources.
The Public Utilities Department supports this petition subject to the following conditions of
approval:
1. The negotiated DCA must be adopted concurrently with or prior to the SRA ordinance.
Landscape Review: The applicant is requesting two landscape deviations as part of this
application. Staff recommends approval of these deviations (see deviation discussion below). The
buffers labeled on the master plan meet or exceed LDC requirements.
Parks and Recreation Review: Parks and Recreation staff has reviewed the petition and
recommends the developer provide an ASTM certified playground as part of the Amenity Site
facilities.
Communitv snd Human Services Review (Housins) Review: Proposal- As submitted, the Hyde
Park Village proposes to comply with FLUE Policy 4.7 .2 that villages be, " . . . Primarily residential
communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and
character of the particular village", by stating that, "The HPV will be entitled to allow for up to
1,800 dwelling units (with a maximum of 1500 single-family and a minimum of 180 multi-family
dwelling units), 45,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and 18,000 square feet of
civic, institutional and goverrrmental uses.
The Economic Assessment provided with the submission offers some details as to the types and
proposed sales pricing of the housing units.
SRA-P120'180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 15 of43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Sales. Just. and Taxable Values
Estimates of sales, just, and taxable values for the residential units are shown in Table 2. The
sales values of the residential product types were provided by the Applicant. The eligible
homestead percentage per residential product type used in computing the taxable value per
unit was based on County averages published by the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at
the University of Florida.
According to the Shimberg Center, the median assessed value of a single-family home in
unincorporated Collier County is 5261,840. ln comparison, the average assessed value for
Collier Lakes single-family homes is 5329,000 which is 26 percent higher than the County's
median value.
Table 2: Collier Lakes Residential and Taxable Values
Land Use ct Fee Ca
Residential (Units)
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories
Single Family Product A
Single Family Product B
Single Family Product C
Total Residential
Source: Neal Communities, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2018
The assessment states that, "According to the Shimberg Center, the median assessed value of a
single-family home in unincorporated Collier County is $261,840. In comparison, the average
assessed value for Collier Lakes (aka- Hyde Park Village) single-family homes is $329,000 which
is26% higher than the County's median value."
Housing Review: The Hyde Park Village submission offers no details on how many residential
units will meet the county's affordability standards for various income levels. It also offers no
detail on the number of affordable units or price points that will be included to accommodate the
need for affordable units created by the village itself.
Without such details, it is not possible to evaluate the submittal to determine if it meets LDC
Section 4.08.07 J. 3. a. iv. stating that villages shall... "Offer a range of housing types and price
levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes."
What constitutes a range of housing types and prices, and which ages and incomes are intended to
be served are policy interpretations that can be determined by the CCPC and BCC.
Staff s function is to provide background and a reasonableness test in order to inform the deciding
bodies of the intent of policy goals and LDC requirements. RLSA villages are intended to be
innovative, compact, and residential in nature including supporting commercial and civic uses.
Their intention is to be as self-sufficient as possible so as to not place an undue burden on other
SRA-PL2O180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Units
Sales
Value per
Unit
Just Va I ue
per Unit
Average
Taxa bl e
Value per
Unit
300 5168,000 S 1s8.ooo S rsa,ooo
534 S 282,ooo 5 26s,000 S zrz,:oo
598 s 344.000 s 323.000 S 29o.3oo
368 s 373,000 s 3s1,000 s 318.300
1,800
Page 16 of43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
areas as residents travel from the village for goods and services, or as labor for travels to the RLSA
for employment. A self-sufficient village should aim to accommodate the housing needs of those
employees needed to work in the village.
The documentation provided by HPV seems to proclaim the fact that the residential units that are
proposed will exceed the County's median value by 26Yo, offering no accommodation for
affordability to Very-low, Low, Moderate, or Gap income residents.
Collier County's approved Housing Demand Methodology assigns a maximum purchase price of
$330,000 as the top level of affordably for households at the ceiling of the Gap income level.
Households at the Moderate-Income level require products priced less than $275,000.
Households at the Low-income level require products priced less than $150,000, and those at the
Very-Low income require products priced less than that.
The Economic Assessment indicates that 1,432 residential units in The Hyde Park Villag e may be
priced near levels as to be affordable to Low, Moderate and Gap income households.
The proposal does not seem to include any units or accorlmodation for households at the Low or
Very-Low income levels.
Staff recommended condition of approval:
It is recommended that a housing needs analysis be performed to estimate the affordable housing
demand generated by The Hyde Park Village proposal, as well as a plan to address the supply of
those units.
Absent conducting a housing needs analysis to estimate the affordable housing demand generated
by The Hyde Park Village, as well as a plan to address the supply of those units, staff proposes the
following recommendation.
The Hyde Park Village should commit that at least 15o/o of the units that the applicant proposes
may be sold at purchase prices near the Moderate, and Gap affordability ranges (product types:
Multi-Family Apts, & Single-Family Product A, Single-Family Product B), will actually be set
aside and sold to households that are certified to be in those ranges.
Hyde Park Village
Residential Types
Units Sales Price
L Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 St.300 StoS,ooo
2 Single Family Product A 534 Szgz,ooo
3 Single Family Product B 598 S3++,ooo
4 Single Family Product C 368 S3zg,ooo
Total Residential 1,800
SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised. February 24, 2020
L5% of
Products
L.2&3
45
80
90
2t5
Low
Moderate
Gap
Page 17 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
These 215 units would represent nearly l2o/o of the residential units in The Hyde Park Village and
should be certified for initial occupancy and comply with long-term monitoring requirements
similar to other developments in Collier County.
The Hyde Park Village should also consider the donation of a residential parcel to the County, an
Affordable Housing Land Trust, or the County's designee in order to address the housing needs of
households at the Very-Low income levels and below. A contribution to the Collier County Local
Housing Trust Fund may also serve to mitigate for units unable to be made available on-site.
These staff recommendations, when taken in total, would result in The Hyde Park Village
addressing housing affordability in a similar fashion to other previously approved large-scale
developments and DRIs in Collier County.
Historic Preservation Review: Historic Preservation staff has reviewed the petition for
compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project.
Architectural Review.' In accordance with LDC Section 4.08.07 J.3.a.viii., the Architectural
Design Standards of Section 5.05.08 shall apply unless additional or different design standards
that deviate from 5.05.08, in whole or in part, are submitted to the County. The proposed Hyde
Park Village SRA does not propose any additional or different architectural design standards that
deviate from LDC 5.05.08. The applicant intends to meet the architectural and site design
standards of LDC Section 5.05.08. Architectural review staff can support the Hyde Park Village
SRA Development Document and recommends approval.
Collier Countv Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: At this time, there is existing or planned
capacity within the next 5 years for the purposed development at the elementary, middle and high
school levels. At the time of site plan or plat, the development would be reviewed for concurrency
to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located
within or adjacent concurrency service areas.
Collier Sheriff Review: At bui ldout, there will be a need for a sub-station such as the one built
near the intersection of CR 846 and 39th Ave NE located in that area.
Fire Review: The North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District reviewed and approved the SRA
on September 27 ,2019. Please note, at the time of SDP or platting, the project will be evaluated
for compliance with the Florida Fire Prevention Code regarding fire department access roads and
water supply. Please see the Florida Fire Prevention Code, Sixth Edition, I : Chapter 18 for
requirements.
Economic Assessment Review: Section 4.08.07 (L) ofthe Collier County Land Development Code
(LDC) provides the requirements for the preparation and submittal of the Economic Assessment
for a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). The Economic Assessment, at a minimum, is required
to demonstrate hscal neutrality for the development, as a whole, for the following units of
government: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management,
solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and school. In the event
the Assessment identifies a negative fiscal impact of the project, several options are identified to
SRA-PL2O180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 18 of43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
address the funding shortfalls, including impositions of special assessments, use of community
development districts (CDD), Municipal Service Benefit Units (MSBU), Municipal Service
Taxing Units (MSTU), etc.
As detailed in the information above, the petitioner is requesting consideration for designating
655* acres withinthe Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay Districtas an SRA, to be
known as the Hyde Park Village SRA (Hyde Park), allowing for the development of residential,
commercial and civic/governmental/institutional land use components. Hyde Park submitted an
Economic Assessment, prepared by Development Planning and Financial Group, Inc, (DPFG) in
accordance with the requirements of the LDC, which allows the use of an alternative fiscal impact
model, approved by Collier County. DPFG measured the fiscal neutrality at the horizon year (Year
1412035 buildout) using a "marginal/average cost hybrid methodology" to determine the project's
impacts on capital and operating costs. DPFG also incorporated the County's adopted impact fee
methodology and rates, to estimate the demand and impact fee contributions related to the project.
The assessment model is static and does not include the cost of future infrastructure financing or
provide for positive or negative adjustments in costs, fees, tax rates, etc. but does assume a constant
rate of development for the project.
DPFG conducted meetings with representatives from the various public facilities to capture
information on both capital needs as well as operating impacts related to the proposed project. As
part of this process, the need for new facility sites and other capital items, specifically related to
the proposed project were also analyzed.
An outside peer review was conducted by Jacobs (formerly CH2M-Hill) to provide an
independent, evaluation of the report. The Jacobs report concluded that the DPFG's analysis is
reasonable and confirms the project's fiscal neutrality, as defined. Jacobs further stated: "It is our
opinion that the Applicant fulfilled the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement and that the
proposed Hyde Park development is fiscally neutral, as defined, for Hyde Park Village SRA for
Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District."
Jacobs also provided that future deviations from the development plan may require adjustments or
new analysis to adequately address any changes to fiscal neutrality and noted that the companion
Developer Agreement(s) for the project are also important elements in the overall fiscal neutrality
objectives.
Both the DPFG and Jacobs reports rely on impact fee and other fiscal information that is adopted
by Collier County as the basis for many of the underlying assumptions. The model that was used
by DPFG was provided to Jacobs for the peer review and to Collier County for the staff analysis.
While the model is locked, all cell information is visible, including formulas, and the data sources
are also presented for validation. DPFG has been available for discussions, questions and/or
concerns related to the model and its outputs.
The following is a brief overview of the analysis by facility. Several of the categories were also
reviewed individually and are included with the review comments for their respective facility.
This is noted below. The project impact fee revenue assumed for this assessment is based on the
current, adopted rates, and as previously stated, does not include any projections for impact fee
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 19 of43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
increases or decreases. Any staff comments that affect the anticipated impact fee revenue is
provided below, otherwise, the assumptions are considered acceptable for the proposed types of
residential and commercial land uses and square footages, for the purpose of this analysis. The
same approach, to note any comments or observations that may affect the anticipated revenue, was
used for the information related to millage rates and other governmental revenue sources used for
the purpose of this analysis.
Transportation - Fiscally Neutral. See Transportation Review Section of this Staff Report and
AttachmentF- Public Facilities Impact Assessmenf, to be read in combination with the proposed
Developer Agreement and the following:
Based on staff s review of the Traffic Impact Statement and intersection analysis any projected
deficiencies exist both without and with the project. The adopted level of service standard for
roadway capacity would be exceeded by the existing, committed and vested trips, plus additional
project background trips from sources other than the development project under review. The
project is not causing the deficiency, nor can the projected deficiency be cured by the
development. The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their
growth-related demand for infrastructure.
Law Enforcement - Fiscally Neutral. DPFG worked directly with Collier County Sheriffs
Office representatives regarding any specific needs (land, etc.) that would be created by the
proposed development. The main demand generated by Hyde Park will be cost to equip any new
certified officers. Currently, there is not a need for a specific land site within the proposed
development. However, a substation may be required in the future to serve this and other proposed
developments in the area. As such, impact fees and other capital funding may be available to fund
the equipment needed for any new certified officers as well as a portion of a substation and/or
other capital items, as necessitated by growth in the future.
This infrastructure category currently has an identified deficiency between the adopted and
achieved level of service. However, the project is not causing the deficiency, nor can the calculated
deficiency be cured by the development. As stated above, the applicant will be paying impact fees
for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure.
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) - Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment F- Public Facilities
Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following:
DPFG worked directly with Collier County Collier County Emergency Medical Services
representatives regarding any specific needs (land, etc.) that would be created specifically by the
proposed development. EMS provided locations in the area that will service the proposed
development, with an additional acquisition in process for a co-located facility with Greater Naples
Fire District in the area. Therefore, currently, there is not a need for a specific land site within this
proposed development.
Since the updated analysis was completed, the acquisition of a new site for an EMS station at
DeSoto Blvd. and Golden Gate Blvd. has been completed. This site is one of up to three that will
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Vittage SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 20 of43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
utilize the One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax to provide certain EMS capital construction needs. Use
of these funds will allow impact fees generated by Hyde Park and other surrounding communities
and development to be utilized for capital equipment needs and other EMS capital priorities and
projects.
This infrastructure category currently has an identified deficiency between the adopted and
achieved level of service. However, the project is not causing the deficiency, nor can the calculated
deficiency be cured by the development. The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed
land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure.
Regional Parks - Fiscally Neutral. The DPFG analysis for Regional Parks utilizes an adjusted
achieved level of service, consistent with the methodology provided in the current, adopted Impact
Fee Study. This calculation is provided to ensure that new development is not required to pay
impact fees based on the inclusion of one-time or specialty facilities (lrtraples Zoo, Sports Tourism
Park, etc.) and eliminates the likelihood of over-charging new development.
There are no sites identified for a Regional Park within the boundaries of the proposed
development. However, the estimated impact fees and other capital funding anticipated, related
to the project, are reasonable and adequate related to the demand created by the Development and
to establish fiscal neutrality related to Regional Parks.
The future Regional Parks Impact Fees paid related to this development will likely contribute to
funding the construction of the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park which is located in close
proximity to the proposed project. Additionally, proceeds from the One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax
were identified to provide funding for the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park.
Communify Parks - Fiscally Neutral. There are no sites identified for a Community Park within
the boundaries ofthe proposed development. However, the estimated impact fees and other capital
funding anticipated, related to the project, are reasonable and adequate related to the demand
created by the Development and to establish fiscal neutrality related to Community Parks.
Public Utilities (Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Water and Solid Waste) - Fiscally Neutral.
See Public Utilities Review Section of this Staff Report and AttachmentF-Public Facilities Impact
Assessmenf, to be read in combination with the proposed Developer Agreement and the following:
DPFG worked directly with Collier County Collier County Public Utilities representatives
regarding the future needs of the project. The proposed development will be required to pay User
Fees, Impact Fees and Special Assessments (Solid Waste) which will provide funding for both
capital and operating costs attributable to the project.
Pending Board approval, utility services will be provided in accordance with the Developer
Agreement that accompanies this petition, and which must be adopted concurrently with or prior to
the SRA ordinance. As provided in the Public Utilities Review Section, "CCWSD will extend
transmission mains through a County Utility Easement to be provided along the north side of the
development. Additionally, the CCWSD will construct an interim 1.5 MGD wastewater treatment
SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 21 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
facility at the NEUF site to serve the project. The developer will be responsible for design,
permitting, construction, and conveyance of utility system infrastructure intemal to the SRA
pursuant to the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance. Also, the developer
has agreed to reserve a permanent well site and associated pipeline easements to the CCWSD."
Please refer to the companion Developer Agreement for details related to the utility agreement,
including prepayment of impact fees, Irrigation Quality Water, etc.
Stormwater Management - Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment F - Public Facilities Impact
Assessmenl, to be read in combination with the proposed Developer Agreement and the following:
Collier County does not assess impact fees or other special assessments to fund the Stormwater
Management Capital and Maintenance Programs. Funding for these areas is typically provided by
a combination of funding appropriations from the General Fund (001) and the Unincorporated
Area General Fund (111). The project water management system will be fully permitted through
the South Florida Water Management District and Collier County. Collier County will have no
responsibility for the capital construction or maintenance of the Hyde Park water management
system serving the development.
To the extent that Hyde Park constructs improvements to accept and treat Stormwater related to
the public road network, that are also impact fee eligible, the Developer may receive Road Impact
Fee Credits and will be detailed in the Developer Agreement.
In addition, Collier County is seeking a 20-foot easement along the western property boundary, in
order to provide maintenance access to the Faka Union Canal, maintained by the Big Cypress
Basin (BCB)/South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The Faka Union Canal is the
primary outfall for the proposed project. The Developer Agreement provides details related to
terms for conveyance of the requested easement.
Based on the above, the determination of fiscal neutrality is reasonable. However, conveyance of
the needed maintenance easement is critical to provide proper long-term access to conduct
operations and maintenance and ensure adequate flood protection level of service for this
development and surrounding property owners.
North Collier Fire & Rescue District - Fiscally Neutral. See Fire Review Section of this Staff
Report and AuachmentF -Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the
following:
DPFG worked directly with North Collier Fire & Rescue District representatives regarding any
specific needs (land, capital equipment, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed
development. As provided by North Collier, this location is 1.6 miles from a planned co-located
facility which has been prepped for vertical construction. Therefore, there is not a need for a
specific land site within this proposed development.
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 22 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related
demand for infrastructure. The current operating millage for the fire district is estimated to
adequately address the potential operational needs.
Collier County Public Schools - Fiscally Neutral. See Collier County Public Schools District
Review Section of this Staff Report and AttachmentF -Public Facilities Impact Assessment,tobe
read in combination with the following:
DPFG worked directly with Collier County Public Schools representatives regarding any specific
needs (school sites, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed development. School
capital costs are provided by a combination of funding sources including impact fees and acapital
millage. The estimated revenue generated by the project through these funding sources provides
adequate funding for the future capital needs, attributable to growth, generated by the proposed
development. The analysis also concludes that adequate revenue will be generated by the proposed
project, through millage, to fund the attributable increase in operating costs generated by the
development. While the exact future student population is unknown, the student generation rate
used for the analysis is based on the adopted School Impact Fee Study and supports the
determination of fi scal neutrality.
The DPFG report also provided analysis related to Correctional Facilities, Govemment Buildings,
and Libraries. While these are not required elements of the Economic Assessment or the Public
Facilities Impact Assessment, the same framework was used as that for the required facilities, the
analysis is consistent with the impact fee methodology, and thus the determination of fiscal
neutrality is reasonable.
As stated above, the Economic Assessment provides a fiscal snapshot that is projected to buildout.
Based on these assumptions and making no predictions on changes, positive or negative, that may
affect project revenue, the conclusion of fiscal neutrality is supported by the analysis. The analysis
concludes adequate funding will be generated by the project to fund the capital and operating needs
of the specified public facilities. Further, the specified public facilities do not have projected
deficiencies as a result of the demand created by the proposed development. Therefore, overall,
the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement has been satisfied.
Zoning Services Review: Most of the property was cleared of native vegetation and converted to
row crops and/or improved pasture prior to 1980. By 1993 the entire property, except for a small
area in the southeast corner of the site, had been converted to and was apparently being used for
row crop production. On September 22, 1998, an earth mining facility conditional use was
approved on the site via Resolution 98-395. Subsequent to this conditional use approval, the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) issued an Environmental Resource Permit
authorizing a fill pit. Moreover, on January 13,2004, the confirmation of this conditional use and
modifications of the stipulations were memorialized via Resolution 2004-04. The earth mining
facility had ceased operations around 2009. Currently the site consists of disturbed uplands, borrow
pits, ditches, berms, and a preserve area located in the southeast corner of the property.
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 23 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
The Hyde Park Village SRA Development Document sets forth the design standards for the
Village. According to LDC Section 4.08.07C.2., "Villages are primarily residential communities
with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the
particular village....Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a
mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and
facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian circulation by including an
interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods..." The
Village consists of four context zones, Neighborhood General, Neighborhood Edge, Village
Amenity and Wellness Center, and Village Center.
The Neighborhood General context zone is approximately 26.10 acres and allows for residential
development consisting of single-family and multi-family dwelling units. Neighborhood
recreation areas are also permitted which include passive parks. The maximum zoned and actual
building height is 42 arrd 50 feet for single-family, two-family, zero-lot lines structures, and
neighborhood recreation areas. The maximum zoned and actual building height is 50 and 60 feet
for multi-family structures.
The Neighborhood Edge context zone is approximately 191.89 acres and allows for residential
development consisting of single-family and multi-family dwelling units. Neighborhood
recreation areas are also permitted which include passive parks. The maximum zoned and actual
building height is 42 and 50 feet for single-family detached, single-family attached, two-family,
and villas. The maximum zoned and actual building height is 35 and 50 feet for neighborhood
recreation areas.
The Village Amenity and Wellness Center context zone is approximately 10.74 acres and allows
for recreation facilities that are limited to Hyde Park Village residents and guests which are
clubhouse, physical fitness facility, swimming pools, tennis, pickleball, basketball, barbeque area,
and a dog park. This context zone may also offer banks, childcare services, health services, and
professional offices. These uses will be offered to Hyde Park Village residents and their guests.
The maximum zoned and actual building height is 50 and 60 feet.
The Village Center context zone is approximately 26.20 acres and will be located at the southeast
comer of the Hyde Park Village SRA along Oil Well Road. This context zone is mixed-use,
requiring a minimum of 180 for multi-family dwelling units, and a minimum of 45,000 square feet
of neighborhood commercial goods and services. The VC will also provide a minimum of 18,000
square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses. The maximum zoned and actual building
height is 50 and 60 feet.
Hyde Park Village SRA is a compact, suburban-style development similar to many of the Planned
Unit Developments (PUDs) located in the Urban Area of Collier County. For further information,
please see the Deviation Discussion section of this staff Report below
SRA Findines:
LDC Sections 4.08.01 through 4.08.07 set forth the following criteria in reviewing SRA petitions.
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 24 o'f 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
1. Compatibility with adjacent land uses.
The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use
would not change the existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties.
)An SRA must contain suflicient suitable land to accommodate the planned
development.
The proposed SRA contains suitable land to accommodate the planned development.
J.Residential, commercial, manufacturing/Iight industrial, group housing, and
transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall
not be sited on Iands that receive a nafural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2.
There are no areas within the proposed SRA that contain acreages with an NRI score above
1.2 (see Environmental Review section above)
4.Conditional use essential services and governmental essential serices, with the
exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not
be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2,
regardless of the size of the land or parcel.
There are no areas within the proposed SRA that contain acreages with an NRI score above
1.2 (see Environmental Review section above)
Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than
1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural
vegetated state.
There are no areas within the proposed SRA that contain acreages with an NRI score above
1.2 (see Environmental Review section above)
Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage
of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Gross
acreage includes only that area of development within the SRA that requires the
consumption of Stewardship Credits.
The required minimum 35% open space is 224.88 acres, and 66Yo open space or 423.87
acres has been provided.
5.
6.
7
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 25 of 43
As an incentive to encourage open space, open space on lands within an SRA
located outside of the ACSC that exceeds the required thirty-five percent retained
open space shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
8
9
The required minimum 35o/o open space is 224.88 acres, and 66Yo open space or 423.87
acres has been provided.
An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such
areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.6. An
SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass a WRA.
The project does not encroach into an FSA, HSA, or WRA; it provides the required
buffers as indicated on the SRA Master Plan.
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or
indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity
to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted
transportation planning standards.
The Land Development Code requires the applicant to create an interconnected street
system designed to disperse and reduce the length of automobile trips
(4.08.07.J.3.a.iii). The proposed Hyde Park village SRA's Master Plan shows
potential-future interconnections to adjacent roadways along the future Big Cypress
Parkway and access points along Oil Well Road. The north perimeter boundary is
adjacent to estate zoned parcels, where interconnection is not desirable, and the west
perimeter is adjacent to the Faka Union canal, where interconnection is not feasible.
Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
GMP.
Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the
goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP.
Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 9 above [LDC Section 4.08.07
A.1.1 and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07.
The proposed SRA is in compliance with Items 2 through 9 above
SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA District
Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are directed away
from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and Conservation Lands.
The project does not encroach into an FSA, HSA, or WRA; it provides the required
buffers as indicated on the SRA Master Plan.
Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship
Credits to implement SRA uses.
10.
11.
12.
13.
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 26 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Hyde Park Village SRA credits are generated from Stewardship Sending Area 7,
which has 4,034.20 available credits. The Stewardship credits for Hyde Park Village
SRA are generated from SSA 7 located on properties within and adjoining the Camp
Keais Strand, a major flow way system connecting Corkscrew Marsh at its northem
end and adjoining the Okaloacoochee Slough. The credit calculation is based on the
total acreage of Hyde Park, which is 642.52 acres. The minimum open space
requirement is 224.88 acres; the applicant has proposed 423.87 acres of open space.
Therefore, the total acreage that consumes credits is 443.53 acres. Therefore, Hyde
Park requires 3,548.24 Stewardship Credits and will acquire sufficient Stewardship
Credits to implement SRA uses.
14. Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts.
Environmental staff supports this petition subject to the following condition of
approval:
1. Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a listed species management plan must be
provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the
Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and all other listed species.
The Public Utilities Department supports this petition subject to the following
conditions of approval:
2. The negotiated DCA must be adopted concurrently with or prior to the SRA ordinance.
ION DISCUSSION:
The petitioner is seeking 20 deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are
directly extracted from SRA Document Section VI. Deviations. The petitioner's rationale and staff
analysis/recommendation are outlined below.
SRA Docum Section 6.1. Villase Cen ter Standards:
Deviation # I (SRA Section 6.1. 1)):
"A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.p)ii) 'General Parking Criteri4' which states, 'The
majority of parking spaces shall be provided oflstreet in the rear of buildings or along the side
secondary streets. Parking is prohibited in front of buildings,' to instead allow parking in front of
buildings in the Village Center, when such parking is in support of a shopping center which includes a
grocery store. A Type 'D' bufler per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is
adjacent to or abutting a road."
Petitioner's JustiJication.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The Village Center fronts on Oil Well Road and is separatedfrom Oil Well by a 31-foot wide
Type D Buffer. To be viable in the market place the Village Center commercial uses need to
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page27 of43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
be both accessible and convenient to motorists from Oil Well Road. This may warrant parking
in what may be determined to be afront yard: however, with a 25-foot wide Type D buffer
along Oil Well Road, such parking will be adequately screened from view. Without direct
access (and exposure) to andfrom Oil Well Road, the commercial enterprises will not be viqble
in the marketplace. The request is to eliminate the restriction on the amount of parking that
may be located within any yard. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request)
is unique to the RLSA Overlay
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S."
Deviation # 2 (SRA Doqument Section 6. 1. 2)):
"A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the majority of parking be
located in the rear of buildings and prohibits parking in the front of buildings except on-street parking
within the right-of-way to instead allow parking in the front, side and rear yards, when such parking is
in support of a shopping center which includes a grocery store. A Type 'D' buffer per LDC at time of
permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road."
Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
This deviation is requested to allow parking in front, side or rear yards in the Village Center
in order provide for maximum design /lexibility for what will be a relatively small amount of
commercial uses providing neighborhood goods and services. Also see Justification for #1,
above. Convenience and easy access ore critical for achieving morket viability for the
nonresidential uses in the Village center, particularlyfor the pass by trffic which is obsolutely
necessaryfor the viability of the commercial elements. DesignJlexibility is also necessqry.
Staff Analysis und Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S."
SRA Document Section 6.2. Villase Amenity and Wellness Center Standards:
iation # 3 RA
"A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.f)iv), 'Non-residential uses,' which states 'the
maximum square footage per [non-residential] use shall be 3,000 square feet and per location
shall be 15,000 square feet,' to instead allow the Community Amenity and Wellness Center uses
to be a maximum of 30,000 square feet."
SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 28 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Petitioner's JustiJication: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The Community Amenity and Wellness Center ts intended to provide multiple amenities and
usesfor the entire village (and guests), whichrequiresflexibility in size, in order to be sfficient
to meet market demands.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zontng and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (11), F.S."
ocument Section 6 Standards which
LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii:)
Note: LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii requires that Neighborhood General design standards in a
Village be the same as those required in a Town for a Neighborhood General Context Zone.
Therefore, the following deviations are requested from Section 4.08.07.J .2.d.11i. a) through i) on
the basis of how such standards apply to Neighborhood Center in a Village.
Deviation # 4 (SRA Document Section 6.3. 1)):
"A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of "Multi-Family
residential," "side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a
minimum of 20 feet for the primary structure..." to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0 or 5 feet
and a rear yard setback of 10 feet for zero lot line and tornhome development, as set forth in Section
5.1.2.A. Neighborhood General - Required Yards & Maximum Building Height, Table 1."
Petitioner's JustiJication.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The RLSA encourages a diversity of housing types. Allowing for Townhome and Villa type
development in the Neighborhood General Context Zone promotes such diversity. To build
such units ffictively and fficiently they must be consistent with design used in other similar
developments where the market has respondedfavorably. There are many approved PtIDs that
allow for such setbacks for villas and townhomes. We have maintained the required minimum
l}-foot side and 2}-foot rear yard setbacks for traditional multi-family product and this
deviation is limited to the Villa Townhome product. Note: This is a deviation that has
routinely been grantedfor projects in the urban area, when requested.
Staff Analysis and Recommendationz Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Vittage SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 29 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (11), F.S."
Deviation # 5 (SRA Document Section 6.3. 2)):
"A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)i) and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, 'Maximum
Multi-family lot size,' which requires that multi-family residential lots be limited to a maximum of 4
acres, to instead allow lot sizes for multi-family without restriction as to maximum lot size in the
Neighborhood General Context Zone,when located within 1/3 mile of the Village Center."
Petitioner's Justification.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
Limiting a multi-family lot size in the Neighborhood General is not based on any recognizable
beneficial outcome. Presumably it is applied to maintain a "Village" scale. However, a larger
lot can also maintain the "Village" scqle by use of multiple buildings (on larger parcel), and
through design. There is no discernable benefit to limiting Zero Lot Line or Townhome style
development to parcels of 4 acres or less. For that matter, more traditional multi-family
buildings may also be feasible on parcels greater than 4 acres in Neighborhood General
adjacent to or near the Village Center. The entire Neighborhood General Context Zone is 26.l
acres in size and located proximate to the Village Center, which has no such restriction. There
is no reason to arbitrarily limit the maximum parcel size to 4 acres, as all these types ofhousing
styles are consistent with the Village definition which is as follows:
Villages are a form of SRA and are primarily residentiol communities with a diversity of
housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scole and character of the particular village.
Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village
center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilifies. Note:
This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay.
Staff Analysis and Recommendationz Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (11), F.S."
SRA Document Section 6.4. N eishhorhood Standards (which applv to Villases ner
LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii:)
Note: Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iv requires that Neighborhood Edge design standards in a Village be
the same as those required in a Town for a Neighborhood Edge Context Zone. Therefore, the
following deviations are requested from Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii. a) through i) on the basis of how
such standards apply to Neighborhood Edge in a Village.
Deviation # 6 (SRA Document Section 6.4. 1)):
SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 30 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
"A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of "Multi-
Family residential," "side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks shall
be a minimum of 20 feet for the primary structure..." to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0
or 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 10 feet for Single Family Attached & Two-Family as well as
Villas, as set forth in SRA Section 5.2.2.A., Neighborhood Edge - Required Minimum Yards
Maximum Building Height, Table 2. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is
not known."
Petitioner's JustiJication: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The RLSA encouroges a diversiffi of housing types. Allowing for Townhome and Villa type
development in the Neighborhood General Context Zone promotes such diversity. To build
such units ffictively and fficiently they must be consistent with design used in other similar
developments where the market has respondedfavorably. There are many approved PUDs that
allow for such setbacks for villas and townhomes. We have maintained the required minimum
l0 foot side and 20 foot rear yard setbacl<s for traditional multi-family product and this
deviation is limited to the Villa Townhome product. Note: This is a deviation that has
routinely been grantedfor projects in the Urban area, when requested.
Staff Analysis and Recommendationz Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (11), F.S."
SRA Document Section 6.5. Transportation Standards:
Deviation # 7 (SRA Section 6.5. i))
A deviation from LDC Section: 6.06.01.J, "Street System Requirements", which requires "Dead-
end streets shall be prohibited except when designed as a cul-de-sac. When a street is designed to
be extended when the adjacent property is developed, a temporary cul-de-sac and right-of-way
shall be designed. Cul-de-sacs in excess of 1,000 feet shall not be permitted unless existing
topographical conditions or other natural features preclude a street layout to avoid longer cul-de-
sacs," to instead allow the maximum cul-de-sac length to be 2,500 feet as measured along the
centerline of the right-of-way from the intersecting right-of-way centerline to the end of the cul-
de-sac right-of-way. Permanent cul-de-sacs in excess of 1,200 feet shall include a mid-block turn-
around. Temporary cul-de-sacs shall not be required to meet this standard.
Petitioner's JustiJication: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation. Longer cul-de-sacs have been
approved as deviations and utilized throughout Collier County (including in Ave Maria) with
no negative impact. Emergency vehicle requirements and utility design criteria will be
addressed within the design of each cul-de-sac. Additionally, the site plan has been v\revised
SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 31 of43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
to minimize the occutence and length of cul-de-sacs. Note: This ts a deviation that hos
routinely been grantedfor projects in the Urban area, when requested.
Staff Analysis and Recommendationz Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S."
Deviation # 8 (SRA Document Section 6.5. 2)):
"A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b.(11) "Figure 11 - Neighborhood Edge Collector
Street" which requires a 12' multi-use pathway and Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires a sidewalk
a minimum of 6' wide on both sides of a Neighborhood Edge Collector Street, to instead allow a 10'
wide pathway on one side within the linear park/open space area where the Neighborhood Edge
Collector Street abuts the Village Amenity and Wellness Center Context Zone. This deviation is a
general deviation. The exact location is not krlown."
Petitioner's Jastification.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation
The proposedpathwaywill meander through a linear parUopen space area, adjacent to a lake,
providing a safer more pleasing pedestrian orientated experience then a sidewalk directly
adjacent to a collector street.
Stoff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S."
#9 RA Document
"A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b(6), "Figure 6, Local Street Neighborhood General."
which requires a 6-foot wide planting area between the 10-foot wide travel lane and the sidewalk,
to instead allow for a 5-foot wide planting area between the l0-foot wide travel lane and the
sidewalk for local roads within the project in Neighborhood General. In such cases, either a root
barrier or structural soil shall be utilized. If the option of structural soil is utilized, aminimum of
2 c.f. of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown projection shall be provided. This
deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known."
Petitioner's Justification.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation
The LDC (under SRA Section 4.08.07 requires that streets within SRAs be designed in accord
with the cross-sections setforth in Figures l-18 below, as more specifically provided in J.2
through J.5. However, the LDC also allows for deviations is approved by Collier County
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 32 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Transportation Services, as needed to meet the design objectives. This deviation always for a
reasonable design alternative in Neighborhood Edges, which ,s already permitted in
Neighborhood General. The reduced planting area (5' versus 6') in deviation 3), above. Overall
this cross section allows for all necessary width and separation to accommodate county utilities,
sidewallrs, a planting area, and the ability to meet the 23 feet, measured from the back of the
sidewalk to the gorage, to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without parking over
the sidewalk.
Staff Analysis und Recommendation: Landscape review staff recommends APPROVAL, finding
that, in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.4.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the
element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the
community" and LDC section 10.02.13.B.5.h the petitioner as demonstrated that the deviation is
'Justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations." The cross-sections show a 6' wide planting strip whereas LDC section 4.08.07.J.3.ii.r
allows for a minimum of a 5' wide planting area between the sidewalk and curb provided there is
root barrier or structural soil used. 2 c.f. of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown
projection is the industry standard for the recommended quantity of structural soil.
Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that
in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the
deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner
has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based
on principles of innovative plaruring and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (lI),
F.S."
Deviation # l0 (SRA Section 6.5. 4))
"A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iv.g), which requires that street design and cross-
sections in the Neighborhood Edge Context Zone adhere to [LDC sections] J.1.b. and to Figures
9,77,12,13,14,15,16,77 , or 18., to instead allow local streets in the Neighborhood Edge Context
Zoneto adhere to 4,08.07.J.1.b. and to Figure 6, Local Street Neighborhood General, and to allow
deviation 3) above to apply to such streets. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location
is not known."
Petitioner's JustiJicotion.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The LDC (under SRA Section 4.08.07 requires that streets within SRAs be designed in accord
with the cross-sections set forth in Figures 1-18 below, as more specffically provided in J.2
through J.5. However, the LDC also allows for deviations is approved by Collier County
Transportation Services, as needed to meet the design objectives. This deviqtion always for a
reasonable design alternative in Neighborhood Edges, which is already permitted in
Neighborhood General. The reduced planting area (5' versus 6') is addressed in deviation j),
above. Overall this cross-section allows for all necessary width and separation to
accommodate county utilities, sidewalks, a planting area, and the ability to meet the 23 feet,
measuredfrom the back of the sidewalk to the gorage, to allow room to park a vehicle on the
driveu,ay without parking over the sidewalk.
SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 33 of43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Staff Analysis and Recommendationz Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (11), F.S."
Deviation # 11 (SRA Document Section 6.5. 5)):
"A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the amount of required
parking in the Village Center "be demonstrated through a shared parking analysis submitted with
an SRA designation application..." and be "determined utilizing the modal splits and parking
demands for various uses recognized by ITE, ULI or other sources or studies..." to instead allow
the parking demand analysis to be submitted at the time of initial Site Development Plan (SDP)
or, at the discretion of the County Manager or designee, at the time of a subsequent SDP or SDP
Amendment, in order to allow for a more comprehensive parking demand analysis based upon the
mix of uses at the time of the initial SDP or subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment."
Petitioner's Justiftcation.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
Requiring this parking demand analysis at the time of SRA application makes no sense as the
type and mix of uses in the Village Center is undetermined at the time of SRA application. This
analysis should be conducted at the time of initial (or possibly subsequent) SDP for non-
residential uses in the Village Center.
Stoff Analysis and Recommendationz Zonrng and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (l l). F.S."
SRA Document Section 6.6. Sign Standards:
Deviation # 12 (SRA Document Section 6.6. l)):
"A deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, "Temporary Signs," which allows temporary signs
used on residentially zoned properties to be up to 4 square feet in area and 3 feet in height, to
instead allow temporary signs or banners up to a maximum of 32 square feet in combined area and
a maximum height of 8 feet, subject to approval under temporary sign permit procedures in the
LDC. The temporary banner shall be limited to a maximum of 90 days sign for sales and marketing
pu{poses, adjacent to Oil Well Road and internal to the site. The banner sign shall not to exceed
32 square feet in area and 8 feet in height and may be permitted for a maximum of 90 days during
SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 34 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
season defined as November 1 to April 30 per calendar year for a maximum of three (3) years.
This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known."
Petitioner's JustiJication.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The requested temporary sign(s) will be placed adiacent to Oil Well Road and internal to the
site. Due to size and speed of trffic, the 4 square foot sign allowed by the LDC will be dfficult
to read for travelling motorists. The increased size will ensure the visibility of the proposed
development to passing trffic. The proposed size and requested duration of display is in
accordance with deviations approved for similar projects throughout the County, and
compatible with the surrounding area. This deviation has been granted previously in several
PUDs
Stolf Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S."
Deviation # 13 (SRA Document Section 6.6. 2)):
"A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.8.5.4 "On-premises directional signs," which requires on-
premise directional signs to be "set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved
surface or back of the curb," to instead allow a minimum of 5 feet from the edge ofthe roadway, paved
surface or back of the curb. This deviation does not apply to County roads and is for signs intemal to
the site only. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known."
Petitioner's Justification.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
This deviation will allow more flexibility for directional signage internal to the project. A
unified design theme will be utilizedfor all signage throughout the community. All roads and
drives will be privately owned and maintained. This deviation is typical of master-plonned
residential developments in Collier County.
Staff Analysis and Recommendationz Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S."
Deviatio n#14 rS RA Document Section 6.6. 3))
"A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, 'On-premises signs within residential districts,'
which allows two ground signs with a maximum height of 8 feet, at each entrance to a multi-family
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2O2O
Page 35 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
or single-family development, to instead allow a maximum height of l2 feet for such ground signs,
located at two project entrances (from Oil Well Road)."
Petitioner's JustiJication.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The increased height of signage at the project entries will allow the project tofeature a more
pronounced, grand entrance, and will result in a recognizable entry for pedestrians and
motorists.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of irrnovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (11), F.S."
Deviation # 15 (SRA Document Section 6-6. 4))
"A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.8.2., "Real Estate Signs," which identifies types of
permitted real estate signs, to instead allow, in addition to other permitted signs, a maximum of 4
"Lifestyle Signs" located along Oil Well Road, leading to the project entryway(s), and to also
allow such signs interior to the development without limitation. Lifestyle Signs shall be limited to
a maximum of 18 square feet in size, 12 feet in height, and shall be setback a minimum of l0 feet
from Oil Well Road right-of-way and 5 feet from intemal roadways. Lifestyle Signs are intended
to advertise lifestyle amenities within the Hyde Park Rural Village, including but not limited to
clubhouse(s), fitness center, sports and recreation facilities, and so forth. Such signs may be
permitted initially for up to 10 years and may be extended by the Collier County Growth
Management Department Administrator or designee for up to two additional years, upon
demonstration by the developer that there is need-based upon the remaining number of residential
lots for sale within the Village. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not
known."
Petitioner's JustiJication.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
These signs are already found in various other master-planned developments (and since they
have been utilized in these developments for some time, with impunity, it must be presumed thst
they are not objectionable). This developer must be able to compete on an even playingfieldwith
those other developments. The signs are not obtrusive and will only remain in place while the
project is actively being developed and residential lots are offeredfor sale.
Staff Analysis snd Recommendation: Staff not supportive of this deviation and will not permit
lifestyle signs. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends DENIAL of this deviation,
finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has not demonstrated
that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the
petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 36 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in
$$ 163.3r77 (tl), F.S."
SRA Document Section 7. Landscane Standards:
Deviation # 16 (SRA Section 6.7. 1)):
"A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Buffer Requirements, 'Types of buf[ers,' Table 2.4
Information, Footnote (3) which requires 'Buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within
a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet
wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet,' to instead allow a shared buffer 10 feet wide
with each abutting property contributing 5 feet."
Petitioner's Justiftcation.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The combined 1)-foot shared buffer will provide for sfficient separotion and "breaking up" of
parking areas within the Village Center.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Landscape review staff recommends APPROVAL, finding
that, in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13..4.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the
element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the
community" and LDC section 10.02.13.B.5.h the petitioner as demonstrated that the deviation is
'Justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations."
Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that
in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the
deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner
has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based
on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll).
F.S."
Deviation # 17 (SRA Document Section 6.8. 1)):
"A deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, "Parking Space Requirements," which requires 1
parking space per 100 square feet for recreation facilities (indoor) sports, exercise, fitness,
aerobics, or health clubs to instead allow for parking for the Village Amenity and Wellness Center
to be calculated at 1 space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or
storage space."
Petitioner's Justijication: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation
The project will have a complete system of interconnected sidewallrs, pathways, and bike lanes
throughout, allowing residents to travel to the amenity/wellness center without using a car.
Additionally, the centrally located Village Amenity and Wellness Center is restricted for use
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 37 of 43
SRA Document Section 6.8. Other Deviations:
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
by only Village residents and guests. It is not open to the general public. The requested
deviation will result in an adequate parking calculation but not in an overabundonce of
parking. Note: This deviation isfrom a requirement that applies throughout the County and
similar deviations have been granted.
Stoff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S."
Deviation # 18 (SRA Section 6.8. 2))
"A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. - "Location Criteria," which requires littoral shelf
planting areas to be "concentrated in one location ofthe lake(s) preferably adjacent to a preserve
area," to instead allow for the required littoral shelf planting areas (LSPA) to be concentrated in
certain specific locations. The locations and size of these areas, meeting or exceeding the required
7 percent per LDC Section 3.05.10.A.1.b., will be identified at the time of initial subdivision
plat."
Petitioner's JustiJication: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
These areas will be designed to create, enhance or restore wading bird/waterfowl hobitat and
foraging oreas. They will be designed to recreate wetland function, moximize its habitat value
and minimize maintenance efforts. They will enhance survivability of the littoral area plant
species, as there is a lower survivability rate in littoral planting areas along larger lakes subject
to more variable water levels and greater wind and wave action (which negatively affect these
littoral planting areas). The locations of the littoral planting areos as well as the size of each
area and aggregate size meeting or exceeding the LDC required 7 percentage per LDC Section
3.05.10.A.1.b. will be identified at the time of initial subdivisionplat. Note: This devistion is
from a requirement that applies throughout the County.
Staff Analysis ond Recommendation: Environmental staff recommends APPROVAL for this
deviation request because the concentration of liuoral plantings in lakes and waters of the proposed
project will meet the intent of the littoral planting requirement, which is to improve water quality
and provide habitat for a variety of aquatic species and birds. Therefore, it is reasonable to allow
for some flexibility in the design and locations of the required littoral planting areas.
Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that
in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the
deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner
has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based
on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll),
F.S."
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 38 of43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Deviation # 19 (SRA Document Section 6.8. 3)):
"A Deviation fiom LDC Section 4.03.08.C, "Potable Water System," which states "separate potable
water and reuse waterlines...shall be provided...by the applicant at no cost to Collier County for all
subdivisions and developments" and "Reuse water lines, pumps, and other appurtenances will not be
maintained by Collier County," to instead allow for such facilities and/or appurtenances to be conveyed
to and maintained by Collier County. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not
known."
Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
This Deviation was requested to be included in the SRA by Collier County Utilities in order to
allow flexibility in terms of the provision and/or maintenance of such facilities and/or
appurtenances (i.e., the provision and/or maintenance by Collier County).
Stoff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S."
Deviation # 20 (SRA Document Section 6.8. 4)):
"A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.D.1, "Fences and Walls" which states that fences or walls
are limited to a maximum height of 8 feet in commercial or industrial zoning districts, to instead
allow a maximum height of 10 feet."
Petitioner's JustiJication.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The requested additional fence/wall height allows for better screening between residential and
commercial uses. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the
County and similar deviations have been granted.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S."
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 39 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
The applicant conducted a NIM on October 24,2018 at Peace Lutheran Church located at 9850
Immokalee Road. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 6:00 p.m.
The applicant's agent explained the request for the proposed SRA.
Bob Mulhere, the agent, conducted the meeting with introductions ofthe consultant team and staff,
and provided an overview of the proposed SRA application. Michael Greenberg gave an overview
of Neal Communities. Following the project presentations, the meeting was opened up to public
attendees. Traffic concems were raised regarding traffic along Oil Well Road. Mr. Mulhere
explained that the project is reserving 100 feet adjacent to the southern boundary for the future
widening of Oil Well Road and will be designed to accommodate stormwater runoff from this road
widening. Mr. Mulhere answered questions regarding utility providers. Collier County Public
Utilities will be providing water and sewer service and that the developer is working with the
County to expand this necessary infrastructure. Mr. Mulhere also explained that impact fees will
be required to offset the developments impact on the necessary public utilities. Other issues of
concern were property ownership and existing utility lines that are not on the property. No
commitments were made. A copy of the NIM materials are included in Attachment E.
Because the petition was beyond the one-year anniversary of its first NIM the applicant was
required to conduct a second NIM. As such, the applicant conducted a second NIM on November
5,2079 at Collier County UF/IFAS Extension, Multipurpose Room, located at 14700Immokalee
Road. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 5:55 p.m. The
applicant's agent explained the need for the second NIM and introduced the consultants and county
staff.
Bob Mulhere, the agent, explained the request for the proposed SRA and gave adetailed narrative.
He explained the history of the property and that it was a mining area called Winchester Mine. Mr.
Mulhere gave an overview of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program and that it can transfer
Stewardship credits to build. The project is requesting i800 dwelling units and is 654 acres and
that there will be multi-family in the Village Center. There will be 3547.76 Stewardship Credits
requested from SSA#7. Barry Jones, a consultant, had mentioned that a water permit was
transmitted from the Army Core of Engineers to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Mr. Jones explained
that the stormwater will discharge into the Faka Union Canal and then explained the stormwater
cleansing process with the project's lakes. Mr. Mulhere explained that there will be20 deviations
that are requested that are very similar to the Rivergrass SRA deviations. Other issues of concem
by public attendees were drainage, the number of deviations, runoff from Oil Well Rd, and the
multifamily in the Village Center. A copy of the NIM materials are included in Attachment E.
The county Attorney's office reviewed the staff report on February 10,2020.
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 40 of 43
OCTOBER 24.2018 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
NOVEMBER 5.2019 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is constrained from recommending approval of Petition SRA-PL2018000062} Hyde Park
Village SRA, to the Planning Commission.
However, staff could recommend approval subject to the following Conditions of Approval
l) The companion Developer Contribution Agreement pertaining to transportation and public
utilities is required to be approved with this SRA request. Staff and the applicant are not in
agreement with all items as noted in the companion item for the Developer Contribution
Agreement.
2) Per Environmental staff, update Master Plans to show the LSPA areas.
3) Per Parks and Recreation review staff, at SDP, provide an ASTM certified playground as
part of the Amenity Site facilities.
4) Per Collier County Sheriffs Office, at buildout there will be a need for a police sub-station
such as the sub-station built near the intersection of CR 846 and 39th Ave NE
5) Per North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District, at SDP or platting, the project will be
evaluated for compliance with the Florida Fire Prevention Code regarding fire department
access roads and water supply.
6) Per Environmental staff, prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a listed species
management plan must be provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS
for management of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and all other listed species.
7) Per Comprehensive Plaruring, make the 180-unit multi-family dwelling figure part of
Section 5.4.1, Village Center Context Zone, Allowable Uses and Structures.
8) Per the Public Utilities Department, the negotiated DCA must be adopted concurrently with
or prior to the SRA ordinance
9) Per Transportation Planning, the companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved
with this SRA request.
10) Per Housing, Grant Development, and Operations, it is recommended that a housing needs
analysis be performed to estimate the affordable housing demand generated by The Hyde Park
Village proposal, as well as a plan to address the supply of those units.
11) Per Housing, Grant Development, and Operations, absent conducting a housing needs analysis
to estimate the aflordable housing demand generated by The Hyde Park Village, as well as a
plan to address the supply of those units, staffproposes the following recommendation: The
Hyde Park Village should commit that at least l5Yo of the units that they propose may be sold
at purchase prices near the Moderate, and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Multi-Family
SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Page 41 of 43
Revised: February 24, 2O2O
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Apts, & Single-Family Product A, Single-Family Product B), will actually be set aside and sold
to households that are certified to be in those ranges.
Hyde Park Village
Residential Types
Units Sales Price
1 Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 St.300 S168,ooo
2 Single Family Product A s34 Szgz,ooo
3 Single Family Product B 598 Sg++,ooo
4 Single Family Product C 368 S3z3,ooo
Total Residential 1,800
L5% oI
Products
L,2 &3
45
80
90
2L5
Low
Moderate
Gap
These 215 units would represent nearly l2Yo of the residential units in The Hyde Park
Village and should be certified for initial occupancy and comply with long-term monitoring
requirements similar to other developments in Collier County.
12) Per Housing, Grant Development, and Operations, the Hyde Park Village should also consider
the donation of a residential parcel to the County, an Afflordable Housing Land Trust, or the
County's designee in orderto address the housing needs of households atthe Very-Low income
levels and below. A contribution to the Collier County Local Housing Trust Fund may also
serve to mitigate for units unable to be made available on-site.
Attachments
A)
B)
c)
D)
E)
F)
G)
H)
Proposed SRA Resolution
SRA Credit Use Reconciliation Application
FLUE Consistency Review Memo
DRAFT Developer Agreement as of 2-12-2020
NIM Materials
Public Facilities Impact Assessment
Economic Assessment
Application/Backup Materials
SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 24, 2020
Page 42 of 43
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
PREPARED BY:
LANNER
ZONING DIVISION _ ZONING SERVICES SECTION
REVIEWED BY:
V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
ZONING DIVISION _ ZONING SERVICES SECTION
APPROVED BY:
FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA
Revised: February 3,2O2O
Z- L- 2-o
DATE
L €ZC)
DATE
DATE
Page 39 of 39
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: 9.A.1-Revised Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-24-20 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Hannes & Angel Raudner
3850 37th Ave NE
Naples, FL 34120-1520
February 26, 2020
Collier County Planning Commission
Collier Government Center
3299 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL
Dear Planning Commissioners,
We respectfully submit the following for consideration and action prior to project
approval.
Request for an Enhanced Visual Buffer to the West of Hyde Park Village –
We request that a requirement for an enhanced visual buffer be included in the
Developer’s Agreement instead of the presently planned sparsely planted buffer. The
enhanced visual buffer shall be 15’ wide, 15 -25’ tall and mostly non see-through.
The existing community of Golden Gate Estates (GGE) and the to be developed Hyde
Park Village are vastly different in style, appearance and culture.
Golden Gate Estates has ~4-acre plots along the Fakka Union Canal, each with a single
dwelling on it. It is quite rural in character. Terrain is more varied and less manicured,
with many acres of native vegetation still remaining. It has been like this for a very long
time, and the residents of GGE like their chickens, gardens and recreational vehicles on
their property.
Hyde Park Village will have rows of small 7000 sqf parcels with 5’ side setbacks and
two-story tall buildings. That is Township density, which is a far cry from real Village
density. These buildings will look nice from the front, but we know they won’t from
behind. Without an enhanced visual buffer, the residents of GGE will see an endless
array of similar screen porches, small grass plots and bland house siding instead of the
beautiful green nature we all moved to GGE for.
To recap, we request an enhanced visual buffer on the western side of the Hyde Park
Village development for the benefit of all GGE residents, so we won’t have to look at a
densely populated gated community. The new residents of Hyde Park will probably also
prefer an enhanced visual barrier so they look at a friendly, manicured landscape buffer
instead of the roughness of the GGE parcels.
Important Legal Liability Concern -
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Letter of Concern (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Many of the properties in GGE which abut the new development to the West contain the
Fakka Union Canal and some additional land East of the canal within their property
lines. We are one of those properties. The portion of the Eastern bank of the canal
which belongs to such GGE properties is about 15’ wide, and we property owners pay
taxes for it.
The 15’ of land on the East bank, which we own and pay taxes on, is part of the 100’
wide easement that contains the canal and the 15’ under discussion. Adjacent to and
East of that 15’ strip of land, is an additional 20’ of land owned by the Developer. The
Developer and the County are in negotiations to sell this land to the County to be
cleared, levelled and sodded by the Developer and then turned over to be used as a
maintenance easement by Southwest Florida Water Management District and
maintained by the County.
The present negotiations foresee that the Developer will put sod over both easements,
creating one contiguous grassy area. The proposed landscape plan does not contain
any border markings or separation of our land from Hyde Park. For all practical
purposes, this is like usurping our land and making it look as if it is part of Hyde Park.
This raises big red flags about potential trespassing, potentially unwittingly, on our
private property by the new owners or service staff of the new development. Who will be
liable for anything that happens on our part of the easement? What if somebody gets
injured or falls into the canal and drowns?
Because of this, we request that the Planning Commission delay any decision about
the Hyde Park Village Development until the negotiations about the easement and the
exchange of land and services are completed and all the legal ramifications properly
understood and satisfactorily worked out.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Angel & Hannes
Angel & Hannes Raudner
301-802-5554
301-802-4265
angelraudner@gmail.com
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Letter of Concern (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
RESOLUTION NO. 20 ---
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLlER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DESIGNATlNG 642.52
ACRES WITHIN THE RURAL LANDS STEW ARDSHlP
AREA ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT AS A
STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA, TO BE KNOWN AS
THE HYDE PARK VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING
AREA, WHICH WILL ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A
MAXIMUM OF 1,800 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS,
OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 300 AND A MAXIMUM OF
1000 WlLL BE MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS; A
MINIMUM OF 45,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN THE VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT
ZONE; A MINIMUM OF 18,000 SQUARE FEET OF CIVIC,
GOVERNMENT AL AND lNSTlTUTIONAL USES IN THE
VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE; ASSISTED LJVlNG
FACILITIES SUBJECT TO A FLOOR AREA RATIO IN
PLACE OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CAP IN THE
VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE; A MAXIMUM OF
10,000 SQUARE FEET FOR ANY RECREATION
BUILDINGS TN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL
CONTEXT ZONE AND A MAXJMUM OF 5,000 SQUARE
FEET FOR ANY RECREATION BUILDINGS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD EDGE CONTEXT ZONE; A MAXIMUM
OF 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF WELLNESS AND
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN TRE VILLAGE
AMENITY AND WELLNESS CENTER CONTEXT ZONE;
ALL SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM PM PEAK HOUR TRIP
CAP; AND APPROVING THE STEWARDSHIP
RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR HYDE
PARK VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA AND
ESTABLISHING THAT 3548.24 STEWARDSHIP CREDITS
ARE BEING UTILIZED BY THE DESIGNATlON OF THE
HYDE PARK VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING
AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH
OF OIL WELL ROAD AND EAST OF THE FUTURE BIG
CYPRESS IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WL20180000622)
WHEREAS, Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC ("Applicant") has applied
for Stewardship Receiving Area designation pursuant to Section 4.08.07 of the Collie!' County
l 18-CPS-0 L 792/1530031 /I I 188 Hyde Park Village/ Pl.20180000622 3/23/20 - Revised Page I of 3
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Hyde Park Village SRA Document (SRA-PL20180000622) Page 5 of 18 (3-20-2020)
Revised
IV. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY, MINIMUM REQUIRED DWELLING MIX BY
TYPE, MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM REQUIRED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF
NEIGHBORHOOD GOODS AND SERVICES, AND MINIMUM CIVIC,
GOVERNMENTAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
1. Maximum total number of dwelling units in the Village shall not exceed 1,800 dwelling
units.
2. Maximum number of single-family dwelling units 1 shall not exceed 1,500.
3. Minimum number of multi-family dwelling units1 shall be 300 units, of which a minimum
of 180 units shall be located in the Village Center.
4. Maximum number of multi-family dwelling units1 shall be 1,000
5. Minimum amount of commercial development (Neighborhood Goods and Services) is
45,000 square feet.
6. Minimum required civic, governmental and intuitional square footage is 18,000 square
feet.
V. CONTEXT ZONES
The village contains four distinct Context Zones: Village Center, Neighborhood General,
Neighborhood Edge, and Village Amenity and Wellness Center.
5.1 Neighborhood General Context Zone
The Neighborhood General Context Zone includes approximately 26.10± acres of land.
5.1.1 Allowable Uses and Structures
5.1.1. A. Permitted Uses and Structures:
1) Single-Family dwelling units.
2) Multi-family dwelling units.
3) Neighborhood recreation areas, limited to a maximum of 0.5 acres and a maximum of
10,000 s.f. of building area, and passive parks, limited to landscaped or natural areas and
may include hardscape pathways or seating areas, benches, shade structures such as
gazebos or pavilions, docks or piers.
5.1.1. B. Accessory Uses and Structures:
1) Typical accessory uses and structures incidental to residential development including
walls, fences, gazebos, swimming pools, screen enclosures, utility buildings, chickee huts,
air conditioning units, satellite antennas, and similar uses and structures.
2) Model homes, sales centers, and temporary uses are permitted throughout Neighborhood
General in accordance with LDC Section 5.04.00.
1 The term multi-family used herein refers to the LDC definition of multi-family which is “A group of 3 or more dwelling units within a single
building.” Detached single-family buildings and building containing two dwelling units (such as attached single-family, two family, and
villas) are not considered multi-family and are subject to the 1,500 unit cap on single-family units.
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.3
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Revised Proposed Resolution - 5-1-20 - Attachment A (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.4Packet Pg. 260Attachment: SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App - Attachment B (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.4Packet Pg. 261Attachment: SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App - Attachment B (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.4Packet Pg. 262Attachment: SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App - Attachment B (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.4Packet Pg. 263Attachment: SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App - Attachment B (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.4Packet Pg. 264Attachment: SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App - Attachment B (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.4Packet Pg. 265Attachment: SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App - Attachment B (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.4Packet Pg. 266Attachment: SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App - Attachment B (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.4Packet Pg. 267Attachment: SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App - Attachment B (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.4Packet Pg. 268Attachment: SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App - Attachment B (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.4Packet Pg. 269Attachment: SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App - Attachment B (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.4Packet Pg. 270Attachment: SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App - Attachment B (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.4Packet Pg. 271Attachment: SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App - Attachment B (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.4Packet Pg. 272Attachment: SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App - Attachment B (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
‒ 1 ‒
PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
C O N S I S T E N C Y R E V I E W M E M O R A N D U M
To: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section
Date: December 27, 2019
Subject: Review of Proposed Stewardship Receiving Area for Consistency with the Growth
Management Plan
PETITION NUMBER: SRA PL20180000622
PETITION NAME: Hyde Park Village [rev:6 ‒ third review under this name]
(FKA Winchester/Collier Lakes Village)
REQUEST: This petition seeks to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) for the new, Hyde
Park Village project [the project] on an approximate 654.80-acre site in accordance with the
provisions of the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) of Collier County, as contained in the
Collier County Growth Management Plan’s Future Land Use Element and the Collier County Land
Development Code. Development of the project entails a maximum of 1,800 dwelling units, 45,000
square feet of retail/office uses, and 18,000 square feet of civic uses. A total of ±12.27 acres are
designated for public benefit use.
LOCATION: The property is located west of DeSoto Boulevard (extended), one mile east of
Everglades Boulevard, on the north side of Oil Well Road, within Section 16, Township 48 South,
Range 28 East. Golden Gate Estates’ properties abut the subject property to the north and west and,
adjacently-across Oil Well Road, to the south; and another proposed SRA project (Rivergrass) abuts
the subject property to the east.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS:
OVERVIEW OF RURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP AREA POLICIES AND PROVISIONS AND GENERAL
OBSERVATIONS: The Growth Management Plan (GMP) together with the Land Development Code
(LDC) are used in determining the consistency of the request. To determine consistency with the
more-general Policies and provisions of the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay found in the
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP, the specific policies and provisions of the Rural Land
Stewardship Area Overlay District (also referred to as the LDC Stewardship District) found in the LDC
are taken into consideration.
Where the proposal is in conformity with one area [the LDC], it reaches the ability to be found
consistent with the other [the GMP]. Likewise, where the proposed SRA lacks conformity with the
LDC, it may be found inconsistent with the GMP. This review memo will explain to what extent the
SRA petition for the project achieves consistency.
9.B.5
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review Memo - Attachment C (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
‒ 2 ‒
PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA
The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural (Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District) and is
within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) as depicted in the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) and on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the GMP. This future land use designation (District)
limits development to such uses as agriculture and related uses, essential services, residential
(maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres), parks and open space, earth mining, etc. The
RLSAO provides for the designation of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) using Stewardship Credits
generated by designation of Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs). SRAs may vary in size and must
contain a mixture of uses, as provided for in the RLSAO policies contained in the FLUE.
These submittal revisions included substantive changes, which did not affect consistency
findings with the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay, as contained in the Future Land Use
Element.
Relevant to this Overlay, the planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns,
satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-use
development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting
environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other
predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and
services. Specifically, the Overlay allows development in the form of towns, villages, hamlets, and
compact rural developments (CRD), subject to certain criteria and development parameters, as a
Stewardship Receiving Area, and allows “public benefit uses” such as public schools and public or
private post-secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the
minimum acreages required, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities.
This application proposes the new Village [the project] SRA using the Rural Land Stewardship Credit
System, as provided for under Policy 1.4 of the RLSAO. The SRA application further proposes that
Stewardship Credits, enabling this SRA to be developed as a Village, will be obtained from permanent
restrictions on the use of environmentally sensitive land (from the approved SSA). The SRA
procedures and standards are outlined in Section 4.08.07 of the LDC. Specifically, the SSA to be used
to enable the project to proceed as an SRA is subject to County review and approval at the SRA
submittal stage. This SSA no. 7 has been reviewed and is companion to this SRA application
[PL20160000148]. This SRA application states that the total acreage used to enable the Village to be
approved under the RLSAO is 985.4 acres.
The Village must meet the Collier County RSLA Overlay Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics
as identified in the table below. The table lists characteristic land uses and threshold requirements
from the RLSA Overlay, [FLUE] Attachment C, followed by staff comments/analysis [in italics].
Underlined uses in the table are not required uses. After the table, the relevant RLSA Overlay
Policies (Group 4 Policies) are listed, followed by staff comments/analysis [in italics].
Size (Gross Acres) 100 ‒ 1,000 acres;
The SRA is ±654.80 acres total, or ±642.53* acres, excluding
the ±12.27 acres of public benefit use (*ROW reservation).
Residential Units (DUs) per
gross acre base density
1 ‒ 4 DUs per gross acre;
1,800 DU/ ±654.80 acres = ±2.75 DU/ac.
9.B.5
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review Memo - Attachment C (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
‒ 3 ‒
PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA
Residential Housing Styles Diversity of single-family and multi-family housing types,
styles, [and] lot sizes;
The “Village” includes ±1,500 single-family and ±300 multi-
family residential units. Housing types include at least three
single-family styles and multi-family residential buildings
ranging from one to ten stories, situated on lots in the
Context Zones allowing residential uses.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio or
Intensity
Retail and Office ‒ 0.5;
These uses and FAR are provided for in the mixed-use
“Village Center”.
Civic/Governmental/Institution ‒ 0.6;
These uses and FAR are provided for in the mixed-use
“Village Center”.
Group Housing ‒ 0.45; not required – not proposed.
Transient Lodging ‒ 26 units/ac. net; not required – not
proposed.
Goods and Services Village Center with Neighborhood Goods and Services in
Village Centers ‒ Minimum 25 sq. ft. gross building area per
DU;
The “Village” includes 45,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood
commercial uses which is the required amount (1,800 DUs x
25 sq. ft./DU).
Water and Wastewater Centralized or decentralized community treatment system;
Expansion of the Collier County Water-Sewer District will
provide public water distribution and wastewater treatment
utilities to the project.
Interim Well and Septic; not required – not proposed.
Recreation and Open Spaces Parks and Public Green Spaces within Neighborhoods
(minimum 1% of gross acres);
6.43 acres are required (642.60* ac. x 1%), and 93.13 acres
are provided. (*excluding the ±12.27 acres of public benefit
use.)
Active Recreation/Golf Courses; not required – not proposed.
Lakes; provided, covering more than 231 acres.
Open Space – minimum 35% of SRA;
224.90 acres of Recreation and Open Spaces are required
(642.60* ac. x 35%), and 423.87 acres are provided (66%)***,
9.B.5
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review Memo - Attachment C (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
‒ 4 ‒
PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA
per table on Exhibit A, SRA Master Plan. (*excluding the
±12.27 acres of public benefit use.)
Civic, Governmental and
Institutional Services
Moderate Range of Services ‒ minimum 10 sq. ft./DU;
18,000 sq. ft. required (1,800 DUs x 10 sq. ft./DU); 18,000 sq.
ft. proposed.
Full Range of Schools; not required – not proposed.
Transportation Auto-interconnected system of collector and local roads;
required connection to collector or arterial;
An interconnected road system is provided. A loop road
within the SRA connects to Oil Well Road (CR 858), a rural
major collector road as classified in the Transportation
Element; an additional “potential resident only access” is
provided onto the future north-south thoroughfare of Big
Cypress Parkway, the roadway running between this
development and the neighboring SRA project.
Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system; provided.
Equestrian Trails; not required – not proposed.
County Transit Access;
Plans to accommodate transit & intermodality are included
within the “Village Center”.
*** Note: “Open space” is defined specific to the RLSA in RLSA Policy 4.10, and with greater detail in LDC Section
4.08.01.X. ‒ Open space includes active and passive recreational areas such as parks, playgrounds, ball fields,
golf courses, lakes, waterways, lagoons, flood plains, nature trails, native vegetation preserves, landscape
areas, public and private conservation lands, agricultural areas (not including structures), and water retention
and management areas. Buildings shall not be counted as part of any open space calculation. Vehicular
use surface areas of streets, alleys , driveways , and off-street parking and loading areas shall not be counted
as part of any open space calculation.
Group 4 ‒ Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while
discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning
techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas.
Po licy 4.1:
Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification
of the economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes
creative land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development to
accommodate population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs).
Incentives to encourage and support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as
flexible development regulations, expedited permitting review, and targeted capital improvements
shall be incorporated into the LDC Stewardship District.
The subject petition is for an SRA.
9.B.5
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review Memo - Attachment C (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
‒ 5 ‒
PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA
Policy 4.2:
All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for
designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated
as a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability
criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the
RLSA Overlay… and in accordance with the guidelines [previously] established in Chapter
163.3177(11) F.S. [now: 163.3248] the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and
need not be predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated
as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands
which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as
eligible for SRA designation include approximately 74,500 acres outside of the ACSC (and 18,300
acres within the ACSC). Approximately 2% of these lands achieve an Index score greater than 1.2.
Because the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the provision
of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine
development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore, the process for designating
a SRA follows the principles of the Rural Lands Stewardship Act as further described herein.
Land proposed for the SRA designation meets the suitability criteria and other standards described in
RLSA Overlay Group 4 Policies. The subject site is designated on the RLSA Overlay Map as eligible for
SRA designation.
Policy 4.3:
Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking
such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition
shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding
of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth
herein, consistency with the intent of RLSA provisions in the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance
that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA
uses. Within one year from the effective date of this amendment, Collier County shall adopt LDC
amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements for designation as a SRA, to
include provisions for consideration of impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure
impacts, and provisions for public notice of and the opportunity for public participation in any
consideration by the BCC of such a designation.
The property owner has submitted the required SRA application along with an SRA Master Plan as
described in Policy 4.5. The total credits generated by and available from SSA no. 7 are 4,034.2. This
project requires and consumes 3,692.32 Stewardship credits from SSA no. 7. This leaves a balance of
341.88 credits remaining with SSA no. 7.
Policy 4.4 is not directed toward individual applications.
Policy 4.5:
To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to
Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate
that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District
9.B.5
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review Memo - Attachment C (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
‒ 6 ‒
PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA
and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat
identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map.
The applicant has submitted a master plan with their petition to demonstrate the SRA complies with
all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District (RLSA zoning overlay). Matters
of compliance or noncompliance with applicable policies of the Overlay are addressed throughout this
memo. Compliance with applicable policies of the LDC is reviewed and determined by the Z oning
Services Section, Comprehensive Planning Section, and other sections and divisions of the Growth
Management Department. Matters of noncompliance with the LDC Stewardship District are also
matters of noncompliance with this Overlay.
Policy 4.6 is not directed toward individual applications.
Policy 4.7:
There are four specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets,
and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and CRD
are set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3 and 4.7.4. Collier
County shall establish more specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC
Stewardship District to guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning
and development strategies as set forth [previously] in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. [now: 163.3248]
and 9J-5.006(5)(l). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards
set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C
may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity
blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable housing density
bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base
residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the
overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels
within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis
during the SRA designation review and approval process.
The SRA location is designated on the RLSA Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation. The SRA size
and density are consistent with those set forth on Attachment C.
Policy 4.7.1 does not apply to this application.
Policy 4.7.2 is not directed toward individual applications, but is included here for informational
purposes.
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses
appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100
acres or more than 1,000 acres. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall
include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community’s support services
and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by
including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods.
Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include
neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Villages are an
appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be
9.B.5
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review Memo - Attachment C (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
‒ 7 ‒
PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA
located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for
Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District.
Policies 4.7.3 and 4.7.4 do not apply to this application.
Policy 4.8:
An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer
such areas as described in Policy 4.13. A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA without
requiring the WRA to be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13.
The SRA is not contiguous to, and does not encroach into, an FSA or HSA.
Policy 4.9:
A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an
environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from
wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs. To further
direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial,
manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and
community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index
value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential
services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall
not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. The Index value
of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured
pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than
1.2.
The Environmental Planning Section will determine that all land within the proposed SRA possesses a
Natural Resource Index value of less than 1.2. This SRA is not located in an FSA, HSA or WRA.
Policy 4.10:
Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private
conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and
management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open
space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure
that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a
minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those
CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater
than 1.2 shall be retained as open space. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within
a SRA, located outside of the ACSC, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required
to consume Stewardship Credits.
Open space exceeds the minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage*. 224.90 acres are required
(±642.60* ac. x 35%), and ±334.53 acres or 52% are provided per staff calculations. [A 423.87-acre
figure is provided in SRA materials.] No lands have Index values of greater than 1.2. The forecasted
populations for the project is 3,634 (permanent), and 4,361 (seasonal).
9.B.5
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review Memo - Attachment C (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
‒ 8 ‒
PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA
The portion of the site devoted to public benefit uses (*12.27 ac. reserved for future Oil Well Road ROW)
do not require consumption of Stewardship Credits. The remainder of the SRA provides ±334.53 acres
of open space, exceeding the minimum of thirty-five percent by ±109.63 acres, which is ±17% excess
open space in the SRA.***
*** Note: See comments above at Recreation and Open Spaces in the table.
Policy 4.11:
The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and
intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The
edges of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of
adjoining property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and
recreation/open space placement may be used for this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity
adjoins a SRA, the design of the SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation
of the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and SRA uses.
SRA application materials explain, “Many of the design and planning principles are oriented to protect
natural resources, buffers, and wetland habitats areas, while developing… away from sensitive areas.
Transitional uses, such as, water retention, passive recreation, and agricultural lands are used as buffers
to protect sensitive areas. The perimeter has been designed to provide a transition from higher density
and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property ”. But this
explanation inaccurately characterizes the adjoining property to the east, as the adjacent Rivergrass
SRA project is of relatively comparable density and intensity. Yet the perimeter of the Hyde Park SRA
is designed without recognizing this difference where the two adjoining projects share a common
boundary.
As to whether the edges are well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining
property [or of the same property as it becomes adjacently-across Big Cypress Parkway – the north-
south thoroughfare to intervene between the two SRAs], Comprehensive Planning staff observes that
some of the above-mentioned design principles have been employed, but defers the determination of
compatibility with surrounding land uses to Zoning Services Section reviewers based on the totality of
the project.
Policy 4.12:
Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on
the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse
impacts to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion
will not adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land. Detention and control
elevations shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land
and project control elevations and water tables.
The SRA does not contain or adjoin FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land.
Policy 4.13:
Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and
any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay
Map. Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing public
9.B.5
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review Memo - Attachment C (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
‒ 9 ‒
PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA
or private conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways
or other turf areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required
yard and set-back areas, and other natural or man-made open space. Along the west boundary of
the FSAs and HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south of Immokalee Road, this
open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas
within the first 300 feet.
The SRA does not contain or adjoin FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land.
Policy 4.14:
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a
road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed
development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. No SRA shall be
approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated
to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at
the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of
Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to
provide the necessary data and analysis.
Application materials propose access to and from Oil Well Road (CR 858), a rural major collector road
as classified in the Transportation Element; these two Oil Well Road accesses are both gated-with-
guardhouses (as with a conventional, suburban gated community), providing the “MAIN ENTRY ROAD”
and another secondary entry from the “Village Center” to the residential neighborhoods. [Oil Well Road
capacity is also being evaluated for the adjacent Rivergrass SRA project, which is under concurrent
review].
Hyde Park, and the adjacent Rivergrass SRA project rely upon development of Big Cypress Parkway –
the future intervening roadway running between the two developments. A “POTENTIAL FUTURE
INTERCONNECTION” is provided with the adjacent Rivergrass project, and, a “POTENTIAL RESIDENT
ONLY ACCESS WITH GATED ENTRY” is planned from Big Cypress Parkway. Big Cypress Parkway is
also being evaluated for the adjacent Rivergrass SRA project.
Concurrency is determined at the time of subsequent development orders. Transportation Planning
staff will review this project for its transportation impact, and Comprehensive Planners defer comments
relative to these aspects of the review to the Transportation Planning Section.
Policy 4.15.1:
SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the Urban
Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4 and Attachment C. An
appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be
available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of residents of the RLSA. Depending
on the size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA,
within other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area. By example, each Village or CRD
shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate
civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages and Hamlets may
be required to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby CRD. Standards for the
9.B.5
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review Memo - Attachment C (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
‒ 10 ‒
PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA
minimum amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in Attachment C, and shall
be also included in the Stewardship LDC District.
The project provides for a full range of uses, including neighborhood retail/office uses and the
appropriate civic and institutional uses, sufficient to meet the standards for the minimum amount of
non-residential uses in each category required. The forecasted populations for the project are 3,634
(permanent), and 4,361 (seasonal).
Application materials address most of the above issues and requirements within their Statement of
Compliance, Village Plan, and its component Village Center, Neighborhood General, Neighborhood
Edge, and Village Amenity and Wellness Center context zones. Specific requirements are contained in
other Policies, and staff analysis is provided there.
Policy 4.15.2:
The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA
development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools and other public facilities be set aside,
improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more
public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to
public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning.
Suitable areas for parks, and other public facilities are set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public
use. The applicants have dedicated ±12.27 acres suitable for public uses (ROW reservation) within the
SRA.
Policy 4.15.3:
Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board [District] staff to
allow planning to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA.
As part of the SRA application, the following information shall be provided:
1. Number of residential units by type;
2. An estimate of the number of school-aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary,
middle, high school); and,
3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA, and the size of
any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available for a public educational facility.
Project development is planned in a single phase. SRA documents state ±1,500 single-family and ±500
multi-family residential units are permitted, with a maximum of 1,800 residential units, in aggregate.
The Public Facilities Impact Assessment projects 543 new students to be generated from the 1,800
residences. This overall student figure is not allocated to the number of school-aged children for each
type of school impacted (elementary, middle, high school), as required by this policy.
A school site is not proposed to be set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use in the project –
and may not be warranted based solely on the number of school-aged children in this SRA.
Collier County School District personnel will review this project for its schools’ impacts, and
Comprehensive Planners defer comments relative to these aspects of the review to School District
reviewers.
9.B.5
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review Memo - Attachment C (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
‒ 11 ‒
PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA
In general, having a local school internal to an SRA can: provide a sense of place, as schools are often
a focal point within a community; result in fewer vehicle miles travelled as some students can walk or
bike to school while others can be driven a shorter distance to reach the school; and, result in less need
for school busing or shorter bus routes – all of which translates to fewer tax dollars spent to construct
and/or maintain public roads.
Policy 4.16:
A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such
infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided
will depend on the type of development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements.
The capacity of infrastructure serving the SRA must be demonstrated during the SRA designation
process in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time
of SRA designation. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater,
irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is discussed
in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in
CRDs, Villages, and those CRDs exceeding 100 acres in size. Centralized or decentralized community
water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private
utility service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service
District, Collier County, or other governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater
treatment systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by
this policy provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply
wells and septic systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any CRD, Village or CRD of 100 acres
are permitted on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system
are available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems are permitted in Hamlets and
may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size.
Expansion of the Collier County Water-Sewer District will provide public water distribution and
wastewater treatment utilities to the project. Specific capital projects which support the project are not
listed within the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) or Capital Improvement Element
(CIE) Schedule of Capital Improvements. (It is anticipated that any developer commitments related to
utilities, transportation, or other public facilities, once finalized, will be specifically detailed in [a]
Developer’s Contribution Agreement[s].) The funding sources of all capital improvements need to be
identified as part of the approval of this SRA for the project. These matters are deferred to other
departments and agencies for further remarks, and to public vetting.
Policy 4.17:
The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of
Policy 1.1.2 [now Policy 1.2] of the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the GMP for Category A
public facilities. Final local development orders will be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC
in accordance with the Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time
of local development order approval.
This project does not create a significant impact on countywide population as defined in Policy 1.1.2
[now 1.2] of the CIE. Expansion of the Collier County Water-Sewer District will provide public water
distribution and wastewater treatment utilities to the project. The resolution [approving this expansion]
9.B.5
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review Memo - Attachment C (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
‒ 12 ‒
PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA
was approved at a September 2018 Board meeting. Staff defers to the departments and agencies
identified above involved directly with Concurrency Management for further remarks.
Policy 4.18:
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon
year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K. and economic
assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.L. …Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as
Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum,
the assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable
water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement,
and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private
partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards.
The applicant asserts the project will be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County in the analysis
provided in the Economic Assessment Report. Review of the Economic Assessment Report is deferred
to other County staff.
Policy 4.19:
Eight credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, except for open space in excess
of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is designated for a public
benefit use described in Policy 4.19. In order to promote compact, mixed use development and
provide the necessary support facilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation
entitles a full range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of services to and
are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in Policies 4.7, 4.15 and
Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan.
This 1:8 ratio is met, and a full range of mixed uses are provided. The proposed SRA comprises ±654.80
acres; of those, ±461.54 acres require 3,692.32 credits (for calculation of needed credits in SRA
materials, ±198.97 acres are deducted for excess open space and ±12.27 acres for public benefit use).
Based upon earlier discussion of open space, this excess open space figure would be reduced to ±109.63
acres – leaving ±545.17 acres requiring 4,361.36 Stewardship credits. This is a shortage of 669 credits.
Sufficient credits are available to enable development of the project with Stewardship credits derived
[from SSA no. 7] but are not allocated in sufficient number to entitle the project, as currently proposed.
(These changes to acreage and Stewardship credit figures affect numerous SRA materials, including the
(draft) SRA Credit Agreement)
Policy 4.20:
The acreage of a public benefit use shall not count toward the maximum acreage limits described in
Policy 4.7. For the purpose of this policy, public benefit uses include: public schools (preK-12) and
public or private post-secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding
the minimum acreage requirements of Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and
governmental facilities excluding essential services as defined in the LDC. The location of public
schools shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement
[established pursuant to] 163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and
9.B.5
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review Memo - Attachment C (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
‒ 13 ‒
PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA
related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to CRDs, Villages, and
Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements.
A total of ±12.27 acres are set aside for public benefit uses. Staff agrees with the classification of the
specific uses as public benefit uses (based upon the description of “public benefit use” in the LDC). Public
benefit use acreage has been removed for purposes of determining credit use and calculating overall
SRA size.
Policy 4.21 does not apply, as this site is not within the ACSC, Area of Critical State Concern.
REVIEW OF SRA DOCUMENTS: At an October 18, 2019 meeting held among the application team
and staff representatives, a number of updates, changes and explanations were discussed and agreed
upon to address remaining issues. Those pertinent to this Consistency Review are identified below.
As with other, recently-recommended SRA, staff suggested similar revisions be made to Hyde Park,
and be reflected in the SRA Document and SRA Master Plan.
• Deviations, 6.1.1) re: 4.08.07.j.3.a.v, Village Design Criteria, Center to Edge Density & Intensity
Gradient, or Continuum = agreed to withdraw or revise to allow for neighborhood goods and
services in Neighborhood General Context Zone, and to add to 5.1.1.A. a list of those
neighborhood scale commercial uses (and appropriate accessory uses to 5.1.1.B.). [new
comment, from the October meeting]
Result, as of latest resubmittal: Deviation withdrawn; no issues remain with respect to this
Deviation.
• Deviations 6.1.2) and 3) re: Village Design Criteria, General Parking Criteria = agreed to revise
with an additional specificity, such as “…and prohibits parking in the front of buildings, except
on street parking within the right-of-way to instead allow parking in the front, side and rear
yards, when such parking is within the same block perimeter as, and is in support of, a grocery
store. …” and with recommendations for compensating/mitigating measures [new comment,
from the October meeting]
Result, as of latest resubmittal: now numbered as 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 – no revisions apparent;
no issues remain with respect to these Deviations.
• Deviations, 6.1.4) re: 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e.i, and 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, Village Design Criteria, Maximum
Multi-Family Lot Size = agreed to revise with additional specificity by indicating another
maximum lot size, and with recommendations for compensating/mitigating measures; [new
comment, from the October meeting]
Result, as of latest resubmittal: now numbered as 6.3.2 – no revisions apparent; no issues
remain with respect to these Deviations.
• Deviations, 6.2.1) re: 4.08.07.2.d.iii.a, Neighborhood General, Center to Edge Density &
Intensity Gradient, or Continuum = agreed to withdraw or revise to allow for neighborhood
goods and services in Neighborhood General Context Zone, and to add to 5.1.1.A. a list of
those neighborhood scale commercial uses (and appropriate accessory uses to 5.1.1.B.); [new
comment, from the October meeting]
9.B.5
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review Memo - Attachment C (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
‒ 14 ‒
PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA
Result, as of latest resubmittal: Deviation withdrawn; no issues remain with respect to this
Deviation.
• Deviations, 6.3.1) re: 4.08.07.J.2.d.iv.e, Neighborhood Edge, Parking Standards Same as Town
Core Parking Standards = agreed to revise with an additional specificity, to avoid Town Center
[Core] parking characteristics being applied throughout the project, per the LDC, and with
recommendations for compensating/mitigating measures. [new comment, from the October
meeting]
Result, as of latest resubmittal: Deviation withdrawn; no issues remain with respect to this
Deviation.
• Deviations, 6.4.1) re: 6.06.01.J, Transportation Standards, Street System Requirements =
agreed to be revised with a shorter maximum cul-de-sac length (1,200 ft.), and with
recommendations for compensating/mitigating measures such as mid-way passing-points,
etc. [new comment, from the October meeting]
Result, as of latest resubmittal: now numbered as 6.5.1 – Deviation revised; no issues remain
with respect to this Deviation.
Additionally:
Of the total number of residential units proposed, 300 are multi-family dwelling units; all of them
now proposed outside the village center – leaving the village center not mixed (commercial,
residential) use. Applicant agreed to revise materials to provide a percentage– or an outright number
– of the MFR units inside the village center.
Latest resubmittal SRA Document, Subsection 5.4.1.A, Village Center Context Zone, list of Permitted
Uses, includes “Multifamily dwelling units”. Section 5.4.1, Village Center Context Zone, Allowable
Uses and Structures, provides that “The Village Center is mixed use in nature, allowing multi-family
development as well as the required 45,000 square feet of neighborhood -scale commercial and
office uses, which will include, at a minimum, 8 retail or office uses, and 18,000 square feet of civic,
governmental, and institutional uses”. This section of the SRA document however, does not reflect
the applicant’s agreement to provide a percentage or an outright number of multi-family residential
units inside the Village Center. The SRA document states in Section IV, that minimum number of
multi-family dwelling units shall be 300 units, of which a minimum of 180 units shall be located in
the Village Center.
This180 unit figure should also be made part of Section 5.4.1, Village Center Context Zone, Allowable
Uses and Structures.
The petitioner had agreed to provide narrative statement(s) that describe and explain how this SRA
exhibits the characteristics pertaining to the mixed use village center; neighborhood-scale retail and
office uses; civic and institutional land uses; its compact, pedestrian-friendly form; the rural to urban
continuum; the similar massing, volume, frontage, scale and architectural features within the village
9.B.5
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review Memo - Attachment C (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
‒ 15 ‒
PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA
center; and, so forth, and to, point out where examples of these characteristics are found in the SRA
Document and SRA Master Plan.
Narrative statement(s) to describe and explain these characteristics for this SRA were not provided
in resubmittal materials.
While not required, they remain considerably useful support materials to all reviewers.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The requisite credits are either approved or pending approval, in sufficient number to enable
development of the project, and; [new comment]
2. The proposed Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) for the project may be deemed consistent with
the Future Land Use Element, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. [new comment]
3. Comprehensive Planning also requests:
a. Make the 180-unit multi-family dwelling figure part of Section 5.4.1, Village Center Context
Zone, Allowable Uses and Structures, [new comment, from the October meeting]
cc: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section
G:\RLSA SSAs SRAs\STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREAS\Hyde Park Village SRA\
\\bcc.colliergov.net\data\GMD-LDS\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\RLSA SSAs SRAs\STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING
AREAS\Hyde Park Village SRA\SRA-2018-622 Con Rvws\PL18-622 Hyde Park Village Con Rev memo_rev6.3 FNL.docx
9.B.5
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review Memo - Attachment C (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
10-24-19 NIM
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
frhrlnrBuilU h1trux
NaplesNevus.com
Published Daily
Naples, FL 34110
Affi davit of Publication
State of Florida
Counties of Collier and Lee
Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Natalie Zollar who on oath savs that she
serves as lnside sales Manager of the NaDles Daily News. a dailv newsDaoer oublished at Naoles. in colller countv.
Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee couities of Florida; that th-e attached copy of the advertisinq was published iri
said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said NaDles Daily News is a newsoaoe-r oubiished at Na-ples, in said Collier county, Florida, and that the said newsoaoer hai heretof6re been continubu!lv dublished in said
Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee countie's of Florida. each dav and has been ilntered as second
class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for aberiod of one year next preceding
the first publication of the attached cody of advertisement; and iffiant fuhher iays that he hlas neithei paid noipromised any p_erson, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.#
HOLE MONTES INC
Pub Dates
October 5, 2018
(sic ure of affiant)
sworn to and subscribed before me
This October 05, 2018
2128910 Petition SRA-P120180
R*J {, V.W
/d4*^'
'{#;
(Signature of affiant)
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
xalLasxlwl,cor a FRroaY.ocToB€i5,201a t !ta
Military program could
be seen as bioweapon
Using insects to infect
crops poses concerns
Odlc. Chcl.trd *h lo'ffibln
NEW YOtd( - A Erarch amof t E
U.s. milihry i! cdorlrgtl: paribllity
of deployinS iffi ro nulre plds
mre r6u6t by ahdlig thelr gffi.
Sotuo(Pea eytlEwtmy b.cn
a B pototlal biolo8iol w6po[In u oplDlon Fps FrblirhdThurday in tfE Furnd Sdre. thc
authoE $y the U.S. necds to prw'lde
greate! lstlficetlon for the peacetlme
rcsrc}\ wilcll sk! to ENrntt paGffiiw hlts b 6opa .Iredy g@ina
lnthe ield.
Ttat mid mrk a &patu ftom
the (ent wtdely ud proeduc of
Semdcaly Eodrying wds fd sops
suci a om ard $y, before tlEy gtw
inoplms.
IlE Eilit.ry resdcJlat ncy Ey! itt
g€l ls to p@Ed thc rtion ! f@d sup
plyfr@throB llk &ou8ht, qopdtr-
ee eDd biot€rorim by GW kuetr
to infed planb with vires dEt p!o-
td asaiD* sdr dsEeB.
'food wity b Mtlonal s6!ity,'
sld Blale 8ddE, st[ hea& tlF 2-
,rErld projd 8t the [kfe@ Ad-
@ced Rseech Prol* AgeEy, u
3m of tlE U.S. Deprrtn ft of Deferoc.
The Sule tEpem@t sid tlE po-
is ls fo! lEGfirl Fl p6es rnd dcm V@late the Biologiel l^bdpoa
Conwnuon. The U.S. Depatuent of
Agricuhue sald its *ieDdfir @ paft
c,fthe r@h whidr is b.lrg@ndffi-
ed in omslned labd-
Corn lot.phH. m urd h. rtudy lodit cry pl.d. tlrdth
anglmar.d vlrulc, ,ENA
vit1lg @ lrbr llE ilrnt'8 g$6
the plst's [ife.
eru.-nE/rc Bldig rbdtr |1r8lE rc-
leare of8enetlc modl0crtlon by meaN
of lD!ec$,' etd Gretcy Kebnlda e
ethld( at th. Hdingr Ccnta bteth-
16 l€slch lnsdtuE ln Gsrrle Ns
York, who has rtudled gendlc modln-
@do[ He wnt prrt of th Sd@
prps but s.rd IE*t Ali6 t4hnolog/
dJd ad up h.iDg deltrudiE.
l(*bnlck qqtiorrd how rcll the
vir@3 and lrectg @rryt8 them
ord be @nEolH. '}lthetr !6u ee
blting abou vuy small $irgs - in-st! ud mioober - it mtht be lrnpG-
dblc to lt@lhm'oe tlE,/ &. ttr-
trodued lnto farme6'felds, he s!ld.
Dr. Davld Rdman, a pDfsor of
EEdldn ard rd@biolo5r st Stanbrd
who hE rdvircd tlE Ob.m .drnini-fr.dd onblode&rue b[ ls ret pan of
*E DARPA teuri, qid the PfoldBdd play into long-mndiig fe{s
amrg Mtri6 that ene6l6 hlght
Ey to hlm dEir @p..
S{ll, R.ltM sid th. dmlotc/
@uldhelp hrmets68ht a-brd plsnt yl-
The rechnology could work h dlfrer- u rriig!@tlEdalni' olprffi
entways. ln the ntst phsse, aphlds -tl- @F fDm blot@orism 8@@ in-
oy bws that feed by sucttng eap from s6r often sFad @p di'c!6, Rd-
plMB - Irfued pbnB wlth a viru tM old DARPA is rrylry to w thc
that tempotuily b[@8ht about a ralt. btlgr' m bblogr to 'rc@it them a
8nt r6dcheB @ al& tlyttrt to se lf alls'ln rpreadlng protdiE taltl
Ths public is lnvited to attsnd a noighbodood intomallon m€eting
held by Robsrt J. Mulhse, FACe Vbo Pcsidont, Planoing Seryices
ot Hol6 Montss, lnc. ild Richard O. Yovilovich, Esquire, ol Colsman,
Yovanovici and Koest8( P " on b€hal, of th€ prcpe.ty omr at ths
following tim€ ild location:
Wbdne8day, Octob.r 2{, 2018 at 5;g) p.m.
Pose Luth.6n Church, Fallowshlp HaU
9850 lmmotalae 8oad, Napbs, Rorida 3i[12O
The lollowing lomalappliction has b6sn made lo Collier County:
Stewardshlp ReceMng 1p2 (SRA ln the ,om of a Vlllago ovtr
654,79i acrs of led loGted in sastern Collis County to b€ knowns Coluor Lakss Vfllags ("CLV'). The CLV is proposed to allow up
to 1,800 dwslling unls (150Ot singlo tmily and 300r ruhi-family),
45,000 square leet of nsighbofiood commsrcial uses. and 18,000
squar€ lel ol civic, instttutlonal and govemmgntal usos,
Th6 subisct propsrty is presentv zonad A-MHO-RLSAO. ThB site is
boundsd on the soulh by Oil Wsll Road, on ths wst and north by
Goldon Galo Estatos z6sd prcpfiis and on th6 €ast by A-MHO-
BLgqO propertl$ h activs agriculture proposed ftr inctusion in ths
Fural Leds W€sl SRA Tom Ogsignation.
Th6 subigct property is b6ted at the hte66clion ol Oil Well Boad
and Dssoto Blvd, North, approximatoly 4 miles easl o, lmmokales
Road, in Sectlon 16, Townshts 48 South, Range 28 East, Colll€r
County, Florida,
I
I
I
Colir L!k6 SffA
TvE VALUE YOUR INPUT
Busin€s and propgrly owners, r€sidsnts and visitors ar8 wslcomo
to anend the prestatlon and disoss th€ projst with the owners
and Collisr County starf. It you ar6 unablo to attond this m€ting, but
hav€ quBtions or commnts, they can b0 dirgcted by mail. phone,
or eroll to:
Bobort J. Muhore, FAICe vlce PrssidEnt, Planning Servic6
Hol6 Montos, lnc.
950 Encore Way, Naples, Flo,ida 341 10
Phone: 239-25,1-200O, emalt bobmulhereehmeng.com
ocrobtr 5,2018 ND2128910
UMttu
NONPROFITS
TFAT WORKEO WITX CFCC QURING HURRICANE IFMA
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
FINEMARK NATIONAL BANK & TRUST
s:-.d FIRST FLORIDA INTEGRITY BANK
H,l'dldfrli;hqnfffidwhr+.
IN ()UR
SPONSORS
Naples Daily News
0
TICKETS
:r ) i/
t
rklEre,rydElldryum
dl.labtu&l&rydftrk
drFBk[6&@rdJ.e EtcHIil!d UUdtd. &
iFiqe ee6Isif sm [rdE^re
ll.@dAq#d&.!r4
!&hEFdkD&.tu[rd
dk@1o, dth6dH! tu(h'
d M&ghqnlkq'ktf,
Ar.C.habG.!bC&tX.nk k*d& U,! MU.,trhtu
hdroMddkl)&!6
kM$6d,*k[rFl(LkFlorhb.*!qne
Mfr&*hroFld-xkscq*kredfEerq
hr&ykbktr.Fd
hi {r 16F.d rbq,qk&h
lll7tt-hmfkk*
S.&bnLtlrqqt.rfuLhdrB!&6deIHhxFn@.b!.&&Ukirlk6r
hd{qhc/k..M
The Greatest American*
Silver Dollar Collection
Own thc COfrPTEfE 9tter Elscnhover Year Sct
Fot Lers Th.n t'10 P.t Coln!
l....fah.6..U.d ttB B, h hq dDrld, rib
dndMrry!l0dd@rbq
,@d ldthl!dk.qht<M&rbdulhm6{tuq,
lIb& b& k {er il k[ 3ffd*
GEdhtukrdb,
tcd. Cdlcrh - odttD.S
FtE 3HlPflxO d, d h 36ldbr*{vil-iEB
ott*.d-l?-lnhdnb
t-866-362-8388
loE cdf, rss2s{illb---*'dl
if.li Govtrxr.cox'
Gd3l.s. r.ro! *@,.w. $r 171 :+ sMr t M a,lst
allr+3-tuBMkhlrr *d& ndt, ktulhro Mral
td h U6bE$r&{kr,[ iu
6itblJd{,! U r.!6'b*E itutl
llm-LHry*!litroEhbdI{.,r7tklkD'ih
lldrl.MIrt9rtd t96,wD&
JTLd dd U6d lr5 d 1176 b (&
rdhldftffi&(urd
b dqt, rk hry H sU rh os li e
&kndk.t.tun.Mt!
*t!dgtutu&&U[rd"o.dL,f,[,hI4llI&lL
luid.DFd.dmdHddh:
tuhidaDH.ttBt.lntrttu
lllH-Dhha.Mi
l6d lrr, F{drn,{rrh s&NhEattrlrerytubet&dha@bd{ba*doak
1lH-tu1*hrrhh
ln lrTl xdFhd &Uhth
B.ffih{hhkhlc
|)&d,F{ddErilbtrd
ww1
: : rl
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
NIM Summary
Collicr Lakes Stewardship Receiving Area Designation (SRA-PL20180000622)
October 24, 2018, 5:30 p.m.
Peace Lutheran Church
9E50 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida, 34120
The NIM was held for the above referenced petition. The petition is described as follows
To establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form ofa Village over 654.79+
acres of land located in eastem Collier County to known as Collier Lakes Village
C'CLV'). The CLV is proposed to allow up to 1,800 dwelling units (1500+ single family
and 300+ multi-family), 45,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and
18,000 square feet of civic, institutional and governmental uses ISRA-PL201 80000622].
Note: This is a summary of the NIM. An audio/video recording is also provided,
On behalf of Applicants:
Michael Greenberg, Southwest Florida Regional President, Neal Communities
Robert Mulhere, FAICP, VP Planning, Hole Montes
Richard Yovanovich, Esq., Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, PA
James Banks, P.E., Transportation Consultant
Barry Jones, P.E., Hole Montes, Inc.
Dan Ciesielski, Land Development Manager, Neal Communities
County Staff:
Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
Gil Martinez, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants. and County
staff. He explained the NIM process, the process for approval, and provided an overview of the
project. Mr. Greenberg provided an overview of Neal Communities.
Following Mr. Mulhere's presentation, there were approximately fifteen minutes of questions
from the public in attendance. The following issues were raised:
Traffic Concerns
Concems were raised regarding the existing traffic on Oil Well Road. Mr. Mulhere explained
that the project is reserving 100 feet adjacent to the southem property boundary for the future
widening of Oil Wetl Road. The project is also being designed to accommodate storm water
runoff from the Oil Well Road widening.
Attendeess
Thirteen members ofthe public attended.
Page I of2
H:U0l7u0l70oI\wAsRANIMUIIM summary (l0-29'2018) docx
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Utilities
Questions were raised regarding utility providers, as well as the needed infrastructure to support
development. Collier County Public Utilities will be providing water and sewer service. The
developer is working with the County to expand the necessary infrastructure. Mr. Mulhere
explained that an economic assessment that analyzes and demonstrates fiscal neulrality is
required as part of the application process. Impact Fees are also required to offset the
developments impact on the necessary public facilities.
General questions were raised regarding the ownership of the property. Mr. Mulhere explained
that the current owner is Zurich Intemational, and Neal Communities is the contract purchaser. A
concem was raised regarding the existing utility lines near the westem property boundary. Mr.
Jones explained that the existing utility lines are not on the subject prope(y and will not be
allected by the proposed development.
Mr. Mulhere indicated that application materials are available to the public via the county
website.
The meeting conclucled at approximatelv 6:00 PM.
Page 2 of 2
H:UOl7U0l7O0l\WnSRANIM\NIM Summary (10-29-2018).docx
General/Misc.
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
coLLrER LAKES SRA (SRA-PL-20L8000A622)
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 20L8 AT 5:30PM
PTEASE PRINT CLEARLY
***PLeAse be advL' ed***
The information on this sheet is to contact you regarding this project and future public meetings. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and
certain home addresses are public records once received by a Bovernment agency. lf you do not want your e-mail address, phone number or home address
released if the county receives a public records request, you can refrain from including such information on this sheet. You have the option of checking
with the county staff on your own to obtain updates on the project as well as checking the county Web site for additional information.
Name Address City, State Zip E-MailAddress
c.1.-l0 N Cc-
l(r\[( (t
(s.E3.o P7 j( Ro erulaa
o
I 5 G \r(o* I
E t-<-
EO PE {4 I //l n flel,.\
tJ'o il4 - 334rq 3
3
1116 t CL h/2"
&
t4 IkL/CorP
e-a45 ha-u: rl
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certiry that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, the Collier County Land Developmenr
Code, as amended, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give
notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations
whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes ofan application request for a
rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled
Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names ond
addresses of property owners shall be deemed lhose appearing on the latesl tax rolls of Collier
County and any olher persons or entities who have made a formal request of the County to be
notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed
change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting.
Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are
hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance.
(Signature of Applicant)
ROBERT J. MULHERE . FAICP
(Printed name of Applicant)
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this 5th Dav of October
2018. bv ROBERT J. MULHERE. FAICP. who is lly known to me or who has
produced as identification.
*,4\uu^,
(Signature of Notary Public)
Printed Name of Notary
/.*J
ffi tltrurr c,foarrUc.bdtLtLCor*5rrfItIIo
I, Con. t*t Ir r, 2@0
ffi Ertht
II:U017\2017001\WP\SRA\NlM\Afiidavil of Compliance NIM (l0-5-201t).d(r
(Notary Seal)
9!rdvrq4ie Karol
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
-
-r-a>.tat..t---.."-I lo"e, irt, tf< r{ ,i _
I r.' ,tt t.111 2 'ro,o.,rr.' rf':t 1.
1,,, i'lii,i'.l'J"" "' ,, , '.RJ.i
.-.r-!FFtFaraF-ry i - -
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
NAPLESI{EWS.COM t FRIDAY,OCTOBER5,2OTS t t9A1
The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting
held by Robert J. Mulhere, FAICB Mce President, Planning SerUices
of Hole Montes, lnc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Coleman'
Yovanovich and Koester, PA. on behalf of the property own€r at the
following time and location:
Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 5r3O p.m.
Peace Lutheran Church, Fellowship Hall
9850 lmmokalee Boad, Naples, Florida 34120
The following formal application has been made to Collier County:
Petition SRA-PL2O18qxn622 - The petition is to establish a
Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Mllage over
654.79a acres of land located in eastern Collier County to be known
as Collier lakes V]llage ("CLV"). The CLV is proposod to allow up
to 1,800 dwelling units (1500* single family and 300i multFfamily)'
45,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and 18'000
square feet of civic, institutional and govemmental uses.
The subject property is presently zoned A-MHO-RLSAO. The site is
bounded on the south by Oil Well Road, on the wsst and north by
Golden Gate Estates zoned properties and on the east by A-MHO-
RLSAO properties in active agriculture proposed for inclusion in the
Rural Lands West SRA Town Designation.
The subject property is located at the intersection of Oil Wbll R<i'ad
and Desoto Blvd. North, approximately 4 miles east of lmmokal€e
Road, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 East' Collier
County, Florida.
iI
I
IliltCollier Lakes SRA
WE VALUE YOUR INPUT
Businsss and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome
to attend the presentation and discuss the proiect with th€ owners
and Collier County staff. lf you are unable to attend this meeting, but
have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone,
or e-mail to:
Robert J. Mulhere, FAICB Vice President, Planning Srervices
Hole Montes, lnc.
950 Encore Way, Naples, Florida 341 l0
Phone: 239-254-2000, email: bobmulhere@hmeng.com
October5,2018 ND-2128910
i
I
a t
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
}tHOLE nlMONTES
950 Encore Way. Naples, Florida 34110 . Phone 239.254.2000. Fex239.254.21i .
Rc
October 5,2018
Collier l,akes SRA (PL-20I 80000622)
HM File No.: 2017.001
Dear Property Owner
Please be advised that Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President, Planning services and Business
Developmenl of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Coleman, yovanovich
and Koester, P.A. on behalf of the property owners, have filed the following formal application
with Collier County:
l'etition SRA-PL20180000622 - The petition is to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA)
in the form ofa Village over 654.79+ acres ofland located in easlem Collier County to be known
as Collier Lakes Village ("CLV"). The CLV is proposed to allow up to 1,800 dwelling units (l50G,r
single family and 300+ multi-family), 45,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and
1 8,000 square feet of civic, institutional and governmental uses.
The subject property is presently zoned A-MHO-RLSAo. The site is bounded on the south by oil
well Road, on the west and north by Golden Gate Estates zoned properties and on the east by A-
MHO-RLSAO properties in active agriculture proposed for inclusion in the Rural Lands west
SRA Town Designation
The subject property is located at the intersection of oil well Road and DeSoto Blvd. North,
approximately 4 miles east of Immokalee Road, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 Easr,
Collier County, Florida.
In compliance with the Land Development code requirements, a Neighborhood Information
Meeting will be held to provide you an oppo(unity 10 hear a presentation about this amendment
and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting wi be held on wednesday,
October 24,, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. at the Peace Lutheran Church, Fellowship Ha[, 9850
Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida 34120.
Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please feel free to contact me ar 239-254-2000.
Very truly yours,
HOLE MONTES, INC.
Naples . Fort Myers
Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP
Vice President, Planning Services
RJIvI/sek
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
,V'O srTdvrs
ABATE, MARIE
MILDRED SULLIVAN
223 STILLWATER CIR
BROOKFIELo, CT 06804-..0000
ADAMA ET AL, JASON T
1732 W PIERCE AVE
cHrcAco, tL 60622-'0000
ALEMAN, DABEIBA
ROBERTO SANCHEZ
5142 ROMA ST
AVE MARI& FL 34142---0000
ATVARAOO-MEZA, PEDRO
ANA MIRIAM MEZA
ARTI.JRO CARDENAS
3845 41ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120---1884
ALVAREZ, ANGELA
ALVAREZ, MIGUEL=& CHRISTINE
8025 NW 185 TERR
MtAMt, FL 33015--0000
AMADOR, YUNIER
3817 39TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-{000
AMI,ROSE, JAMES P & DONNA J
3840 41ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--1883
09 t8/09 t9@ tua^v ee^P slqllPdruoe uJur /9 x lxtu 9z lPu-rJol op ausnblE
09!8/09!9@ tus V r$!m stqsedum .8/9 z x ,, ! ozts loqEl
ABSI,PHILIPE&GLORIAT
3790 S OtD 3C HWY
GALENA, OH 43021-9438
ANDERSEN. AI.{THONY R
3790 35TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0000
BOYER, WARO L
4544 PINEWOOD DRIVE
tEwrsToN, Mr 49756-0000
ANG, CHENG HEE
8417 HOLLOW BROOK CIR
NAPLES, FL 34t79-9724
ARIAS, YOSMANI GAMBOA
4545 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0000
BAKER, CYNTHIA
853 LAMBTON CIR W
LANCASTER, OH 43130*-0000
..8ARBA{A
H BOCK REVO TRUST
298154TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34720-7787
BETANCbRT, FELIEIA
1121 NW 24TH CT
MtAMr, FL 33125--3101
BONILtA,
'ORGE
L
KARIN A CASTRO
4O3O 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0000
BROCX, DEVIN 5 & PAULA IvI
644 94TH AVE N
NAPLES, FL 34708--2447
ARLEDGE, BEN'AMIN
4175 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120---4515
AVA(IAN, CHARLES M
DONNA M BURDICK
2545 POINCIANA DR
NAPLES FL 34105--0000
BALsEMO, FRANCESCO
CARMEN UZCATEGUL
14743 INDIGO IAKES CIR
NAPLES, FL 34119-0000
8ARONE, ANTHONY J
4170 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, Ft. 34120*4513
BETTENCOURT, RENEE M
3760 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-_OOOO
BLOCKER, DEAN
KENNETH J BLOCKER 5R
1303 NEW MARKET RD W
IMMOKA|-EE, FL 34742*2253
BREMER, CHRISTOPHER C
,IENNIFER EREMER
785-F MEADOWLAND DR
NAPLE5, FL 34108--.r000
ARTESE, GRACE
4535 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-{000
I
i
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
)
i
I
1
I
I
EANDOMO, SORANGEL
FERNANDO BANDOMO
1525 NE 180TH ST
clrR& FL 32113-2294
STAPI.ES' E,.,.*JXTH;',];1il';,.1ffi'.l,i},frt':fl..'o1lu,%31*o,*04a
AGUII.AR, SHEII.A I(
3850 43RD AVE NE
NAPLE FL 34120--2918
eAEz, Mh-RirzA r
1011 NE LITNT RIVER DR
M|AMt, FL 33138--{228
EtAROSLEYTR, GLENDAS
G 5 BEARDSLEY RLT 12.30-98
2360 19TH ST SW
NAPLES, FL 34777-4720
' AuGUsrrN, FRAN( iESHLEh
2062 NW 104TH ST
MIAMT, FL 33147--1349
li
li
It
li
)1
it
il
jr
il
ll
I
ll
ll!
rl
IL
jl
lt
ll
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
v'0 OgtS/Og t9@ /fie V3e^e slqllPdtuo3 urul /9 x urtu 9Z leuxo, op eNnbltl
09 t8/09 t9@ tuo^V t{l^r qqpduo.,8/q z x,|. 8z!s laqPl
EBOWN S& |-AWRENCE F & RUTH
3820 41ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--1883
srldvrs
BRUNET, DANIEL
610 215T ST NW
NAPLES, FL 34120-0000
CASTRO ET AI- MARINO M
1s308 5W 182ND TER
M|AMt, Ft 33187--6229
BROOI(' VICIOR E & RALMETHA
122 HI.JDSON TER
YONKERs, NY 10701--1914
BUSHEN, MARK E
4135 315T AVE NE
NAPLE FL 34120---4s28
CARTER, REBECCA E
4525 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-1553
CABEZAS, JUAN C & MICHELLE G
4431 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120---0000
CAPITAL HOMES INVEST & ALL LLC
2820 12TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0000
CARRASCO,ISAEL
3790 33RD AVE NE
NAPLE FL 34120-0466
CABLE HOLDCO II INC
ATTN: PROPERTYTAX DEPT
1701JOHN F KENNEDY BLVD FL32
PHIIADELPHt& PA 19103--2855
CAPO, BERTA
42E5 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0000
CASTRO, RAYMOND & CARMEN
30914TH Sr NE
NAPLE5. FL 34120'-0000
CIARAMITARO, PAUL & LARISSA
150 PEACH CT
MARCO lSl-AND, FL 34745-4727
CAPOTE, GUILLERMINA & KARIM
3830 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-1520
CASTILLO, RAFAET A
215 W 2ND AVE
KENNEWTCK, WA 99335-3918
CDC LAND INVESTMENTS LLC
2550 GOODLEITE RD N #1OO
NAPLE FL 34103--0000
CHASE MRTG FINANCE CORP
3815 SW TEMPLE
SALT r-A(E CITY, UT 84115--0000
COLLIER CNTY
C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101
NAPLES, FL 34112--0000
CORRADO, BRENDA
3780 415T AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--1534
CULLISON, DYLAN
FRANCESCA ROSE EROCK
4045 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0000
CONDE, OANIEL A
MARIA E RENTERIA
4260 4OTH ST NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-3252
COOK, ANNE GARRIS
GEORGE HENRY COOK
3930 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-4508
CORREIA ET UX, RICHARD W
144 NORTH ST
wARE, MA 01082--1029
CUESTA, PEDRO P
7527 CRESCENT DR
RAyTOWN, MO 64138-0000
D & I NAPLES INVESTORS LLC
19OO EMPRESS CT
NAPLES, FL 34110-1004
OEAN, SHAWN
8067 DANCNG WIND LN f2OO5
NAPLES, FL 34119--0000
era E,tr trs' ..,^.^-l*^'l^.i:'"1:l ly1 ".::r11,::l*1,:.o".r^"u,,:g,g,x:l^",",^^
OEAN, SHAWN
8067 DANCING WIND LN#2005
NAPLES, Ft 34119-0000
EUTTARI, SAMUEL V & ANNA]
528 HIGHLAND TER
PITMAN, NJ 08071*1524 il
I
I
cAllx, r"urs
NILDA A CAUX
23918TH AVE 5E
NAPLES, FL 34117--{000
COCXERILL, CHERYL E
5444 FARMINGDALE OR
WARRENTON, VA 20!87 _9279
il
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
, V?O
OIA2-.IIMENEZ, ANTONIO L
ELIANA P DIAZJIMENEZ
1868 HTGHWAY 73
SOUTH MARIANNA, FL 32/t48--0000
FIALLO, ADELA MATiLDE
550 SW 138TH AVE APT K212
PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33027--OOOO
DUDAsH, WILLIAM ]
289 ROBBIE LN
VALPARA|SO, tN 46385-8836
EDWAROS, DENISE M
4235 43RD AVE NE
NAPLE FL 34120-2838
EXNER, TAUREL O
WILLIAM EXNER
4380 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-4506
FCE CONSTRUCNON INC
9077 GERVATR CtR #910
NAPLES, FL 3412HOOO
FERNANDEZ, MARIANEI-A
ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ PEREZ
ROLANDO FERNANDEZ
275 ROLTINGWOOD TRAIL
ALIAMONTE SPRING, FL 32714_.OOOO
DECARO ESI CHARLES
% ELVIRA CAULFIELD
168 MONROE ST
MASTtC, NY 11950--4505
DIAZ, CESAR J
4240 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0000
FOX, SCOTT D & BEIH A
412043RD AVE NE
NAPLES,FL 34120---2817
sTApn FS',,,",""110:l^'::".1;l::"^T:'i1:,:I]lill,:33u.111'x1f,o^n,o,.n
nAL
09t8/09t9@ tu3^V ca^P alq[Eduo3 urtu /9 x tlrtx 9z lPtlJlol op 0l]enbB
09t8/09r9@ /tu3^V r[!/'^ elqllpdruoe ,,9/9 z x.l ezls lsqEl S]ldVIS
FAIRHOMES PEARL PROPERTIES LLC
10 STATION LN
UNIONVII.LE, ON
CANADA U}R 1R4
FELICIANO, FIDEL M & MARTA
4065 3lSTAVE NE
NAPLES, tL 34120---4452
FL STAR CONSTRUCTION LLC
7742 ALTCO RD
FORT MYERS, FL 33912-OOOO
FRNST INVESTMEMT INC
2580 DESOTO BTVD S
NAPLES, FL 34117-1235
FAULKNER, ADRIAN &TAMMY
4095 31ST AVE NE
NAPLE' FL 34I20-M62
FERNANDEZ, CAiILO'F
REBECCA A FERNANDEZ
25419 NW 101ST PL
HtGH 5PRrN65, FL 32543--9810
DETWEILER, TIMOTHY L
DARLENE LANHAM
3810 39TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-7560
DIAZ, EVALDO
MARTHA ACOSTA
3845 27TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0000
DOR, CELITA
4220 4OTH ST NE
NAP|"ES, FL 3412G-0000
DIAZ, OSMELJ & JACqUELINE
3770 41ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-1534
DROZD ET UX, WALTER .J
35 COLONIAL DR
ct-ARK,N.t 07066--2601
FERREL!, DOUGtAS.'
SHAWNA L FERRELL
735 CORAL OR
CAPE CORAL, FL 33904-5902
FORTES, HUGO I.AZARO
IESSIE FORTES
14752 SW 159TH LN
MlAlrll, FL 33187--1744
OIAZ, ALEERTO & HACINIA M
4048 33RD AVE NE
NAPTES, FL 34120*-4514
FRONK ET UX, RAYfuIOND ]
c/o MARSHA A BOt\4MER
4OS IUMPER DR S
EUSHNELt- FL 33513---8401
FERNANDEZ-BRUBAKER TR, ELENA
E FERNANDE2.ERUBAKER LIV/TRUST
DAVID ALEXANDER FERNANDEZ
4201 5W 96TH AVE
MtAMt, FL 33165--0000
)
I
)
I
I
I
FRESTA JOINT REV TRUST
6765 PLAINVIEW AVE
sT LOUI5, MO 63109--0000
DURKAIACEK A
12761WATERUNE UNIT4
FT MYERS, FL 33908_OOOO
ELLIOTT,,IAMES F
379139TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--7546
i
I
l
l
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
)
I
l
l
j
1
I
!
I
1
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
DUTHIE, CRISAN
221 PAUSADE AVE
8oGOTA, NJ 07503-1418
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Yr0 S]ldVIS
FUNDOR& LEO & MONICA
303 71ST STREET
GUTTENBERG, N,, 07093_.OOOO
FURLONG, JAY
27 COlr LN
NORWtCH, Cr 06350---2423
GAIVIEZ, NOEL & LEA M
3810 43RD AVE NE
NAPTE FL 34120--0000
GARCIA, MARCELA D
4260 33R0 AVE NE
NAPLET FL 34120-4504
GARZA, MANUELJOSHUA
FELICIA GARZA
4185 43RD AVE NE
NAPLET FL 34120--0000
GATOR INVESTMENT OF SW FL IINC
4184 6TH AVE NE
NAPLES. FL 34120--0000
GOMEZ, FELIPE PASLO
ROSALIA MIGUEL PABLO
4250 4oTH Sr N E
NAPLES, FL 34120-3252
GOMEZ MARIBEL C
4430 KENTUCKY WAY
AVE MAR|A FL 34142--5016
GONZALEZ, GRETIEL
OSCAR GARCIA
839 COPA DEORO
MARATHON, FL 33050_-OOOO
GONZALEZ, YULLET VICHOT
ALIAN ZAII,A LARA
4361 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, tL 34120-0000
GREENHALGH, KATHRYN BLAIR€
DONNA MARIE LESSARD
4345 43RD AVE N E
NAPLET FL 34120--0000
HAEITAT FOR HUMANITY
COLLIER COUNTY INC
11145 TAMIAMITRAIL E
NAPLET rL 34r.13--0000
HALL,TIMOTHY BRIAN
TIFFANY NICOTE HAI"L
3750 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0000
HAN, THIN T
34 ELIE CT
SIATEN ISLAND, NY 10314_-6019
HARSTEIN ET AL, ANNETTE
102 WYMING AVE
AUDUBON, NJ 08106-1557
HERNANOEZJR, CAESAR
SAMANTHA ALEXANORIA MOLINA
4371 NE 43RD AVE
NAPLET FL 34120-0000
09 t8i09 19@ tue^v 3s^P eElleduo, ruur l9 x uI! 9a puxoJ op ollanblB
09 t8/09 19@ tua^v qua otqoEduroc r8l9 z x . ! ozls pqEl
HERNANDEZ, ERICK ALBITER
2517 30TH ST SW
LEHIGH ACRES, FL 33976_0000
HERNANDEZ, ESTELA
3845 315TAVE NE
NAPLET FL 34120-2924
GRIEsER, CHARI-ES
4670 45TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0000
HERNANOEZ, IRASHEMA
PO BOX 1344
ESTERO, FL 33929--1344
HOUSEHOLDER, DIANE
THOMAS F COLA
30 EVERGREEN DR
GEORGETOWN, DE 19947.-9483
ITURRALDE, IOSE & AIDA
PO BOX 110126
HtALEAH, Ft 33011--0126
JACQUES,IUAN F
382135TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0000
HERNANDEZ, MARIA E & RIGOBERTO
JOSE RTUAOA PORTILLO
4155 43R0 AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0000
HERRERA, YANDRY GARCIA
ODAIMY MAYOR 50LIs
4557 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0000
HUSTON JR, LEROY 5 & RUTH
3122 COLEMAN CI
ROCK HtLl" SC 29732-8073
I C BROKERS NURSERY I.LC
3790 33 AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 3412HOOO
J GEISTWEITE REVTRUST
65515W 75TH TER
souTH M|AMI, FL 33143--4673
JACKSON, DOTTIE
4277 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--2838
sra pF F s"-"."110ii,:,"l l i:," 9:r*,::lli*,:y"^.::u.o,,xs^^,^,
^"n/,1A
HEATH, LAUREN N
4210 3RD AVE NE
NAPLE Fr 34120-4000
ii
I
i
I
:
I
I
I
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
v?0 09t8/09 t9@ fua^vra^e 0lqlPduos u{u l9 x uJur gz lPul.rol op sllanbllJ
09 !8/0919@ tua^v qlpr slqltPdum ,,8/9 e x , [ ozls taqPl
JANKOVIAK TR, PAUT R & DOROTHY
,AN(OVIAK FAMILYTRUST
uTo 70/26100
1375 E TWINBROOK DR
DEWTTT, Mt 48220-0000
JAMES F ASCHER LIV REVIRUST
3510 WtLD tNDt60 LN
80NlTA SPRlN65, FL 34134--7977
IEWELL LIVING TRUSI
5544 N NAVAjO AVE
GLENDALE, WI 53217-5039
IOSEPH, MERIENNE
4075 3lSTAVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--4462
KNOWLTON, JOHN DALE &.IULIE S
3957 315TAVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--4403
, LAFTAMME TR, MAURICE
BARBARA LAFLAMME TR
LAFLAMME FAMILY INVTR 3.5.95
68 MARY LOU CT
RAYNHAM, MA 02767-5253
TAWHORN ]R, CARL C
KAREN J LAWHORN
8746 WINDING CREEK WAY
PtcKERtN6TON, OH 43747 -78L7
JOHNSON, SEVERLY
ANDREA CAOET
12301 NW 20TH CT
PLANTATION, FL 33323_1949
JOSEPH, MICHAEL
4230 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--4504
KOMPINSKI, NICHOI.AS
3835 41ST AVE N E
NAPLES, Ft 34120-0000
LAPUENTE, ATAITI GUZMAN
4235 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, tL 34120-0000
LAYME, ANGIE E
1067 DUDLEY DR
KISSIMMEE, FL 34758 2979
l
LE, LINH D &TRANG NT
912 HERITAGE PKWY 5
ALLEN, TX 75002--5752
LEANDRE, WESLY & CARLINE
3585 2ND AVE 5E
NAPLE FL 34117-{000
LEONARD, YORDANIS MILLARES
4453 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-{000
LONDONO, LUIS
BEATRIZ MAYA
3730 415T AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120---1534
LONGSTRETH, CODY R & 5UsAN M
3857 39TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0000
LUGONE' OILDA M
2146 DESOTO BLVD S
NAPLES, Fr 34117-4000
MAOHU, DAISY
% O'CONNOR TAW FIRM
2240 BELTEAIR RD sTE 115
CLEARWAIER,FL 33764-,0000
I
l
l
i
STAPLES",.""lx*'L?;.,I;1,,:f;#l,f .l:*Iili,,fll:,,"":flfl ,Hf ,%,**
MATA LTC
7171SW 62ND AVE sIE 503
sourH MtAMt, FL 33143-4723
NTA
SsldVIS
JEMEC, LILTIE
4015 31ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-4462
JOHNSON, CHERYL ANN
27830 SW 132ND CT
HOMESTEAD, FL 33032---8553
KIRNON, ELVIS
4245 4OTH ST NE
NAPLES, FL 34120.-3253
KWIK STOP LTC
215 SW 125TH AVE
PLANTATION, FL 33325-.OOOO
TARAM CONSTRUCTION INC
110 WILsON BLVD 5
NAPLES, FL 34117-0000
IAZO, OSNAIVY
3830 35TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--3237
I
I
LEE ET UX, JAMES
11 KNOLL RD
NORTH OAKS, MN 55127--6469
LIESER, GLORIA ANN
DAVID A LIESER
2O7O RIVERSIDE DR
coLUMBUS, OH 4322r---4013
LUBIN, WATSON & DAVI
3790 39TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0000
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
LICOR, ORIOL
YOHANY LICOR
6740 ROYAL MEIBOURNE DR
HtALEAH, FL 33015---2121
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
i
I
l
\
I
i
I
)
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
It.
I
t
I
I
I
i
I
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
,v?0 OgtS/09t9@ iUoAV ca E onsEduroc tllur /g x urul9Z leulol0p ouenbry
09 tu09 1.9@ tue v $trvl elqltEduios ,8/9 z x " I szls laqel
MARQUEZ, MARIO &TERESA INEZ
10210 sw 17TH CT I
DAVTE, FL 33324-7453
ssldvrs
MARTINEZ, ALBINO & JULIA
975 LEO CT
MARCO |SLAND, FL 34145-5982
MC CANN, CHARLES E & DENISE A
3612 DOGWOOD 5T NW
uNroNTowN, oH 446a5--9117
MENDOZA, DENIS F & ARJANI A
4120 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, tL 34120-0000
NAPLES FUNDING tLC
20 N MARTINGALE RD STE 180
SCHAUMEURG, lL 60172--0000
MALDONADO, MARGARITA
RENE D MALDONADO
4217 43RO AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120- 2838
MARTINEZ, CRUZ & SHAWNA
1510 AVERY ELISSA LAN E
CEDAR PARK, TX 78613..0000
NOZIL SYLVA
LUCE NOZIL SYLVAIN
3744 415T AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--1534
OLIVARES PROPERTIES INV LLC
9055 GERVAIS CIR APT 1407
NAPLES, FL 34120--0000
IVC GANN, PETER F & VIVIAN
841 95TH AVE N
NAPLES, FL 34108---2458
MIRANDA MANUEL PROPERTIES CORP
12390 NE 2 COURT
NORTH MtAMl, FL 33161---0000
MCWILLIAMS, DANE & ERANDY
3995 315T AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0000
MARTINEZ, SHELLY
RICO ALVARADO
4O4O 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-{514
MARTINEZ, WILLIAM
3785 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34720--2424
MORENO ET AL, EEATRIZ E
C/O ANGELA M LONDONO
1OO1 MURCOTT DR
NAPLES, tL 34120--1478
MORI-STEELE, NILDAJ
4180 33RD AVE NE
NAPLE FL shrzo--4srg
MOSKOS, BASIL L
134 EOSTON POSI RD
WAYI-AND, MA 01778--0000
MUNOZ, FAEIAN RAMIRO CACERE5
P STEFANIA CACERES CARDENAS
3882 39TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120---0000
NEISON, STACY A
3790 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0457
MUSLIMANI, SALIM
376139TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34720--7546
NIACE, HEBERT
RAYMONDE LUUEAN
4255 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0000
NOROILUS, ROSMICK & ROSE A
5775 PAITITED LEAF LN
NAPLES, FL 34116--0000
O.8RIEN, SANORA MARIE
CHARLES F O.BRIEN
3814 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 3412&-1520
ORTEGA, HECTOR & MIRTA
3975 315T AVE NE
NAPLE FL 34120-4403
NISADA LLC
iT411PINE RIDGE RD
NAPLES, FL 34119---4066
NODA FI. CORP
3212OTH AVE NE
NAPLES FL 34120--0000
rl
NUNEZ, IBRAHIM & CARLENE
4290 33RD AVE NE
NAPtES, FL 34120-4504
OLIVER, HADAD
3302 15TH SI SW
LESIGH ACRES, FL 33976--2934
sTA ptr Fs".,^,,",110i1^*'.1 ;1,-:ygHlT::llill,:.,*..:::0,,x:1"^,",
^"
MONROIG, LETICIA
3780 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--2827
ir
MURIEL D STOLMAN TRUST
LINOA GUTIERREZ
3170 NEWMAN DR
NAPLES, FL 34t!4--t204
i
I
]
I
llA/l
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
.,vto S]NdVIS
O58ORN, DEXTER & CHRISTINE
4680 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES,FL 34120,--0000
OSBORN, DEXTER G
MEGAN C OSBORN
4670 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--1540
OVIES, CARLOS YHIRO
3740 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES. FL 34120--0000
PAMPILLO, VIANA ACOSTA
LUIS E LEDESMA
3795 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-{000
PANTOJA, EDDY & ADRIANNA
3970 415T AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120*0000
PARENT, DALE L & LINDA D
43 SANDRA DR
JAX BCH. FL 322s0--4068
PARK PLACE SECURTIES INC
% OCWEN AfiENTION:
VAULI DEPIARTMENT
5720 PREMIER PARK DR
wE5T PAIM BEACH, Ft 33407--0000
PATTERSON, RONEY & SHARON
5OSl PALMETTO WOOOS DR
NAPLES, Ft 34119-0000
PENA, YANEISY
3830 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120---0502
PEREZ, VIVIAN S
ANTONIO AIVAREZ
JUAN CARLOS ALVAREZ
FIDELINAJ ALVAREZ
521 E ,MTH ST
HIALEAH, FL 33013._1913
PINZON, MANUEL & JENNICER C
28OO FLETCHER AVE #11
LINCOLN, NE 68504-0000
PLOCK, DOUGLAS ANIHONY
11234TANGELO TERR
BONTTA SPRtNGS, FL 34135--0000
PORTER, TIMOTHY
AI.fREOO D FERNANDEZ
3915 33RD AVE NE
NAPLE FL 34120--4553
PRICE, SONIA M
126 E 12TH STf38
NEW YORK, NY 10003--5331
PROENZA, VICTOR M RODRIGUEZ
ZITA D PIEDRA BARRETO
4130 33RD AVE NE
NAPLE FL 34120---0000
PROPER MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC
6188 MIRAMAR PKWY
MIRAMAR, FL 33023-3940
qSMITH HOMES LLC
% THE LIGHTSTONE GROUP
1985 CEDAR BRIDGE AVE STE 1
LAKEWOOD, Nl 08701---7031
QPCOM INC
5162 SW 173R0 AVE
MTRAMAR, FL 33029--0000
QUINTERO,,IOSE
ABREY A QUINTERO
.IOHN QUINTERO
ANA L MONIES
7570 NW 14TH ST STE 102
MlAMr, FL 33126--1701
RAMIREZ DESBY E
3766 39TH AV€ NE
NAPLE FL 34720--7545
RAPP, ARHIAHNA
3735 39TH AVE NE
NAPLET FL 34120-7546
RAUDNER, HANNES M
AN6EL MARIA NAUDNER
3850 37TH AVE NE
NAPLEs, FL 34120-1520
RELIK APPAREL INC
4385 22ND ST NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0000
REY, CHARLES & IVARIE
3760 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120 ,-04s7
ROBB!N5, WILLIAM K & VICKI L
4085 315TAVE NE
NAPLE FL 34720--4462
0918/09t9@ tus^V 3a^E elq0edulo, urru 19 x uJru 9Z lplxro, op aFnbnl
0918/0919@ IJa^V q!,Yr alqrledtuos ,,8/9 Z x rl ozs laqel
POLIZZI, JEFFREY
18 COLD SPRING RO
MERCERVT tLE, I'lJ 04679 -227 1
PRINCE, THOMAS H & VALERIE M
9068 HUNTER BAY DR
BRtGHTON, Mt 48114--4933
I
I
I
I
l
I
l
I
I
I
l
l
i
I
I
I
RENTERIA.HERRERA, IESU5
JUAN RAMON RENTERIA
4280 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0000
I
STAPT-ES',',",,,,J10i1"'Jl'^l;l 111'#ffi.l'lii};llffh'il,u:";f,0..,,,*
ROORIGUEZ, DAYMIS
1210 GOLDEN GATE SLVD E
NAPLES, FL 34120--3601
n/la
OSPINA, GUIDO E
8216 NW 201ST ST
HIALEAH, FL 33015-5936
I
I
I
!
t
I
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
i
L
I
I
(
I
I
i
I
i
I
l
i
I
I
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
v?0 09t8/o9ts@ tu3^v 3a^s sEllPdujo3 txrx 19 x uJuJ 9z FurJol op 0uanb[]
09 t8l09 t9@ tua^v qurv\ 3lq[sdu$ r8/9 z x ,, l. ozls laqEl
RODRIGUEZ, PEDRO E
2420 5W 83RD CT
MrAMr, FL 33155--2462
ssTdvrs
ROI"OAN, JUAN L
ERIKA PEREZ
3765 39TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0000
ROMAN, KELLY MICHELLE
3820 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--2918
ROMERO, CELINA MI,IANGO
3745 415T AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-,-0000
ROMERO, JOSE O & CETINA M
2185 GREENBAC( CIR fi 7.102
NAPLES, FL 34112-3948
ROSALES, DONALD A
15111SW 58TH ST
MtAMt, FL 33193-3008
ROSALES, JOSEA EETANCOURT
KYRENIS N ESPINOSA SAMADA
4340 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0000
sAN JUAN, MAXIMO
ALEIDA BRIZUELA SAN ]UAN
6423 COLLINS AVE APT 303
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33141-4640
SANCHEZ, ROBERTO PEREZ
4175 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120_-OOOO
SANIILLI, MARLENE J
224 oWL CT
FREMONT, CA 94539-6200
SANTO' KAREN 6ANZO
JULIO H SOTO SWABY
3770 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0000
RODRIGUEZ, JAVIER C & ANA L
3820 37TH AVENUE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120---0000
SILVA CANDIDO & MARIA M
15435 SW 26TH TER
MtAMt, Ft 33185-4866
SIMKONIS, NATHAN W
LINDSAY A BOYER
4335 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0000
SCAGLIA, PABLO & VANESSA
674 NW 134TH PL
MlAMt, FL 33182--1668
SHERAKO TR, FRANKI
FARHATJ XHAWAIA TR
RESTTRUST NANA B LONG
BAY STREET PHARMACY
523 HONEYTLOWER LOOP
BRADENTON, FL 34212-.OOOO
SINGLfiARYSR, CHARLES K
CATHERINE A SINGLETARY
2590 WILSON BI.VD N
NAPLES, FL 34120-3302
5MITH, MARCIAJ
376135TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34T20_7479
STEC,ADOLFE&BERNICE
22 FOSTER AVE
VALLEY STREAM, NY 11580_2936
SCHEPPERLY, DYTAN J
3830 39TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0000
SEK, KAZIMIERZ
3863 4lSTAVE NE
NAPLET FL 34120-1884
S]OSTRAND ET UX, N ROBERT
8512 SHOAL CT
EAKERSF|EtD, CA 93312*5513
SLANOA ET UX, JOSEPH E
% LEON SLANDA
352 AUDUBON RO
LEEDS. MA 01053-9770
sIEVEs, LORENZO RAMIREZ
ELIDA LOPEZ
3782 33R0 AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120---0466
sTAp0 trs' ._,",^.11Tp:'"1;i:,"S:'j1:,::l*i,:1^'^:,:u.,0,,::l^^,,^"
STRONG, VICKI tYNN
2390 8TH AVE SE
NAPLES, FL 34117-0000
SOUTHWEST PERMACULTURE LTC
2921SHERMAN AVENUE
NAPLE FL 34120--0000
RO'AS,ISAURA
4420 33RD AVE NE
NAPLEs, FL 34120---4551
ROMERO, JAVIER
8247 NW 194TH TER
HIALEAH, FL 33015-6951
SOIIZ, RENE A
6039 SHALLOWS WAY
NAPLET FL 34109-0000
STEVENST& DONALD
ulo 4126107
MARY M STEVENS TR
u"ro 4l26lot
6281SEA GRASS I.N
NAPLES, FL 34116-5435
rlll
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
'vt0 0918/09 t9@ tuo v ce P sn0Edujos urLrr /9 x ur''! 9z lBtxrol op alanbnJ
0g 18/09 t9@ Ira v q$ etq0Pduros ,8/9 z x .l. szls laqEl s3!dvrs
T & ] S VENTURA 2018 REV TRUST
1550 SONORA CT
PALM SPRTNGS, CA 92264---3560
TIGHE, MICHAEL EOWARD
15l FTAMINGO RD
TUCKERTON, N.J 08087---2408
SUAREZ, NOEL
% AMERICAN PRIME LLC
5775 BLUE LAGOON DR #350
MrAMt, FL 33126--0000
T METRO CONSTRUCTION LLC
485l TAMIAMITRL N
NAPLES, FL 34103--0000
THAMMAVONG, ADISONE
PHETHSAKHONE THAMMAVONG
2550 6TH AVE NE
NAPLES, Ft 34120---7602
TORRES, RO6ELIO HERNANDEZ
3755 41ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120---1535
IRIANA,ILEANA
JORGE GOMEZ
100005w3RDST
MrAMl, FL 33174--0000
VEG4 EDILEYDIS & RAYDEL
3775 41ST AVENUE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-t000
SUNSHINE FL APARTMENTs INC
1O3O PORT ORANGE WAY
NAPLES. FL 34120-0000
TARPON IV LLC
18305 S|SC YNE BI-VD STE 400
AVENTURA Fr 33L60-2L72
THOMPSON, STE2HEN S
PATRICIA LTHOMPSON
4295 315T AVE NE
NAPI"E5, FL 34!20-4495
TRAVIS DELAsHMET
TARA DELAsHMET
381135TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-3238
TURCZYN LIVING TRUST
4581oAK 5T
oscoDA, Mt 48750-0000
URBIN4 ADALID
3735 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0000
VILLARRAGA EDISON & MARIA
4420 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120---OOOO
WILLIAMS, TAUREL
7849 DIOIOO BLVD
MIRAI\4AR, FL 33023--0000
WINCHESTER LANO LLC
lOONTAMPAST#3700
TAMPA, FL 33602--0000
TREGANZA MAT & HATHAIRATH
2480 5TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0000
UPADHYAYA NARENORA R & MAYURI
11067 GARDEN RIDGE CT
DAVTE, FL 33328--7308
VALENZUEI.A, NEHEMIAS
4265 31ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120---4495
WELLS, NADINE GTADYS
KRISTIN L WEL6
2344 HERITAGE GREENS DR
NAPLES, FL 34119--3312
i
I
VAUBEL, vERNoN r & cARoLE
4901 W 54TH ST
PRAIRIE VILtAGE, KS 65208-1325
WILLIAMS, I(RISTIAN L
377139rH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 3412G--7546
I
t
WITSON TR, GEORGE G
RITA M WITSON TR
KIM M SHERMAN TR
uro 6l!6105
10220 FAIRWAY DR
ELLICOTT CITY, MD 21042-2115
ZUFERRI, AIDA L
3815 37TH AVE NE
NAP|-ES, FL 34120--1521
WIISON, WAOE & RACHEL
3980 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-.OOOO
GOLDEN GATE CIVIC ASSOC.
47O I GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
NAPLES, FL 34I 16
label slze l' x 2 5/8' mmpatible witi Avery @S160/8160
''ltc.16 f^rmet 16 mm y 67 mm mmnatihta evpa trvcrv @5160/g160 ola
VALLE, ]ORG. ALBERTO iLORES
5495 25TH PLSW
NAPLES, Ft 34116---0000
VARGHESE, GEORGE
CHECHAMMA GEORGE
703 SHERMAN AVE
THORNWOOD, NY 10594-1428
TAYLOR, CYNTHIA L
]ENNY REES-ANDERSON
CHRISTINE GROENEWALD
5781 DRUMMOND WAY
NAPLEs, FL 34119--9s26
ULLOA, YADIEL 60MEZ
3730 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--2827
I
l
I
i
l
I
I
l
1
I
)
I
I
I
l
i
I
I
I
l
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
1,L-5-L9 NIM
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
LE
ENGINEERS PTANNERS SURVEYORS
Re:
950 Encore Way .Naples, Florida 34110. Phone 239.254.2000. Fax: 239.254.2099
October 24,2019
VIA HAND DELruERY
Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner
Growth Management Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Hyde Park Village SRA (SRA-PL20180000622)
2nd Neighborhood Information Meeting
HM File No.2017.001
Dear Mr. Finn:
Enclosed please find the following documents in accordance with Collier County's Neighborhood
Information Meeting requirements:
o One (l) original executed Affidavit of Compliance (signed by Robert J. Mulhere);o One (l) copy of the Neighborhood Information Meeting Notice advertisement which ran in
the Naples Daily News on October 21,2019
o One (1) copy of Neighborhood Information Meeting Notification Letter sent to Property
Owners on October 21,2019;and
o One (1) copy of Property Owners List.
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
HOLE MONTES,INC.
Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP
Vice President, Planning Services & Business Development
RJlWsek
Enclosures as noted.
H:U017\201700I\WASRA\2nd NII\ATF 191024 ltr tr MM support documcnrs.docx
Naples . Fort Myers
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
AFFIDAYIT OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certifu that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development
Code, as amended, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give
notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations
whose members may be aflected by the proposed land use changes ofan application request fot a
rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled
Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and
addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tdx rolls of Collier
County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the County lo be
notified. T\e said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed
change and the date, time, and place ofa Neighborhood Information Meeting.
Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are
hereby made a part ofthis Affidavit of Compliance.
gnature o f Applicant)
ROBERT J. MUL}IERE. FAICP
(Printed name of Applicant)
STATE OF FLORIDA
COLNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this of October
2019. bv ROBERT J. MI]I,FAICP. w is oersonallv to me or who has
prod uced as identification.
(si of Notary Public)
g
Print Name of Notary
STEPNAI{I€ I(^ROT
Notrry Publlc - Sl.t! ot Florldr
Commis!lon a tf 9399E0
My Comm. trplrer Mar 9, 2020
Sqrhdfiq{h il1al. ilrry Aro.
H:Uol 7U0l 7001\WASRA\2nd NtM\Aftidavil of Comptianc. NIM (10-24-20tg).doc
(Notary Seal)
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
l
I
I
2
E
E
F
?
held by Robert J.M ulhere,EAI CP,Vice
Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D.
Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. on
following time and location:
bf the
5,
-i
2019
Collier
l47lJlD ImmoLaleRor4
The followilg formal appfication has
Petition SRA-PL201Efln0622 - Thepetitioh
Receiving Area (SRA) in the
land located in east'ern Collibr
Hyde Park Village ls
single family and
commercial uses, and 18,000
governmental uses.
The subject property is presently
l
zoBed
:t
^A-bounded on the sotth by oil Well the
Gate Estates zoned
Parkway and A-MHO.
The subject ls Iorvated at
DeSoto
Section 16, Township
Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to
attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owners and Collier
county staff If you are rlnable to attend this meeting, but have questions
or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, or e-mail to:
Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice president, planning Services
Hole Montes, Inc. ,,
950 Encore Way, Naples, Florida 34110
Phone: 239 -254-2000, email: bobmulhere@hmeng.com
@1alHt
;
i
v
I
L
t,
I
I
I
Hyde
1m
..:
I
WE VALITE YOUR INPI-TT
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
ENGINEERS : PLANNERS SURVEYORS
Re
950 Encore Way . Naples, Florida 34110 . Phone 239.254.2000. Fax:239.254.2099
October 2I,2019
Hyde Park Village SRA (PL-20180000622)
HM File No.: 2017.001
Dear Property Owner:
Please be advised that Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President, Planning Services and Business
Development of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Coleman, Yovanovich
and Koester, P.A. on behalf of the properfy owners, have filed the following formal application
with Collier County:
Petition SRA-PL20180000622 - The petition is to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA)
in the form of a Village over 654.79+ acres of land located in eastern Collier County to be known
as Hyde Park Village. Hyde Park Village is proposed to allow up to 1,800 dwelling units (1500+
single family and 300+ multi-family), 45,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and
18,000 square feet of civic, institutional and govemmental uses.
The subject property is presently zoned A-MHO-RLSAO. The site is bounded on the south by Oil
Well Road, on the west and north by Golden Gate Estates zoned properties and on the east by the
future Big Cypress Parkway and A-MHO-RLSAO properties
The subject properly is located at the intersection of Oil Well Road and DeSoto Blvd. North,
approximately 4 miles east of Immokalee Road, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 East,
Collier County, Florida.
In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information
Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this amendment
and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Tuesday,
November 5,2019 at 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County UF/IFAS Extension, Multi-Purpose
Room, l4T00Immokalee Road, Naples, FL34120.
Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please feel free to contact me at239-254-2OOO.
Very truly yours,
HOLE MONTES,INC.
J. Mulhere, FAICP
Vice President, Planning Services
RJIWsek
Naples . Forl Myers
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
*o
TnnP,,#',1','il:^?llffT,f,,Sf,##?iil'#i"',,'i,l-**' SIIdVIS
4285 43RD AVE NE TRUST
230 EAST 79TH 5T APT f 5C
NEW YORK, NY 10075--0
ACOSTA, NORBERTO
YUSIMI FERNANDEZ
3822 35TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-.0
ALEMAN, DABEIBA
ROBERTO SANCHEZ
5142 ROMA ST
AVE MARIA, FL 34142_0
ALVARADO-MEZA, PEDRO
ANA MIRIAM MEZA
ARTURO CARDENAS
3845 41ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-1884
AMADOR, YUNIER
3817 39TH AVE NE
NAPLES FL 34120--0
ANG, CHENG HEE
8417 HOLLOW BROOK CIR
NAPLES, FL 341L9_-9724
ARLEDGE, BENJAMIN
4175 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-4515
BAKER, CYNTHIA
853 LAMBTON CIR W
LANCASTER, OH 43130_-0
BARBARA H BOCK REVO TRUST
2981 54TH AVE NE
NAPLE FL 34720-!787
BETANCORI FEL|CtA
1121 NW 24TH CT
MrAMt, FL 33125_-3101
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ABATE, MARIE
MILDRED SULLIVAN
223 STILLWATER CIR
BROOKFIELD, CT 06804.-0
ADAMA ET AL, JASON T
7732W PIERCE AVE
CHICAGO, tL 50522---0
ALEMAN, DABEIBA
ROBERTO SANCHEZ
5142 ROMA ST
AVE MAR|A FL 34L42-O
ALVAREZ, ANGELA
ALVAREZ, MIGUEL=& CHRISTINE
8025 NW 185 TERR
MtAMl, FL 3301s---O
AMBROSE, JAMES P & DONNA J
3840 41Sr AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--1883
APRYL NOEL ZRUST
4140 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120_-0
ARTESE, GRACE
4535 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0
BALSEMO, FRANCESCO
CARMEN UZCATEGUL
14743 INDIGO LAKES CIR
NAPLES, FL 34119-.0
BARONE, ANTHONY J
4170 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--4513
BETIENCOURT, RENEE M
3750 37TH AVE NE
NAPLE' FL 34120--0
ABSI, PHILIP E & GLORIA T
3790 S OLD 3C HWY
GALENA, OH 43021---9438
AGUILAR, SHEILA K
3860 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34t20---29t8
ALL AROUND QUALITY HOMES INC
1125 SW TRAFALGAR PKWY
CAPE CORAL, FL 33991_0
ALVAREZ, JUAN CARLOS
521 E 44 STREET
HIALEAH, FL 33013_.0
ANDERSEN, ANTHONY R
3790 35TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120_0
ARIAs, YOSMANI GAMBOA
4545 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0
AVAKIAN, CHARLES M
DONNA M BURDICK
4242 4oTH Sr NE
NAPLET FL 34120-32s2
BANDOMO, SORANGEL
FERNANDO BANDOMO
1525 NE 180TH ST
clTRA, FL 32773--2294
BEARDSLEY TR, GLENDA S
G 5 EEARDSLEY RLT 12.30-98
2350 19TH ST SW
NAPLES, FL 347t7--4720
BLANCO, JORGE ALBERTO SICILIA
YULIET PEREZ PEREZ
3842 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-.-0
:
I
i
I
I
i
I
:
!
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
i
i.!
t
I
I
STAP[ES't.. .. label size 1" x2 ill" compatible with Avery @S160/8160FtinnAttc dn formal 25 mm v 67 mm nnmnalihle evcc Averv Oi16O/g160 n/,.a
v?0 '
)
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:
:
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
V'O
ELOCKER, DEAN
KENNETH J ELOCKER SR
1303 NEW MARKET RD W
I MMOKALEE, FL 34142-_2253
BOYER, WARD L
4644 PINEWOOD DRIVE
LEW|STON, Ml 49756--0
BROOKS, VCTOR E & RALMETHA
122 HUDSON TER
YONKERS,NY 10701--1914
BUTTARI, RICHARD
406 CAMDEN AVE
MAGNOLT& NJ 08049--0
CALIX, LUIS
NILDA A CALIX
2391 8TH AVE SE
NAPLES, FL 34T17_O
CARRASCO, ISAEL
3790 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120_0
CASTELLANOS, FABIO A
CINDYJ CAST
37703TIH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-.0
CHASE MRTG FINANCE CORP
3815 SW TEMPLE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115-0
COLLIER CNW
C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
3335 TAM|AMI TR E, STE 101
NAPLES, FL 34112--0
COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD
2550 GOODLETTE RD N #1OO
NAPLES, FL 34103-0
09 tBl09 t96r tuery canu appeduoc rxtx /9 x ulx 9Z lutulol op eganbg
0g lB/09 L9@ tua^V ql^,l alq[Eduoc ,,919 Z'x ,,1ezp pqul
BONILLA, JORGE L
KARIN A CASTRO
4O3O 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0
BREMER, CHRISTOPHER C
JENNIFER BREMER
785-F MEADOWLAND DR
NAPLES, FL 34108-_0
BRUNET, DANIEL
610 21ST ST NW
NAPLES, FL 34120--0
CABEZAS, JUAN C & MICHELLE G
4431 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120_-0
CAPOTE, GUILLERMINA & KARIM
3830 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--1520
CARRASCO, ISAEL
3790 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--456
CASTILLO, RAFAEL A
215 W 2ND AVE
KENNEWICK, WA 99336_3918
CIARAMITARO, PAUL & LARISSA
150 PEACH CT
MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145.-4727
COLLIER CNry
C/O REAL PROPERW MANAGEMENT
3335 TAMIAMITR E, STE 101
NAPLES, FL 34112-0
COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD
2550 GOODLETTE RD N #1OO
NAPLES, FL 34103-.{
BORDON, ALISVET
SURELMY MONTERO GARCIA
4O2O 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120_-0
BROCK, DEVIN S & PAULA M
644 94TH AVE N
NAPLES, FL 34708---2447
BUSHEN, MARK E
4135 31ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--4528
CABLE HOLDCO II INC
ATTN: PROPERTY TAX DEPT
1701 JOHN F KENNEDY BLVD FL 32
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103--2855
CARRASCO, ISAEL
3790 33RD AVE
NAPLES, FL 34120_0
CARTER, REBECCA E
4525 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-1553
CDC LAND INVESTMENTS LLC
2550 GOODLETTE RD N #1OO
NAPLES, FL 34103-0
COCKERILL, CHERYL E
54'14 FARMINGDALE DR
WARRENTON, V A 20187 -927 9
COLLIER CNTY
C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101
NAPLES, FL 34112_0
CONDE, DANIEL A
MARIA E RENTERIA
4260 40TH Sr NE
NAPLES, FL 34720-_3252
S]ldVIS
I
I.t
I
I
I
I
I
.l
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
l
i
I
I
:
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i'r
I
I
i
I
i
\
I
I
I
,|
\
I
l
I
I
I
.)
I
I
I
l
I
!
':--
I
I
I
I
I
L
i
I
I
I
I
i
l
I
t)'
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
t
I
-STAPLES' u,,;10"'l'll',1;:fX;?I,fH*H,T[,Tfl.yi:ff Hfi,,,,,,,0da
!
I
I
I
(
I
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
V'O 0eru,ers@,,0^w'il:fJljli,f:,"'-H[i'Hiiil'#li,:x,l'"* s=ldvls
COOK, ANNE GARRIS
GEORGE HENRY COOK
3930 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120_-4508
CUESTA, PEDRO P
7527 CRESCENT DR
RAYTOWN, MO 64138._0
DEAN, LEON JAMES
8057 DANCING WIND LN #2005
NAPLES, FL 34119--0
DIAZ, ALBERTO & HACINIA M
4048 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-45L4
DIAZ, OSMEL J & JACQUELINE
3770 41ST AVE NE
NAPLES,FL 34120--.1534
DROZD ET U& WALTER J
35 COLONIAL DR
CLARK NJ 07056--2601
DUTHIE, CRISAN
221 PALISADE AVE
BOGOTA NJ 07503-1418
ELLIOTT, JAMES F
3791 39TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34720-7546
EXPOS|TO, ANTONI0
2254 SW 6TH ST
MlAMt, FL 33135--0
FELICIANO, FIDEL M & MARTA
4065 31ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34L20-_M62
CORRADO, BRENDA
3780 41ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120---1534
D & J NAPLES INVESTORS LLC
19OO EMPRESS CT
NAPLES, FL 34110--1004
DEAN, LEON JAMES
8067 DANCING WIND LN#2005
NAPLES, FL 34119-.0
DIAZ, CESAR J
4240 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120_-0
DIAZ-JIMENEZ, ANTONIO L
ELIANA P DIAZ-JIMENEZ
1870 HIGHWAY 73
MAR|ANNA FL 32448-5048
DUDASH, MARIE
4483 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0
EDWARD BOCK REV LIVTRUST
2981 54TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34720---L787
ERNST INVESTMENT INC
2580 DESOTO BLVD S
NAPLES, FL 34117--1236
FAIRIlOMES PEARL PROPERTIES LLC
10 STATION LN
UNIONVILLE L3R 1R4 CANADA
FERNANDEZ, CARLOS F
REBECCA A FERNANDEZ
25419 NW 101ST PL
H|GH SPR|NGS, FL 32643*9810
CORREIA ET UX, RICHARD W
PO BOX 265
oRRS |SLAND, ME 04066---0
D R HORTON INC
10541 BEN C PRATT SIX MILE
CYPRESS PKWY #1OO
FORTMYERS, FL 33966--0
DETWEILER, TIMOTHY L
DARLENE LANHAM
3810 39TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-7560
DIAZ, EVALDO
MARTHA ACOSTA
38452T1H AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0
DOR, CELTTA
4220 4OTH ST NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0
DURKA, JACEK A
12751 WATERLINE UNIT 4
FT MYERS, FL 33908_-0
EDWARD' DENISE M
4235 43RD AVE NE
NAPLET FL 34120--2838
EXNER, LAUREL D
WILLIAM EXNER
4380 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--4506
FAULKNER, ADRIAN & TAMMY
4095 315T AVE NE
NAPLES, Ft 34720---4462
FERNANDEZ, MARIANETA
ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ PEREZ
ROTANDO FERNANDEZ
275 ROLLINGWOOD TRAIL
ALTAMONTE SPRING, FL 32774_-0
\
I
ii
qTApn pq'. tabel size 1
,, x 2 5/8,' compatible with Avery @b160/8160(4-..-!- r-.^-_^+ 4c -.a t, ^, _- ^^_h^+ihta ^,,aa tr,aar 6tlAn/OrAn
A'A
I
t
I
I
I
I
i
!
i
I
I
il
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
vt0
FERNANDEZ-BRUBAKER TR, ELENA
E FERNANDEZ.BRUBAKER LIV/TRUST
DAVID ALEXANDER FERNANDEZ
4201 SW 96TH AVE
MlAMt, FL 33165-{
FJJ CONSTRUCTION INC
4287 23RD AVE SW
NAPLES, FL 34115---0
FOX, SCOTT D & BETH A
4120 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34L20--2877
FUNDORA, LEO & MONICA
303 71ST STREET
GUTTENBERG, NJ 07093--.0
eaHzn, rueruuelibSHua
FELICIA GARZA
4185 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120_0
eo|Ez, MnRtgEL c
4430 KENTUCKY WAY
AVE MARIA, FL 34142--5015
GRETNHALGH, rnrHRyru amRr
DONNA MARIE LESSARD
4345 43RD AVE N E
NAPLES, FL 34120_0
HALL, TIMOTHY BRIAN
TIFFANY NICOLE HALL
3760 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0
HERNANDEZJR, CAESAR
SAMANTHA ALEXANDRIA MOLINA
4371 NE 43RD AVE
NAPLES, FL 34120_0
HERNANDEZ, IRASHEMA
PO BOX 1344
ESTERO, FL 33929--1344
09lB/09 t9@ tuany caae elq3pdrxoc utut /9 x urrx 9Z lerxlol 0p egenbg;
09tg/09t9@ tue^VqIM a;qpeduoc "Bl9Zx "l ezls loqBl
FERRELL, DOUGLAS J
SHAWNA L FERRELL
735 CORAL DR
CAPE CORAL, FL 33904--5902
rl sren CcirusrRucnoN LLc
7742 ALTCO RD
FORT MYERS, FL 33912_-0
FRESTA JOINT REV TRUST
6755 PLAINVIEW AVE
sT LOU|S, MO 63109-0
GAMEZ, NOEL & LEA M
3810 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120---0
eeron truvesrMENT oF sw FL rNc
2950 1OTH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0
Go-ruznLrz, e nrrrEl
OSCAR GARCIA
3765 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120.--0
entrSrR, cHARLES
4670 45TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120_0
HAN, THIN T
34 EUE CT
STATEN |SLAND, NY 10314--6019
HERNANDEZ, ERICK ALBITER
2617 30TH ST 5W
LEHIGH ACRES, FL 33976-_0
HERNANDEZ, MARIA E & RIGOBERTO
JOSE R TSADA PORTILLO
4155 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120*0
S]ldVIS
"j
I
I'i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIALLO, ADELA IV1ATILDE
550 5W 138TH AVE APT K212
PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33027_.0
FORTES, HUGO LAZARO
JESSIE FORTES
14752 SW 169TH LN
MlAMl, FL 33L87--7744
FRONK ET UX;RAYMOND J
C/O MARSHA A BOMMER
408 JUMPER DR S
BUSHNELT FL 33513--8401
GARciA, MARCELA D
4260 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34720-4504
GoMEz, FELIPE PABLO
ROSALIA MIGUEL PABLO
4250 4OTH ST NE
NAPLES, FL 34720_3252
GONZALEZ, YULLET VICHOT
ALIAN ZAILA LARA
4361 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0
GUZMAN, AT,AIN
SUSEL CASTANEDA
4235 33RD AVE NE
NAPLET FL 34120-0
HARSTEIN ETAI. ANNETTE
102 WYMING AVE
AUDUBON,NJ 08106--1557
HERNANDEZ, ESTELA
3845 31ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34720--2924
HERRER& YANDRY GARCIA
ODAIMY MAYOR SOLIS
4657 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120_-0
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
l
i
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
(
I
I
t
I
I
I
i
I
I
l
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
!
I
I
i
l
I
cT^Do tre't.. . labelsize 1" x.Z 5/8" compatible withAvery@8160/8160
^, _< -^_-^+!h,^ ^.:^ n.,^-,, AE{anror^^
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
i
I
I
i
)
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
V'O
HUSTON JR, LEROY S & RUTH
3122 COLEMAN CT
ROCK HrLL, SC 29732---8073
J GEISTWEITE REV TRUST
5551 SW 75TH TER
souTH MtAMt, FL 33143--4673
JAMES F ASCHER LIV REV TRUST
3510 WILD INDIGO LN
BONITA SPR| N6S, FL 34734-7977
JOHNSON, BEVERLY
ANDREA CADET
12301 NW 20TH Cr
PLANTATION, FL 33323--1949
JOSEPH, MICHAEL
4230 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34720---4504
KOMPINSKI, NICHOLAS
383541STAVEN E
NAPLES, FL 34120-..0
LAGUERRE, WILLIAM
GI-ADIMAR DE JESUS MARIN
4461 43RD AVE N E
NAPLET FL 34120-*0
TAWHORN JR, CARL C
KAREN J LAWHORN
8746 WINDING CREEK WAY
PICKERINGTON, OH 43147 -78L7
LE, LINH D & TRANG NT
912 HERITAGE PKWY S
ALLEN, TX 7so02-5762
LICOR, ORIOL
YOHANY LICOR
5740 ROYAL MELBOURNE DR
H|ALEAH, FL 33015__2121
09IBi09 t9@ fiany cane e;qgeduoc urul Z9 x rurx 9Z leu:ol op elpnbgT
09 tg/09 t9@ tuaay qyu alqgeduoc ,,8/g Z x .. t ezp laqBl
I C BROKERS NURSERY LLC
3790 33 AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120_-0
JACKSON, DOTTIE
4277 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--2838
JEMEC, LILLIE
4015 3$T AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34T20_4462
JOHNSON, CHERYLANN
27830 SW 132ND CT
HOMESTEAD, FL 33032-8553
KIRNON, ELVIS
4245 4OTH ST NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--3253
ITURRALOE, JOSE & AIDA
PO BOX 110125
HIALEAH, FL 33011_-126
JACqUES, JUAN F
3821 35TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120.-0
JEWELL LIVING TRUST
5544 N NAVAJO AVE
GLENDALE, WI 53217--5039
JOSEPH, MERIENNE
4075 31ST AVE NE
NAPLET FL 34120-4462
KNOWLTON, JOHN DALE & JULIE S
3957 31ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--'1403
LAFLAMMETR, MAURICE
BARBARA LAFLAMME TR
LAFLAMME FAMILY INV TR 3-5.95
211 CROSS ST
BRIDGEWATER, MA 02324_-0
LARAM CONSTRUCTION INC
110 WILSON BLVD S
NAPLET FL 34117--0
LAZO, OSNAIVY
3830 35TH AVE NE
NAPLET FL 34720-3237
LEONARD, YORDANIS MILLARES
IT453 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34L20_-O
LONGSTRETH, CODY R
SUSAN M LONGSTRETH
3857 39TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 341.20_0
S]ldVIS
KWIK STOP LtC
215 SW 125TH AVE
PLANTATION, FL 33325--0
IAPUENTE, ALAIN GUZMAN
4235 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120.-0
LAYME, ANGIE E
1057 DUDLEY DR
KlsstMMEE, FL 34758--2919
LEANDRE, WESLY & CARLINE
3585 2ND AVE SE
NAPLES, FL 34117-0
LONDONO, LUIS
BEATRIZ MAYA
3730 41ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120__1534
ti
qTADn trq'j.. labelsize 1', xZS/8,'compatiblewithAvery@8I60/g160
r+i^r,^s^ ,^ J^,_-l oE hn u C7 6h ^^h^a+iht^ ^,-^ n.,^^, /6\AlA^/OJAn
ai A
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
II
I
I
I
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
vt0
LUB|N, WATSON & DAV|
3790 39TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120._0
MALA LLC
7171 SW 62ND AVE STE 503
SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33743_4723
MARQUEZ, MARIO & TERESA INEZ
10210SW TTIHCf
DAV|E, FL 33324-7453
MARTINEZ, JORDAN RAUL
1210 GOLDEN GATE BLVD EAST
NAPLES, FL 34120---3501
MC CANN, CHARLES E & DENISE A
3612 DOGWOOD 5T NW
uNloNTowN, oH 4468s-9117
MESA, YUSAITY
455r. NW 25TH ST
LAUDERHTLT_ FL 33313-0
MORENO ET AL, BEATRIZ E
C/O ANGELA M LONDONO
1OO1 MURCOTT DR
NAPLES, FL 34I20-_L478
MULLINS, ROSA SOL.ANGE
GABRIEL P TAKAHASHI
5135 4OTH ST NE
NAPLES FL 3412O_O
MURIEL D STOLMAN TRUST
LINDA GUTIERREZ
3170 NEWMAN DR
NAPLES, FL 34114-_1204
NELSON, STACY A
3790 43RD AVE NE
NAPLET FL 34720--_457
09 tB/09 tS@ tuany cale elqpduroc uux /g x uJru 9Z lpultol 0p arcnbul
09lg/0919@ tuery qpl alqleduoc ,,glg Z x ,,1azp laqel
LUGONES, OILDA M
2146 DESOTO BLVD S
NAPLES, FL 34117--0
MALDONADO, MARGARITA
RENE D MALDONADO
42L7 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-2838
MARTINEZ, ALBINO & JULIA
975 LEO sr
MARCO |SLAND, FL 34145--5982
MARTINEZ, SHELLY
RICO ALVARADO
4O4O 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-4514
MC GANN, PETER F & VIVIAN
841 95TH AVE N
NAPLES, FL 34108-2458
uoNnotc, LEflciA
3780 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34L20_2827
MORI-STEELE, NILDA J
4180 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--4513
MUNOZ, FABIAN RAMIRO CACERES
PERLA S CACERES CARDENAS
3882 39TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0
MUSLIMANI, SALIM
3761 39TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34L20--7546
NIACE, HEBERT
RAYMONDE LUUEAN
4265 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120___0
MADHU, DAISY
% O,CONNOR LAW FIRM
2240 BELLEAIR RD STE 115
CLEARWATER, FL 33764---0
MARoNDA HoMES lNc oF FLoRIDA
9416 CAMDEN FIELD PARKWAY
RIVERVIEW, FL 33569_{
MARii NEZ, CRUZ & SHA_WNA
1510 AVERY ELISSA LANE
CEDAR PARK,TX 78613-0
MARTINEZ, WILLIAM
3785 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-2828
ntENoozn, DENIs F a arunNt I
4120 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES FL 34120-.0
MORENO ETAL, BEATRIZ E
C/O ANGELA M LONDONO
1OO1 MURCOTT DR
NAPLES, FL 34720-7478
MOSKOT BAS|L L
134 EOSTON POST RD
WAYLAND, MA 01778---0
MURIEL D STOLMAN TRUST
LINDA GUTIERREZ
3170 NEWMAN DR
NAPLES, FL 34TT4-_T204
NASH, KEVIN M
4335 43RD AVE N E
NAPLES, FL 34120-0
NIEI.SEN, REBECCA LEE
ERICK VAUGHN NIELSEN
3820 41ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0
S]TdVIS
I
:
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
:
I
I
l
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
)
-.:.
Irit
ill:It
lilrlr
it
ltll
lliljl
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
QTADN trE'labelslze 1" x.2 SlB" compatible withAvery @5160/8160
A..__.. ar. F^. a ^A
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
,l
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
\tt0 09 t8/0919@ tus^V ca^E elqoPduo3 u.rur 19 x uflJ 9Z lpuroJ op aUanbST
0g t&/09 ! @ /ue v q{,!l elqopduoe .88 z x . t ozts lsqpl slldvrs
NOZII- SYLVA
LUCE NOZIL SYLVAIN
3744 41ST AVE NE
NAPLE FL 34120-1534
O'BRIEN, SANDRAMARIE
CHARTES F O'BRIEN
3814 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES FL 34120-1520
OTERO, KEVIN J ARIAS
MELBAA RAMIREZ ORTIZ
4507 43RD AVENUE N€
NAPtrt FL 3412G-{
NUNEZ, IBRAHIM & CARLENE
4290 33RD AVE NE
NAPLE FL 34120--4504
OTIVARES PROPERTIES INV LLC
9055 GERVAIS CIR APT 1407
NAPLE FL 34120--{
NORDITU' ROSMICK & ROSE A
5775 PAINTED LEAF LN
NAPLES, FL 34116--0
oAKS ET Al. KRTST|N
455 RILEY AVE
WORTHINGION,OH /+3085-{
ORTEGA HECTOR & MIRTA
3975 3lSTAVE NE
NAPLES FL 34L2O-4403
PORTER, TlMOTHY
AI.fREDO D FERNANDEZ
3915 33RDAVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--4553
OVIES, CARLOS YHIRO
3740 43RD AVE NE
NAPLE FL 34120---0
PARENT, DALE L & LINDA D
43 SANDRA DR
JAX 8CH, FL 32250--4068
PEREZ, IAZARO
SONIATERAN
4045 33RD AVE NE
NAPTE FL 34120-0
POLIzzI, JEFFREY
18 COLD SPRING RD
MERCERVI TLE, N' 08679-227 7
PR|CE, SON|A M
126 E 12TH Sr fl38
NEW YORK, NY 10003-5331
OSPINA, GUIDO E
8215 NW 201ST 5T
HTALEAH, tL 33015-s936
PINZON, MANUEL & JENNICER C
28OO FLETCHER AVE f11
LINCOLN, NE 68504--0
PAMPILLO, VIANA ACOSTA
IUIS E IEDESMA
3795 37TH AVE NE
NAPIES, FL 34120--{)
PAR( PTACE SECURTIES INC
% OCWEN ATTENTION:
VAULT DEPTARTMENT
5720 PREMIER PARK DR
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 331107-{)
PANTOJA, EDDY & ADR'ANNA
3970 41ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0
PENA, YANEISY
3830 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120_502
OSBORN, DEXTER G
MEGAN C OSEORN
467043RD AVE NE
NAPLE FL 34120-1i540
PREMIER INVESTMENT LLC
115 2ND ST NE
NAPLES, FT 34116_0
PROPER MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC
5188 MIRAMAR P(WY
MIRAI4AR, FL 33023_3940
PRINCE, THOMAS H & VALERIE M
9068 HUNTER BAY DR
BRIGHTON, Mt 48114-4933
PROENZA V|CTOR M RODRTGUEZ
ZITA D PIEDRA BARREIO
4130 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, Ft" 34120--0
QPCOM INC
5162 SW 173R0 AVE
MIRAMAR, FL 33029-{
QTID0 trq' ... tab8l slzs 1' x 2 5/8' mmpat bls wtfi Avery @s160/8160
NISAOA LLC
4604 ABACA CIR
NAPTE FL 34119--0
q SMITH HOMES LLC
% THE LIGHTSTONE GROUP
1985 CEDAR BRIDGE AVE sTE 1
TAKEWOOD,NJ 08701-7031
OSBORN, DEXTER & CHRISTINE
46EO 43RD AVE NE
NAPLE FL 34120-0
PLOCK, DOUGLAS ANTHONY
11234TANGELO TERR
BONTTA SPRINGt FL 34135--0
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
v,0
QUINTERO, JOSE
ABREY A QUINTERO
JOHN QUINTERO
ANA L MONTES
7570 NW 14TH ST STE 102
MIAMr, FL 33126---1701
RAUDNER, HANNES M
ANGEL MARIA RAUDNER
3850 37TH AVE NE
NAPLET FL 34120-1520
ROBBINS, WILLIAM K & VICKI L
4085 31ST AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--4462
ROMERO, CELINA MIJANGO
3745 415T AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-_0
ROMERO, JOSE O & CELINA M
2185 GREENBACK CIR # 7.102
NAPLES, FL 34112-3948
sAMPLES, uuCEit & KENNETH
4210 33RD AVE NE
NAPLE FL 34120-0
SANTIAGO AMADOR, ODALYS TOMASA
DANIELA GARCIA SANTIAGO
4230 4OTH ST NE
NAPLE FL 34120-0
SCACLIA, PABLO & VANESSA
674 NW 134TH PL
MtAMl, FL 33182-1668
SILVA, CANDIDO & MARIA M
15435 SW 26TH TER
MlAMl, FL 33185---4866
(!TA ftfi Ee@
09 tg/Og lq@ fuany canu elqoudruoc ulu /g x rxru gZ lBruJol op eganbgS
09lg/09 t9@ tuany qim qqoeduoc
"Bl9 Zx "l azls loqel
RAMIREZ, DEBBY E
3766 39TH AVE NE
NAPLET FL 34120--7s4s
RENTERTA-HERRenn, irsus
JUAN RAMON RENTERIA
4280 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120_-0
RODRIGUEZ, JAVIER C & ANA L
3820 37TH AVENUE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120---0
ROLDAN, JUAN L
ERIKA PEREZ
3765 39TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0
RoMERo, arlilunuo alrxAru DEir
4240 4OTH ST NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0
ROSALES, OOrunlO A
15111 5W 58TH 5T
MtAMt, FL 33193-3008
SAN JUAN, MAXIMO
ALEIDA BRIZUELA SAN JUAN
5423 COLLINS AVE APT 303
M|AMI BEACH, FL 33141---4640
SANTILLI, MARLENE J
224 oWL Cr
FREMONT, CA 94539-5200
ScHrpprRly, oyutt.t
3830 39TH AVE NE
NAPLET FL 34120-0
SINGLETARY SR, CHARLES K
CATHERINE A SINGLETARY
2690 WILSON BLVD N
NAPLES, FL 34120--3302
label size 1" x.2 518" compatibte with Avery @S160/9160
S]ldVIS
RAPP, ARHIAHNA
3735 39TH AVE NE
NAPLES, Fl 34120-7546
REY, CHARLES & MARIE
3760 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34720--457
noontcuEz, pr6no E
2420 SW 83RD CT
MtAMt, FL 33L55-2462
ROMAN, KELLY MICHELLE
3820 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--2918
hourno,.rAvrEn
8247 NW 194TH TER
HIALEAH, FL 33015-_6951
ntiSAr-rs, toSe n sETANcounr
KYRENIS N ESPINOSA SAMADA
4340 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120_0
sANcHEz, rioeenfo penr2
4175 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0
SANTOS, KAREN GANZO
JULIO H SOTO SWABY
3770 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0
sEK, KAZIMtERZ
3853 41Sr AVE NE
NAPLET FL 34120-1884
SLANDA ET UX, JOSEPH E
% LEON SLANDA
352 AUDUBON RD
LEEDS, MA 01053--9770
i
l
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I..\
I
I
i
I
!
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
;
.l
I
I
I
ROJAS, ISAURA
4420 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-4551
I
i
i
:
I
I
l
1
i
I
I
I
I
I
t
i
i
!
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
i
l
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i'
I
I
;
I
I
I
:
I
I
I
i
I
i
.,)
I
I
i
I
1
i
I
II
!
I
;
I
i
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
\r90 09 t8/09 t9@ tusAV co B a|qlEduoc ujlr /9 x ultr SZ lEmrol 0p s$onbn?
09 t8/09 t g@ tu8 v qt^,r en[Eduoe r8/9 z x i t szls lsqsl
UPADHYAYA NARENDRA R & MAYURI
11067 GARDEN RIDGE cr
DAVTE, Ft 33328-7308
VALLE, JORGE ALBERTO FTORES
5495 25TH PL SW
NAPIES, FL 3411G-{
S]?dVIS
SOLIZ, RENE A
6039 SHALTOWS WAY
NAPLES, FL 34109-{)
SMITH, MARCIA]
376135TH AVE NE
NAPLE FL 34120-1879
SOGNARE LLC
3605 ENTERPRISE AVE STE 253
NAPTE FL 34104-{
SOUTHWEST PERMACULTURE t"LC
2921SHERMAN AVENUE
NAPLES, FL 3412O..O
STEC,ADOLFE&EERNICE
22 FOSTER AVE
VALLEY STREAM, NY 11580-2936
STEVES, LORENZO RAMIREZ
ETIDA LOPEZ
3782 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--466
STRONG, VIC(ILYNN & JACK L
2390 8TH AVE SE
NAPLE FL 34117--0
SUNSHINE Ft APARTMENTS INC
1O3O PORT ORANGE WAY
NAPLE FL 34120--{
SUNSHINE FL APARTMENTS INC
1O3O PORT ORANGE WAY
NAPLE Fr 34120--0
T&J S VENTURA 2018 REV TRUST
1550 SONORACT
PALM SPR|NGt CA 92764-3560
TARPON IV LLC
18305 BISC YNE BIVD SrE ir00
AVENTURA, FL 33L@.2172
THOMPSON, STEPHEN S
PATRICIA TTHOMPSON
4295 3lSTAVE NE
NAPI-ES, FL 34120-4495
THOMPSON, STEPHEN S
PATRICIA LTHOMPSON
4295 315T AVE NE
NAPLET FL 3472O-qt95
TRAVIS DEIASHMET
TARA DELASHMET
381135TH AVE NE
NAPLET FL 34120-3238
TRIANA, ILEANA
JORGE GOMEZ
10000sw3RDsr
MrAMl, FL 33174--{
TRYFU' TOBY W
3995 315TAVE NE
NAPtEt FL 34120--{
uttoA, YADTEL GOMEZ
3730 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-2827
TORRES, ROGELIO HERNANDEZ
3755 415T AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-1535
SUAREZ, NOEL
% AMERICAN PRIME LLC
5775 EtUE LAGOON DR #350
MtAMl, FL 33126-{
sYNERGY INVEST TLC
518 AVELI.INO ISLES CIR
APT 4201
NAPLES, FL 34119-0
THAMMAVONG, ADISONE
PHETHSAKHONE THAMMAVONG
2550 6TH AV€ NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-7602
TIGHE, MICHAEL EDWARD
151 FLAMINGO RD
TUCKERTON,N, 08087-2i48
STEVENSTR, DONALD
urD 4126107
MARY M STEVENSTR
wo 4l26lit
5281SEA GRASS LN
NAPLE FL 34116-5435
TURCAN LIVING TRUST
4581oAK 5T
oscoDA, Mr 48750-0
UREINA, ADALID
3735 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0
VATENZUELA, NEHEMIAS
4255 31ST AVE NE
NAPLE FL 34120-4495
Iabel slz8 1 " x 2 ,8' compatible wifi Avery @51 60/81 60
TREGANZA, MAT & HATHAIRATH
2'$0 6fH AVE NE
NAPLE Ft- 34120-0
VARGHESE, GEORGE
CHECHAMMA GEORGE
703 SHERMAN AVE
THORNWOOD, NY 10594-1428
i
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
e'r^Do Ee@
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
V?O
VARGHESE, GEORGE
CHECHAMMA GEORGE
703 SHERMAN AVE
THORNWOOD, NY 10594-1428
VILTARRAGA, EDISON & MARIA
4420 43RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--0
WILLIAMS, LAUREL
7849 DIOTDO BLVD
MIRAMAR, FL 33023_0
WINCHESTER LAND LLC
1OO N TAMPA ST # 37OO
TAMPA FL 33602-0
Golden Gate Estates Area Civic
Association
PO Box 990596
Naples, FL 34116
VAUBEL, VERNON L & CAROLE
4901 W 64TH ST
PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS 66208_1325
WELLS, NADINE GLADYS
KRISTIN L WEL6
2344 HERITAGE GREENS DR
NAPLES, FL 34119--3312
WILSON TR, GEORGE G
RITA M WILSON TR
KIM M SHERMAN TR
ulD 6h6/Os
10220 FAIRWAY DR
ELLTCOTT C|TY, MD 21042--2115
WONG, PETER NGOC
TANG NHUC ROBYN PHUNG
3103 JACKSON AVE
ROSEMEAD, CA 91770-0
ogrs/oetso",e^v3il:^'J1ili,fT,ffi##::il'#i-'1J;,l-*'-, sSldvIS
I
i
I
I
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
.J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
l
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
OTA tln EC@ label size 1" x.2 518" compatible with Avery @S1 60/8160
VEGA, EDILEYDIS & RAYDEL
3775 41ST AVENUE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-0
wir-uaMs, KR|SIAN L
3TI39TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120--7546
WILSON, WADE & hAcHEL
3980 33RD AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120_0
ZUFERRI, AIDA L
3815 37TH AVE NE
NAPLES, FL 34120-1521 I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
.l
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
t
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
!
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
I
I
I
i
;
I
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
HOLE MONTES
950 Encore Way . Naples, Florida 34110 'Phone 239.254.2000 ' Fax 239.254.2099
Novemberll,20l9
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner
Growth Management Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Re:Hyde Park Village SRA (SRA-PL20180000622)
2"d Neighborhood Information Meeting
HM File No. 2017.001
Dear Mr. Finn:
Enclosed please find the following in accordance with Collier County's Neighborhood Information
Meeting (NIM) requirements for the NIM held on November 5, 2019, for the above-referenced
projects:
I ) copy of Affidavit of Publication;
I ) copy of Meeting Summary of the NIM;
l) copy of sign-in sheet from the NIM; and
I ) flash drive with recording of the NIM.
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me.
lfyou have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
HOLE, MONTES, INC.
Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP
Vice President, Planning Services & Business Development
RJM/sek
Enclosures as noted.
H:Uol7UOl7Ool\Wf$RAUnd NUvflTF l9l I I I lr tt post NIM documcnts.docx
NaPles' Fo( lvlyers
a
a
a
One
One
One
(
(
(
(One
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
NIM SUMMARY
Hyde Park Stewardship Receiving Area Designation (SRA-PL20180000622)
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 5:30 p,m.
Collier County UF/IFAS Extension, Multi-Purpose Room
14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120
The NIM was held for the above referenced petition. This Second NIM was required since it has been just
over one year since the original NIM was held.
The petition is described as follows
To establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Village over 654.79+
acres of land located in eastern Collier County to known as Collier Lakes Village ("CLV").
The CLV is proposed lo allow up to 1,800 dwelling units (150G+ single family and 30Gr
multi-family), 45,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and 18,000 square feet
of civic, institutional and govemmental uses ISRA-PL20180000622].
Note: This is a summary of the NIM. An audio recording is also provided.
Attend€es:
County Staff:
Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
Seven members ofthe public attended.
Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himsell the other consultants, and County staff. He
explained the NIM process, the process for approval, provided an overview of the history of the Rural
Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) overlay, and provided an overview of the project. Mr. Greenberg
provided an overview ofNeal Communilies.
Following Mr. Mulhere's presentation, there were approximately fifteen minutes of questions from the
public in attendance. The following issues were raised:
Stormwatcr Ma ment
Questions were raised regarding the stormwater management plan, and the proposed developments
iitpact on rhe Picayune Strind. Birry Jones, P.E. explained that therc will be a perimeter berm around the
site, containing stormwater internaily on the site. There will be four intemal control points; and two
;;;;;;;;;;#"i;oinrs that witl discharge to the adjacent faka Union Canal. Stormwater will be treated
iia an internal lake system utilizing a network of littoral planting areas. The projects potential impact on
t. pi*yr". Strand restoration hai been addressed with the South Florida water Management District
ti-nWfr4bl i"ri"g,he permitting process. The site will take in and treat stormwater runoff from Oil Well
I l:U0l7UO 17001\wP\S RAVnd NIMNIM Summary (l l'6-2019) dn docr
On behalf of Applicants:
Michael Greenberg, Southwest Florida Regional President, Neal Communities
Robert Mulhere, FAICP, VP Planning, Hole Montes
Richard Yovanovich, Esq., Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, PA
James Banks, Transportation Consultant
Barry Jones, PE, Hole Montes
Dan Ciesielski, Land Development Manager, Neal Communities
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Road once it is widened which will result in enhanced water treatment (as compared to the current
conditions).
Questions were raised regarding the proposed deviations. About 20 deviations have been requested. Most
reflect deviations that have been supported by staff during the application process for similar SRA
applications in the area. The deviations are to allow for design flexibility, such as cul-de-sac lengths,
street widths to allow the accommodation of Collier County Utility hookups, and to allow parking in front
ofthe retail shopping center in the Village Center, ifa grocery store is included.
Village Desisn
Questions were asked about what makes the village design innovative. The RLSA program was designed
with innovative requirements. The proposed development meets or exceeds these innovative design
requirements. The Village complies with the LDC - RLSA definition of a Village and locates the more
intense and high density development closer to Oil Well Road. There is a central amenity center for
residents and guests that is easily accessible via walking or bicycle. The Village includes a connected
system of sidewalks pathways and a multi-modal street system.
Questions were raised regarding the number of multi-family units and the location of multi-family
development in relation to the proposed entrance gates. The applicant has committed to providing a
minimum often percent ofthe overall units, 180 units, as multi-family. The housing types have not been
determined yet. The project has been designed to accommodate multi-family in the Village Center, which
may be located outside the proposed entrance gates, or in the Neighborhood Ceneral context zone behind
the entrance gates. Questions were raised regarding how many sending credits the project will be
urilizing. The Village requires 3,547.76+ stewardship credits (subject to change). These credits will be
transfened from Stewardship Sending Area 7 (near Lake Trafford).
The meeting concluded at approximately 5:55 PM.
Deviations
Gencral/Misc.
Il:UOl7UOl700l\WASRAUnd NIM\NIM Summary (l l -6-2019) rjm.docx
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Publlshed Daily
Naples, FL 3411O
HOLE IIIONTES ASSOCIATES lNC
950 ENCORE WAY, SUtrE 200
NAPLES, FL 34fi0
Affldavlt of Publlcatlon
STATE OF W|SCONSIN
COUNTY OF BROWN
Betore the undoBignsd they sorvo as the authorlty,
personally appeared sald legal clotk who on oeth says that
(s)he serves as legal clert olthc Napler Dally |,lcts, a dally
newspsp€r published at Naples, ln Colllcr County, Flodda;
dlstributed ln Collier and Lee countles ol Flodda;that the
attached copy of the advertblng was publbhcd ln sald
ncwspaper on dates listed. Atfisnt furiher says that the said
Nsplos Daily Nervs is a ncwspaper publbhod et tlapl€t, ln
said Collier County, Florida, end thst the SeU na,vspapor hss
heretoforc be€n continuously publishcd in said
Collior County, Fbriia; distdbuted in Collier and Lae
countiss of Floda, each day and has bo€n entered a9
gecond dsss mail mattet at th€ post offcs ln Naples, in
sald Collier County, Floriia , for a perlod of ons year nsxt
pr€coding tho first publlcation of tho attache<l copy of
advertissnont and affiant fuiher says that hc has ncithcr
pald nor promisod any poBon, or corporatlon any dlscount ,
rebate, commlssion or refund for tho purposo of securlng
lhis adverlisement for publication h thc seH na'wpepcr.
Octobor 21,2019
ar-
Subscribed and sworn to before on Novemborl, 2019:
-*--J a-^ o . f Y\ rtr\ d)-o<L')
Notary, State of Wl, County of Erown
My corilnistim aryiras: Auguat 6,2021
Publication Cost: 3945.00
Ad No: GC10291439
Customer No: 324483
PO#:
RA MONDLO H
Notary Public
Sttte o, WiEconsin
Bt*flnu
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 5:30 p.m.
Collier County UF/IFAS Extension, Multi-Purpose Room
14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL lll20
The following formal application has been made to Collier County:
Petition SRA-PL20180000622 - The petition is to establish a Stewardship
Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Village over 654.79+ acres of
land located in eastern Collier County to be known as Hyde Park Village.
Hyde Park Village is proposed to allow up to 1,800 dwelling units (1500+
single family and 3001 multi-family), 45,000 square leet of neighborhood
commercial uses, and 18,000 square feet of civic, institutional and
governmental uses.
The subject property is presently zoned A-MHO-RLSAO. The site is
bounded on the south by Oil Well Road, on the west and north by Golden
Gate Estates zoned properties and on the east by the future Big Cypress
Parkway and A-MHO-RLSAO properties.
The subject property is located at the intersection ol Oil Well Road and
DeSoto Blvd. North, approximately 4 miles east ol Immokalee Road, in
Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida.
I
I
I{
B
fl stta id
I
t
I{UT
,t rt c.*rr. aArau:5 ra lm Hyde Park Village SRA
WE VALUE YOUR INPUT
Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to
attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owners and Collier
County staff. If you are unable to attend this meetinS, but have questions
or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, or e'mail to:
Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President, Planning Services
Hole Montes, Inc.
950 Encore Way, Naples, Florida 341l0
Phone: 239-254-2000, email: bobmulhere@hmeng'com
The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting
held by Robert J. Mulhere, FAICB Vice President, Planning Services of
Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquirg of Coleman,
Yovanovich and Koester, PA. on behalf of the property owner at the
iollorving time and location:
SUBJE T
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
*E[@
-@
r@lEi@
rl!@
-6ffi
wAltrII
ril
l4"""d.,""t.(M
t'ffi,ffi}
"i@
-E
thc rob nnwo.k
tm
C;E!@
thal,ob natx6.*
c@{'c
dH@,,*-l}
l.lEE[fltt
@
:''.J:::*t
ir,l@
aE@
ffiia,i@D
-int91{i.41er(ri@ e{Ero,kedM'qq
@-ffi
Th. Ehli. h irvncd lo .rtnd ! nciarlhlrhri{ i(ltretun dcriil
hcld tt turtafl , MdlxE illcP. \rs Pandol PLdinr S.Fi.6 ol
Hol. Mdnk , h. .!td richld D Yowovklr Er{unr. of Cokmi,YMBi.t .,r, Xcc.i lA. on b.D.lr oI lt! ttotRrl, dBr rl rh.
lollein, rin. .nd l@tion:
Tr.a.r. lJor.di I :t 19 ,!O F.C.[t cBtr UTmIS Err.do.. M.U.Plrre Ro6
l.rlD tlmLh. t6.l :\rrLr. lL .LUo
Th! tullNine lortulat!h.(rn hlr E(rn mrd. !, Cnrli{ C !nrr.
ttddd Slr-Pl20lt0tao6rt . Ths netitio. ir ro 6llbliih i StMrd{hil
Rsivin! Am 6IA) in rh. torm ol . Vill.8. oB 65:1.19! .!ri ot
l.nd l*.t.{ in .dcm Colli.r Counr, ro b. lnlM u Hrd. hrl vill.8.,
Hrds Pt* vilhs. t Dololaj ro ruo* u,! ro l.tm Jsllii, uniu r lI0i
rrrrc irmly.id ]tlri uli-hn'l)I al,fl{quE fer o{ nci$bodsJ
@heNiJ t6 JnJ ltJE,rrrB [.d of rivk, iNr'rurion.l ud
Tlc .!bj$r n^,Drn, i. tE*nll, zonlrj A-MllO-tll O Thc .ilc n
hJudld on lh. suh t, Oil w.! E rd, ,n th. *!c .od nunh by Cold.r
C.rc Err.r6 ,on d IDFnig rid on rhc ql bt UE f(ua Bb cyt\d
Pr*D.,.trd A-MHGRLS O nllFnie
Tt. rlbFll tIopcny ! lMl.,, rr lhc i.r!n4lio! ot Od wcll RlrJ .tul
D(Soro Ulv,j. Noflh, .rrornur.lr a mikr ot of Imorr].. Ro.(I n
s.crid 16. Toruhi,l 4l Soodl' R.n8. 2t Ea{. Cotlid Co{trry. Ho.id!.
lr'E v UlElotrl lf,"PtrT
BcitrN rn,l nDltrry omr\ 6id.it. rtu vi.lbu .E Elon. ro
rumd rrr D6anlxioi rn,, J'gu rhc roitr Mrhth.@n.drnJ colht
counly {r[. Il you rt un.bi.lo.l'c,J lhit n cliitr bol h.Equo'ionr
or oriM.|r rh.y .rn h. ,liGr.'i b, tuil. nhonc or +mil lo'
Roh. l Mulh.e. FAICP. Vir Pr6id.nt, Phnni4 S.ricB
Hol. Morl.a lE.
e50 F^ns $t!, srdcr t lorida Yl l0
Pln,nc: 2t9.21+Zxn. !t.il lnlDll.n@rm..o
ffi*_- - tFo P.*waco sRA
0@EEElfit@lElD
rq u. "'uqi q
r h ry,. idd
d!'^rdhwlu'dn|4r.!t.lbl:'t@
r,,En'& itu'drdII
d.r 116 tr,{. drd b D lmdih hd
tur @r dn b (!., 5 turh d !n.lM
Ftr'ff' '6!db
6*6 rt ! d & dd t 6r
.,id. rddid,rr(odd.t6Fd b'd
*Itit . - ."-,..- ." -* "r;,{dufr,!{bdk(d,
$,lxma..*"-^"" ""
&! e[,!(lrx!l!-Er]]ltL-,
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
HYDE PARK SRA (SRA-PL-20180000622)
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5,20L8 AT 5:30PM
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
...PLLAse bc advked...
The information on this sheet is to contact you regarding this project and future public meetings. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and
certain home addrettes are public records once received by a government atency. lf you do not want your e-mall address, phone number or home address
released if the county rec€ives a public records request, you can refrain from including such information on this sh€et. You have the option of checking
with the county staff on your own to obtain updates on the project as well as checking the county Web site for additional information.
Name Address City, State Zip E-Mail Address
Julia Martinez 975 Leo Court Marco lsland, FL
Peter Vazquez 1525 San Marco Drive Marco lsland, FL Pavazquez20l 6@gmail.com
Timothy Finn 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL Timothy.Finn@colliercountw.com
April Olson '1495 Smith Preserve Way Naples, FL April@conservancv.oro
Meredith Budd 2590 Golden Gate Parloivay Naples, FL meredith b@FWFonline.org
Hannes Raudner 3850 37th Ave. NE Naples, FL hannesraudner@yahoo.com
Angel Raudner 3850 37m Ave. NE Naples, FL angelraudner@yahoo.com
9.B.6
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment D (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Page 1 of 5
H:\2017\2017001\WP\SRA\5th Resubmittal\Public Facilities Report (rev 11-25-2019).docx
HYDE PARK SRA
PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Solid Waste
According to the Collier County 2017 AUIR, currently there is an existing landfill capacity of 17,244,316
tons, and a ten-year landfill capacity requirement of 2,625,495 tons. The estimated life of the landfill is 50
years. This is adequate to accommodate additional tons per capita generated by the proposed project.
All solid waste and recycling collection, handling, and disposal would be handled by the Collier County
licensed contractor and the residents would be billed for the cost of collection and disposal. Any commercial
components of the proposed development would secure service from a licensed solid waste / recycle
contractor that is permitted to operate within Collier County.
Stormwater Management
The stormwater management system will comply with SFWMD, State County, and Federal standards for
water quality treatment and discharge rates and will result in no adverse impacts to stormwater management
(drainage) level of service.
The Hyde Park property is currently permitted as a commercial mining operation by South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) and has a perimeter control berm that contains the 25 year, 3 day storm
with zero discharge prior to discharge through a control structure to the adjacent Faka Union Canal. The
property also has a small conservation area in the SE corner that is covered by a conservation easement
dedicated to SFWMD which will be vacated during the ERP permitting process. This small wetland is
isolated but will be retained as required by SFWMD
The proposed development scenario would involve a reshaping of most of the existing lakes to create a site
plan with more curvilinear road network that is typical of large scale residential developments throughout
Southwest Florida. The revised lake system would begin discharging at a controlled bleed down rate at the
current control elevation and reach the full discharge allowance during the 25 year, 3 day peak storm event
with discharge occurring through two structures that would be connected via pipes to the Faka Union canal.
The system would provide the treatment and attenuation volumes required by the SFWMD rules and the
littoral shelves required by Collier County LDC.
In addition to providing the required treatment and attenuation volumes for the proposed Hyde Park SRA,
the draft DCA anticipates that Hyde Park Phase 1 will accept, treat, and attenuate the stormwater runoff
from the proposed Oil Well Road expansion along the southern border. This mil e long stretch of road
expansion is currently designed to flow into two offsite ponds that would have to be acquired by Collier
County Transportation. The following sections detail the benefits to Collier County that are derived by the
project agreeing to accept, attenuate, treat, and convey the stormwater from Oil Well road Basins 500 and
600.
The existing permit includes a total of 11.07 acres for the proposed pond sites. The county has agreed to
reimburse the applicant for the equivalent acreage as part of the DCA. The cost to clear the property would
be approximately $3,000 per acre for a total of $33,000
9.B.7
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Public Facilities Impact Assessment - Attachment E (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Page 2 of 5
H:\2017\2017001\WP\SRA\5th Resubmittal\Public Facilities Report (rev 11-25-2019).docx
The ponds would require the excavation of approximately 50,000 CY of material at an average cost of $3
per CY for a total excavation cost of $150,000. The pond sites would require approximately 11,000 SY of
sod at a cost of $2.70 per SY = $29,700. A fenced perimeter with a total length of 4,350 LF of 6’ tall fence
at a cost of $20 / LF + 2 gates * $1,000 per gate for a total cost of $89,000.
Total savings related to the construction costs of the county ponds = $301,700.
The outfall system for the two ponds would no longer be required since Hyde Park would accept and
conveys the stormwater to the Faka Union Canal. The drainage elements that will no longer be required
include the following pipes and structures:
4298 LF 36” RCP * $110 / LF = $472,780.00
253 LF 30” RCP * $93.75 / LF= $23,718.75
88 LF 24” RCP * $69.04 / LF = $6,075.52.00
13 Storm Manholes * $7800 each = $101,400.00
2 control structures * $7800 each = $15,600.00
Total cost savings from the outfall system = $619,574.27
All prices are based on the 12-month average prices for FDOT District 1 through May 2018.
Once constructed and secured the ponds, structures, and outfall system would require continual
maintenance in perpetuity. For the purpose of this exercise, we have assumed a 30-year period at $5,000
per year for a savings of $150,000.00.
In addition to these substantial savings, the Hyde Park system has been designed to provide 150% of the
required water quality which is 50% more than the existing permitted system would provide for Oil Well
road Basins 500 and 600.
The discharge rates from the runoff into the Faka Union Canal were set by a pre vs post analysis in the
existing permit. If the water is routed through the Hyde Park system, the discharge rates to the Faka Union
Canal will be reduced by over 85% from the currently approved permitted discharge rates. For background,
the existing basins are permitted to discharge at a rate of 0.75 CFS/acre while the revised design will limit
the discharge rate to the currently approved rate of .09 CFS/acre for the Faka Union Canal.
There are numerous drainage pipes in the current roadway design that convey water to the permitted ponds
that would not have to be built if Hyde Park agrees to accept the stormwater , and others that could be
substantially downsized. The reduced peak stages that result by routing the water through the Hyde Park
system provides sufficient freeboard to allow for greater head loss in the piping system that conveys the
runoff to the Hyde Park lake system. A more extensive analysis would be required to confirm the savings
possible as a result of the reduction in pipe sizes, so they have not been quantified as part of this exercise.
The existing Oil Well Road permit has higher control elevations for the two basins (500 and 600) that will
drain into the Hyde Park system. In the existing SFWMD conceptual permit, Basin 500 has a current control
elevation of 18.75 NGVD = 17.5 NAVD. The corresponding area will now discharge into a lake with a
control elevation of 13.5 NAVD or 4 feet lower. Basin 600 has a current control elevation of 19.0 NGVD
9.B.7
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Public Facilities Impact Assessment - Attachment E (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Page 3 of 5
H:\2017\2017001\WP\SRA\5th Resubmittal\Public Facilities Report (rev 11-25-2019).docx
= 17.75 NAVD. The corresponding area will now discharge into a lake with a control elevation of 14.0
NAVD or 3.75 feet lower.
As a direct result of the lower control elevations, the 25 year, 3 day peak stages used to determine the
minimum road elevation for this 5,350± LF segment of Oil Well Road will provide the county the
opportunity to substantially reduce the elevation of the proposed roadway while still meeting the standard
design parameters. Basins 500/600 currently have peak stages of 18.75 and 19.15 NAVD, respectively,
compared to the peak stages of 15.25 NAVD (-3.5’) and 15.69 NAVD (-3.46’) that will occur if the water
is routed into the Hyde Park system.
Lowering one mile of roadway with a 200’ cross section by 3.5’ on average would reduce the required fill
by (5,280 * 200 * 3.5)/27 = 136,900 CY in place. A conservative assumption of $16 per CY of imported
fill results in an estimate of $2.2M in savings in imported fill material.
If the standard 40% differential is applied between in place quantity versus truck measure quantity and the
standard $16 per CY truck measure was utilized, the cost savings in fill would increase to $3.1M. The
reduction in the amount of imported fill should also reduce the duration of the construction activity which
would result in additional unquantified savings
The existing bridge is at elevation 18.0 NAVD +/- which should be sufficient if the road is redesigned to
take advantage of the lower peak stages in the lake systems accepting the runoff. If the County were to use
our control elevations (established by Faka Union Canal elevations and approved by SFWMD) as a
precedent for the segment immediately east of Faka Union (Basin 400), that segment could also be lowered
which would allow the existing bridge across Faka Union to be incorporated into the road design. The
estimated savings related to the cost of the single bridge would be in the $1.1 M - $1.3 M range.
In summary, directing the storm water from Oil Well Road Basins 500 and 600 to the Hyde Park project
will benefit Collier County by saving the county taxpayers approximately $1.07M in construction and
operation costs, improving the water quality of the discharge, reducing the discharge rates to meet the
current allowable discharge rates, and offering the County additional opportunities for cost savings should
they choose to redesign the roadway to take advantage of the reduced peak stages.
The developer of Hyde Park will be responsible for all costs associated with the design, permitting,
construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements required to serve the Hyde Park
development.
Water and Wastewater
The Hyde Park DCA includes sections that confirm that Collier County Utilities will supply both potable
water and sewer service to the Hyde Park Development. Please refer to the DCA for more detail with respect
to the utility agreement
9.B.7
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Public Facilities Impact Assessment - Attachment E (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Page 4 of 5
H:\2017\2017001\WP\SRA\5th Resubmittal\Public Facilities Report (rev 11-25-2019).docx
Irrigation Water
The Hyde Park DCA confirms that CCU will provide IQ water to the residential and commercial lots within
Hyde Park. The common areas and buffers will be irrigated via lake water withdrawn from the onsite lake
system. The lake water will be supplemented with well water withdrawn from the Lower Tamiami Aquifer
for the 68.6 acres of common area to be irrigated from the lakes. The monthly maximum withdrawal from
the aquifer will be 11.8 million gallons with an average annual allocation of 96.1 million gallons. Two
recharge wells are planned for the project. The applicant has a water use permit pending with SFWMD for
this purpose. Please see SFWMD Application #190701-14 for further detail if needed. The Hyde Park HOA
will own and manage the irrigation system for the common areas and buffers. Please refer to the DCA for
greater detail.
School Concurrency
The adopted level of service for schools is based upon permanent FISH capacity: 100% for high sc hool
Concurrency Service Areas (CSAs); 95% for elementary CSAs; and 95% for middle school CSAs. The
subject site is within the E10 North Central Area CSA for elementary schools, the M3 North Central Area
CSA for middle schools, and the H3 North Central Area CSA for high schools. The FISH capacity and
enrollment data below is per the Collier County Public Schools Capital Improvement Plan, for fiscal years
2019 through 2038.
The E10 CSA includes two elementary schools, Corkscrew and Estates. They have a combined FISH
capacity of 1,499 students, a 2017/2018 peak enrollment of 1,220 students, and a projected 2022/2023
enrollment of 1,195 students (80% capacity).
The M3 CSA includes three middle schools, Corkscrew, Golden Gate, and Cypress Palm. They have a
combined FISH capacity of 3,219 students, a 2017/2018 peak enrollment of 2,606 students, and a projected
2022/2023 enrollment of 2,537 students (79% capacity).
The H3 CSA includes two high schools, Golden Gate and Palmetto Ridge. They have a combined FISH
capacity of 3,995 students, a 2017/2018 peak enrollment of 3,822 students, and a projected 2022/2023
enrollment of 3,995 (100% capacity). According to the Collier County Public Schools CIP, enrollment at
Golden Gate and Palmetto Ridge is being monitored.
The proposed development consists of 1,500 single-family and 300 multi-family residences. Applying the
student generation rates established in the 2015 Collier County School Impact Fee Study, the project is
anticipated to generate 543 new students at build out.
Residential Unit Type Units SGR
Projected
Students
Single Family Product A 534 0.34 182
Single Family Product B 598 0.34 203
Single Family Product C 368 0.34 125
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10
Stories
300 0.11 33
Total 1,800 543
As the total projected number of students will be distributed between the E10, M3, and H3 CSAs, the
proposed development will not generate enough students to cause a substantial change in the level of
9.B.7
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Public Facilities Impact Assessment - Attachment E (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Page 5 of 5
H:\2017\2017001\WP\SRA\5th Resubmittal\Public Facilities Report (rev 11-25-2019).docx
service. Additionally, neighboring Rural Lands West has committed to allocate acreage for the development
of new school facilities. As a result, no additional public educational facilities are proposed within the SRA.
Per a meeting on April 27, 2018 with County staff members Amy Lockhart and Tom Eastman, this project
will not trigger level of service issues given existing and planned schools based on their analysis.
The proposed SRA will result in a permanent population of approximately 3,634 people, and a seasonal
population of approximately 4,361 people.
Residential
Unit Type Units
Permanent
Population
Hyde Park
Permanent Population
Peak Seasonal
Population
Hyde Park
Peak Seasonal
Population
Multi-Family (Apts)
1-10 Stories 300 1.05 315 1.26 378
Single Family
Product A 534 2.21 1,181 2.65 1,418
Single Family
Product B 598 2.21 1,323 2.65 1,588
Single Family
Product C 368 2.21 814 2.65 977
Total 1,800 3,634 4,361
Fire Control and Rescue District
The subject site is within the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. An EMS/fire station is located
at 13240 Immokalee Road, approximately 6.2 miles west of the property.
Transportation Impacts
See attached the attached Traffic Analysis for transportation impacts.
9.B.7
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Public Facilities Impact Assessment - Attachment E (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.10Packet Pg. 334Attachment: Attachment H - Revised public hearing signs (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.10Packet Pg. 335Attachment: Attachment H - Revised public hearing signs (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.10Packet Pg. 336Attachment: Attachment H - Revised public hearing signs (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.10Packet Pg. 337Attachment: Attachment H - Revised public hearing signs (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.10Packet Pg. 338Attachment: Attachment H - Revised public hearing signs (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.11
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Item No. 11198 (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.12Packet Pg. 340Attachment: Attachment I - Waiver Applicant for hybrid quasi-judicial hearing- Hyde Park Village SRA (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
9.B.13
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment J - Planning Commissioner Schmitt approval (11198 : Hyde Park Village (SRA))
Hyde Park Village
Economic Assessment
Collier County
Collier County Schools
North Collier Fire & Rescue
Initial Submission: June 12, 2018
Revised: July 17, 2019
Roads
Water and Wastewater
Stormwater Management
Irrigation Water
Revised: November 13, 2019
Roads
Revised: March 2, 2020
Emergency Medical Services
General and Limiting Conditions
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
2
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 6
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 7
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................... 8
Development Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 8
Revenue Assumptions ................................................................................................................. 9
Sales, Just, and Taxable Values ................................................................................................ 9
Property Taxes ....................................................................................................................... 10
Expenditure Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 10
COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 11
Collier County Operating Impacts ............................................................................................. 11
Collier County Operating Revenue Projections ......................................................................... 11
Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections ................................................................... 12
Collier County Capital Impacts .................................................................................................. 13
Collier County Capital Impacts by Department ..................................................................... 13
NORTH COLLIER FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT .................................................................................... 26
North Collier Fire & Rescue Capital Impacts ............................................................................. 26
North Collier Fire & Rescue Annual Operating Impacts ............................................................ 28
COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT ................................................................................. 28
Collier County Schools Capital Impacts ..................................................................................... 28
Collier County Schools Operating Impacts ................................................................................ 32
APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................................... 34
GENERAL AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 50
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
3
Table 1: Hyde Park Development Program .................................................................................... 9
Table 2: Hyde Park Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values .................................................... 9
Table 3: Hyde Park Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values ............................................ 10
Table 4: Hyde Park County Tax Base at Buildout ......................................................................... 10
Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates .......................................................................................... 10
Table 6: Hyde Park Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout .................................................... 11
Table 7: Hyde Park Annual Operating Revenue Projections ........................................................ 11
Table 8: Hyde Park Annual Operating Expenditure Projections .................................................. 12
Table 9: Hyde Park Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County ........................................................ 14
Table 10: Hyde Park Law Enforcement Capital Impacts .............................................................. 16
Table 11: Hyde Park Law Enforcement Level of Service .............................................................. 17
Table 12: Hyde Park Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer ................. 17
Table 13: Hyde Park Correctional Facilities ................................................................................. 18
Table 14: Hyde Park Correctional Facilities Capital Cost ............................................................. 18
Table 15: Hyde Park Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident ...................................... 18
Table 16: Allocation of New EMS Station Cost ............................................................................ 19
Table 17: Hyde Park Village Capital Impacts ................................................................................ 20
Table 18: Hyde Park Regional Parks Capital Impacts ................................................................... 20
Table 19: Hyde Park Regional Parks Level of Service ................................................................... 21
Table 20: Hyde Park Regional Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ............................................ 21
Table 21: Hyde Park Community Parks Capital Impacts .............................................................. 21
Table 22: Hyde Park Community Parks Level of Service .............................................................. 22
Table 23: Hyde Park Community Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ....................................... 22
Table 24: Hyde Park Libraries Capital Impacts ............................................................................. 23
Table 25: Hyde Park Library Facilities Level of Service ................................................................ 23
Table 26: Hyde Park General Government Capital Impacts ........................................................ 24
Table 27: Hyde Park General Government Capital Cost .............................................................. 24
Table 28: Hyde Park North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts .................................. 27
Table 29: Hyde Park Fire & Rescue District Capital Costs ............................................................ 27
Table 30: Hyde Park North Collier Fire & Rescue Impact Fee Revenues ..................................... 27
Table 31: Hyde Park Big Corkscrew Island SDA Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout ............. 28
Table 32: Hyde Park Projected Public School Enrollment ........................................................... 29
Table 33: Collier County School District 2022-23 Available Capacity .......................................... 29
Table 34: Hyde Park Projected Enrollment by School Type ......................................................... 30
Table 35: Hyde Park School Capital Costs .................................................................................... 30
Table 36: Hyde Park School Impact Fee Revenue ........................................................................ 31
Table 37: Hyde Park School Net Capital Impacts – Total Cash Flow Approach ........................... 31
Table 38: Hyde Park Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout .............................. 33
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hyde Park Village provides Collier County the unique opportunity to transform an underutilized
655-acre site, currently permitted as a mining operation, to a vibrant mixed-use community
which is projected to increase the tax value of the property from $210,000 today to $473.5 million
at buildout.
Hyde Park Village is strategically located near elementary and middle schools with available
capacity and within 1.6 miles of a planned fire facility which North Collier Fire Control and Rescue
District has readied for vertical development. Since the capital impacts on Collier County are
more limited due to distinct location factors, Hyde Park Village is projected to be fiscally neutral.
As discussed in this report, the project has the potential to generate significant cost savings to
Collier County with regard to Oil Well Road’s stormwater management system.
As reflected in the table below, Hyde Park Village will generate substantial tax and impact fee
revenues for Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and Collier County Schools.
The results are presented at the project’s buildout.
Summary Table 1: Hyde Park Village Fiscal Highlights
Hyde Park Fiscal Highlights Year At Buildout Year At Buildout
Collier County:Countywide MSTU
Hyde Park Ad Valorem Tax Base 473,701,000$ 473,701,000$
Current Taxable Value of Parcel (654 acres)210,000 210,000
Increase in Tax Base 473,491,000$ 473,491,000$
Hyde Park Net Annual Fiscal Benefit Countywide MSTU
Hyde Park Total Annual Operating Revenues 2,552,000$ 455,000$
Hyde Park Total Annual Operating Expenditures 2,443,000 380,000
Hyde Park Total Annual Net Operating Surplus 109,000$ 75,000$
North Collier Fire and Rescue District:Fire District
Hyde Park Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues*1,658,000$
Hyde Park Total Annual Operating Expenditures 690,000
Hyde Park Total Annual Net Operating Surplus 968,000$
Collier County Schools:School District
Hyde Park Ad Valorem Tax Base 498,752,000$
Hyde Park Net Fiscal Benefit:Annual Operating**Total Capital
Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Revenues 1,816,000$ 27,350,000$
Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Expenditures 1,816,000 27,350,000
Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Surplus -$ -$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
5
*Based on FY 2018 operating millage for the Big Corkscrew Island SDA.
** The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas.
Source: DPFG, 2018
Developer Agreements, as described in this report, will be negotiated with the County prior to
the SRA approval.
As demonstrated in this report, DPFG concludes that the proposed Hyde Park Village is fiscally
neutral, as defined, for Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier
County School District.
Summary Table 2: Hyde Park Net Fiscal Impact Conclusions per Taxing Authority
Source: DPFG, 2018
Hyde Park Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues: At Buildout
Collier County 1,689,000$
Collier County MSTU 382,000
North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,658,000
Collier County Schools - Ad Valorem Operating 1,816,000
Collier County Schools - Capital Improvement 738,000
Total Hyde Park Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues 6,283,000$
Impact Fee Revenue:Project Total
Community Parks 1,538,000$
Regional Parks 4,411,000
Roads 13,309,000
EMS 242,000
Government Buildings 1,592,000
Libraries 552,000
Law Enforcement 1,003,000
Jail 849,000
Water 4,650,000
Wastewater 4,902,000
Total Collier County Impact Fees 33,048,000$
Collier County Schools 14,038,000$
North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,089,000
Total Impact Fee Revenue 48,175,000$
Jurisdiction Net Fiscal Jurisdiction Net Fiscal
Collier County Collier County
Annual Operations:Annual Operations and Capital:
General Funds Grouping Neutral Water Neutral
MSTU Neutral Wastewater Neutral
Capital:Capital and Operations:
Community Parks Positive Solid Waste Neutral
Regional Parks Positive Stormwater Neutral
Roads Neutral North Collier Fire & Rescue District
EMS Neutral Annual Operations Positive
Government Buildings Neutral Capital Positive
Libraries Positive Collier County Schools
Law Enforcement Neutral Annual Operations*Neutral
Jail Neutral Capital Neutral
* The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas.
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
6
INTRODUCTION
An Economic Assessment is required as part of the Stewardship Receiving Area (“SRA”)
Designation Application Package, and each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a
whole, will be fiscally neutral or positive to the County tax base. At a minimum, the Econom ic
Assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable
water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law
enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools.
The Hyde Park Village (“Hyde Park” or “Village”) SRA, proposed by Neal Communities of
Southwest Florida, LLC (“Developer”), is located in eastern Collier County in Section 16, Township
48 South, and Range 28 East. The Village consists of 654.79 acres. Hyde Park is bounded on the
south by Oil Well Road, on the West by a 100± foot wide drainage canal and Golden Gate Estates
zoned properties, to the North by Golden Gate Estates zoned properties, and to the East by a
future public roadway, and then A-MHO-RLSAO properties which are in active agriculture and
which are proposed for designation as an SRA Village (Rivergrass). Desoto Boulevard terminates
at Oil Well Road approximately 1,000 feet from the eastern boundary of the SRA.
In accordance with the RLSA Overlay definition of a Village, Hyde Park is primarily a residential
community which includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 1,800 dwelling units.
Hyde Park includes a 26.20± acre mixed-use Village Center providing for both residential multi-
family development and neighborhood scaled retail, office, civic and community uses. The SRA
is designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation through an interconnected sidewalk
and pathway system serving the entire Hyde Park and with an interconnected system of streets,
dispersing and reducing both the number and length of vehicle trips. Hyde Park also includes a
centrally located Village Amenity and Wellness Center and several linear parks located within the
Neighborhood Edge Context Zone.
Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. (“DPFG”) was retained to prepare an Economic
Assessment for the Hyde Park SRA. This report provides complete and transparent support for
the methodology, assumptions, and calculations applied to demonstrate fiscal neutrality for the
Hyde Park SRA for Collier County (“County”), the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the
Collier County School District (“School District”).
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
7
METHODOLOGY
The Government Finance Officers Association (“GFOA”)1 outlines the most common methods for
estimating service costs in fiscal impact analysis as: average cost, marginal cost, comparisons to
other governments and econometric modeling. In many cases, fiscal impact analysis uses a
combination of these methods to generate a projection.
• Average Cost is the easiest and most common method and assumes the current cost of
serving residents and businesses will equal the cost of serving the new development. The
average cost method provides a rough estimate of both direct and indirect costs
associated with development. However, this method does not account for demographic
change, existing excess capacity or potential economies of scale in service delivery.
Methods of calculating average cost include per capita costs, service standard costs and
proportional valuation costs.
• Marginal Cost uses site-specific information to determine services costs for a new
development. A case study approach is typically necessary to gather detailed information
about the existing capacity within public services and infrastructure to accommodate
growth from a development project. This method assumes that information about local
service levels and capacity is more accurate than standards based on average data
• Comparable Governments incorporate the experience by similar governments with
comparable development projects. Studying other governments before and after specific
projects can provide useful information in determining additional costs and the increase
in costs over a long period of time.
• Econometric Modeling uses complex econometric models and is best used for estimating
impacts from large projects that create many indirect effects on the existing community
such as a utility plant or an entertainment center.
The fiscal impact analysis of Hyde Park uses a marginal/average cost hybrid methodology to
determine the project’s impact on capital and operating costs. Personnel and operating costs
were projected on a variable, or incremental basis, as were expenditures for certain capital
improvements. Revenues, such as property taxes, were projected on a marginal basis whereas
revenues attributable to growth were reflected on an average basis. Allocation bases include
Permanent Population, Peak Seasonal Population, Peak Seasonal Population and Employment,
and Peak Seasonal and Tourist Population and Employment. Persons per residential product type
and employees per nonresidential land uses were obtained from the County’s 2016 Emergency
Medical Services Impact Fee Update, the most recently published source (see Appendix).
1 Michael J. Mucha, “An Introduction to Fiscal Impact Analysis for Development Projects,” (white paper,
Government Finance Officers Association, 2007), www.gfoa.org
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
8
The analysis includes the following general funds:2 (001) General Fund, (003) Emergency
Disaster, (007) Economic Development, (011) Clerk of Circuit Court, (040) Sheriff, (060) Property
Appraiser, (070) Tax Collector, and (080) Supervisor of Elections. A reconciliation of these funds
to the County’s budget documents is provided in the Appendix. The analysis also includes (111)
Unincorporated Area General Fund MSTU, the North Collier Fire Control & Rescue District, and
the Collier County School District.
The respective FY 2018 budgets of the County, the North Collier Fire Department, and the School
District form the basis for the service levels and revenue and cost assumptions. This “snapshot”
approach does not attempt to speculate about how services, costs, revenues and other factors
will change over time. Instead, it evaluates the fiscal impact to the County as it currently conducts
business under the present budget.
The impacts of self-supporting funds (e.g. enterprise funds) were not included in this analysis as
is typical in fiscal impact analysis. Utility rates and capacity fees are established through
independent studies. Public utilities generally benefit from economies of scale (i.e. more
customers) since rate structures are dependent upon recovering fixed infrastructure costs.
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS
Major assumptions supporting the Hyde Park Economic Assessment are summarized in this
section. The financial model and assumptions are provided in the Appendix. Balance
Carryforwards were excluded from allocation to avoid overstatement of revenues. Interfund
transfers were analyzed in depth and their classification s in the model were carefully reviewed.
Revenue and costs are projected in constant 2018 dollars, with no adjustment for future inflation.
The use of a constant dollar approach in fiscal impact analysis produces annual and buildout
results that are readily comparable and understandable. Results have been rounded to the
nearest one thousand dollars ($1,000).
Development Assumptions
Table 1 presents the Hyde Park development program proposed by the Applicant which was the
input used to determine the operating and capital impacts of the project.
2 Collier County considers this listing of general funds as the “General Fund Grouping.”
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
9
Table 1: Hyde Park Development Program
Source: Neal Communities, DPFG, 2018
Revenue Assumptions
Sales, Just, and Taxable Values
Estimates of sales, just, and taxable values for the residential units are shown in Table 2. The
sales values of the residential product types were provided by the Applicant. The eligible
homestead percentage per residential product type used in computing the taxable value per unit
was based on County averages published by the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the
University of Florida.
According to the Shimberg Center, the median assessed value of a single-family home in
unincorporated Collier County is $261,840. In comparison, the average assessed value for Hyde
Park single-family homes is $329,000 which is 26 percent higher than the County’s median value.
Table 2: Hyde Park Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values
Source: Neal Communities, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2018
Table 3 reflects the estimates of sales, just3, and taxable values for the nonresidential land uses.
Sales values were based on construction cost per square foot estimates from R.S. Means, “Square
Foot Costs,” 38th Edition, 2017 and also considered comparable properties from the County
Property Appraiser’s database. In comparison, the per square foot values in Table 3 are well
3 In determining just value, reasonable fees and costs of purchase (for example, commissions) are excluded.
Land Use by Impact Fee Category Units
Residential (Units)
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories 300
Single Family Product A 534
Single Family Product B 598
Single Family Product C 368
Total Residential 1,800
Non-Residential Sq Ft
Commercial 45,000
Land Use by Impact Fee Category Units
Sales
Value per
Unit
Just Value
per Unit
Average
Taxable
Value per
Unit
Residential (Units)
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories 300 168,000$ 158,000$ 158,000$
Single Family Product A 534 282,000$ 265,000$ 232,300$
Single Family Product B 598 344,000$ 323,000$ 290,300$
Single Family Product C 368 373,000$ 351,000$ 318,300$
Total Residential 1,800
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
10
below the $275 per square foot building cost estimate assumed in the 2016 General
Governmental Buildings Impact Fee Update.
Table 3: Hyde Park Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values
Source: RS Means, Collier County Property Appraiser, DPFG, 2018
At buildout, the real property tax base generated for the County is estimated to exceed $473.7
million as reflected in Table 4.
Table 4: Hyde Park County Tax Base at Buildout
Source: Neal Communities, DPFG, 2018
Property Taxes
Table 5 reflects the millage rate assumptions for Collier County used in the analysis.
Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates
Source: Collier County, 2018
Expenditure Assumptions
A detailed evaluation of expenditures by the General Funds Group and the MSTU General Fund
was performed to determine which were variable (i.e. assumed to fluctuate with growth) or fixed
(i.e. not impacted by growth) in nature. For equitable matching of r evenues and expenses,
certain adjustments were made to account for funding sources from other funds. The primary
demand bases in the average cost/revenue calculations were new population and employment
for the County and new students for the School District.
Non-Residential Sq Ft
Sales
Value
perSq Ft/
Unit
Just Value
per Sq FT
Average
Taxable
Value per Sq
Ft
Commercial 45,000 256$ 256$ 256$
Units or Taxable Value
Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout
Residential
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories 300 $ 158,000 47,400,000
Single Family Product A 534 $ 232,300 124,048,000
Single Family Product B 598 $ 290,300 173,599,000
Single Family Product C 368 $ 318,300 117,134,000
Total Residential 1,800 $ 462,181,000
Non-Residential
Commercial 45,000 $ 256 11,520,000
Total Non-Residential (sf) 45,000 $ 11,520,000
Total Tax Base $ 473,701,000
3.5645 County General Fund
0.8069 MSTD General Fund
0.0293 Water Pollution Control
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
11
COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS
Collier County Operating Impacts
Table 6 presents the annual net operating fiscal impact of Hyde Park at buildout.
Hyde Park is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County’s Operating Impacts.
Table 6: Hyde Park Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout
Source: DPFG, 2018
Collier County Operating Revenue Projections
Projected County annual operating revenues at buildout are summarized in Table 7. Hyde Park
is projected to generate annual operating revenues of $2.6 million for the County’s General Funds
and $455,000 for the MSTU General Fund.
Table 7: Hyde Park Annual Operating Revenue Projections
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Net Operating Impact Countywide MSTU
Hyde Park Total Annual Operating Revenues 2,552,000$ 455,000$
Hyde Park Total Annual Operating Expenditures 2,443,000 380,000
Hyde Park Total Annual Operating Surplus 109,000$ 75,000$
At Buildout
MSTU GENERAL FUND
REVENUES At Buildout
Ad Valorem Taxes 382,000$
Licenses & Permits 4,000
Charges for Services 26,000
Fines & Forfeitures 3,000
Miscellaneous Revenues 2,000
Interest/ Miscellaneous 1,000
Communication Services Tax 37,000
Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues 455,000$
GENERAL FUND GROUPING
REVENUES At Buildout
Ad Valorem Taxes 1,689,000$
Licenses & Permits 2,000
Inter- Governmental Revenues 6,000
State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion 89,000
Half Cent Sales Tax 385,000
Charges for Services 258,000
Fines & Forfeitures 4,000
Miscellaneous Revenues 1,000
Interest/ Miscellaneous 8,000
Indirect Service Charge 56,000
Transfers from Constitutional Officers 48,000
Reimburse from Other Departments 6,000
Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues 2,552,000$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
12
Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections
Projected County annual operating expenditures at buildout are presented in Table 8. Hyde Park
is expected to generate annual General Funds service demand of $2.4 million and $380,000 of
MSTU General Fund service demand. The Appendix contains a detailed breakdown of operating
costs by line item category.
Table 8: Hyde Park Annual Operating Expenditure Projections
GENERAL FUND GROUPING
EXPENDITURES At Buildout
Board of County Commissioners 25,000$
County Attorney 10,000
Property Appraiser 55,000
Supervisor of Elections 19,000
Clerk of Courts 37,000
Sheriff 1,276,000
Tax Collector 102,000
Administrative Services 2,000
Human Resources 8,000
Procurement Services 7,000
Bureau of Emergency Services 22,000
Planning 1,000
Circuit & County Court Judges 1,000
Public Defender 3,000
State Attorney 3,000
County Manager Operations 5,000
Office of Management & Budget 5,000
Public Services Administration 2,000
Domestic Animal Services 33,000
Community and Human Services 37,000
Library 81,000
Parks & Recreation 102,000
Public Health 4,000
Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 2,000
Facilities Management 109,000
Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund 157,000
Transfer to 301 Capital Projects 24,000
Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 12,000
Transfer to 313 Gas Tax Cap Fund 72,000
Transfet to 426 CAT Mass Transit 17,000
Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 26,000
Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 126,000
Transfer to 491 EMS Grant Fund 9,000
Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 49,000
Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures 2,443,000$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
13
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Collier County Capital Impacts
Collier County Capital Impacts by Department
Methodologies upon which the County’s impact fees are based generally use the consumption
or existing inventory replacement approach rather than an improvements-driven approach. For
example, the County’s Parks impact fee is calculated by dividing the existing inventory of park
facilities, including land at current replacement value, by the existing population or relevant
demand base. This methodology does not consider the timetable over which the existing facilities
were acquired, available capacity within existing facilities, or long-range capital improvement
plans with timetables for delivery of new facilities. Impact fee methodologies are typically
designed to generate the maximum amount of impact fees a jurisdiction can legally assess.
Impact fee calculations include a credit component to recognize future revenue streams which
will be used to fund capital expansion and certain debt service payments. The credit component
prevents new development from being charged twice for the same facility. The analyses of the
General Funds and the MSTU General Fund account for these credits by recognizing capital
outlays and applicable transfers (e.g. subsidized capital acquisition and capital fund debt service)
as expenditures. This approach is very conservative because the associated expenditures include
growth and non-growth related capital outlays and capital fund subsidies. In comparison, the
credit component of the impact fee calculation is limited to certain growth-related capital outlays
and capital fund subsidies.
Impact fee updates for Transportation, Correctional Facilities, and Parks and Recreation were
adopted in 2015, and the corresponding adopted rates have been indexed annually. EMS,
Government Buildings, Libraries, and Law Enforcement impact fee studies were updated in 2016,
and the associated rates were adopted in 2017. Annual indexing will be applied in interim years.
MSTU GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES At Buildout
Board of County Commissioners 13,000$
Communications & Customer Relations Division 11,000
Growth Management Administration 5,000
Planning 15,000
Regulation 43,000
Maintenance 71,000
Bureau of Emergency Services 1,000
Project Management 8,000
Community and Human Services 1,000
Parks & Recreation 148,000
Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund 14,000
Transfer to 313 Gas Tax Cap Fund 32,000
Indirect Cost Reimbursement 18,000
Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures 380,000$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
14
Over buildout, new development will be charged impact fees at rates enacted by the County at
that time.
The capital needs of Hyde Park were discussed with the Sheriff, EMS, the North Collier Fire &
Rescue District, and the School District. The capital analyses for these services were prepared in
accordance with the case study approach.
For the remaining service departments, when the achieved level of service (“LOS”) for a particular
public facility currently exceeds the adopted LOS, then the adopted LOS was applied in calculating
demand to (1) recognize existing capacity and (2) avoid overstating demand. When the achieved
LOS for a particular facility was less than the adopted LOS, then the achieved LOS was used when
calculating demand to avoid charging new development for a higher LOS than provided to
existing development. Data from the 2017 Audit Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities
(“AUIR”), the most recent source available, was generally used to calculate the achieved LOS.
Other inputs were obtained from the relevant impact fee studies.
Projected impact fee collections for Parks, Transportation, EMS, Government Buildings, Libraries,
Law Enforcement, Jails, and Water and Wastewater are reflected in Table 9. Impact fee revenues
for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District and the School District are presented in subsequent
sections of this report. The County’s impact fee schedule is included in the Appendix.
Table 9: Hyde Park Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Impact Fee Type Total Fees
Community Parks 1,538,000$
Regional Parks 4,411,000
Roads 13,309,000
EMS 242,000
Government Buildings 1,592,000
Libraries 552,000
Law Enforcement 1,003,000
Jail 849,000
Water 4,650,000
Wastewater 4,902,000
Total Collier County Impact Fees 33,048,000$
Collier County Schools 14,038,000
North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,089,000
Total Impact Fees 48,175,000$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
15
Collier County Road Capital Impacts
The capital impact of Hyde Park on County roads is described below.
Roadway Impacts & Mitigation
Based upon the findings of the Hyde Park Traffic Impact Statement, dated November 4, 2019, it
has been determined that Hyde Park will not adversely impact the surrounding road network or
cause any roadways to operate below their adopted level of services. This conclusion is based
upon the findings that Collier County's existing plus committed (E + C) road network has adequate
capacity to accommodate the 2030 background traffic “plus” site-generated traffic. The report
does estimate that Vanderbilt Beach Road (between Livingston Road and Logan Boulevard) will
operate at LOS F by the year 2030 regardless of the development of Hyde Park. The report noted
that this determination is based on the 2019 AUIR’s growth rate of 3.56 percent, which likely
overstates the next 10-year growth trend. Also, Collier County has established a maximum
service capacity of 3,000 vphpd for this six-lane divided arterial which is lower than the roadway’s
true capacity. Because Hyde Park does not cause any transportation deficiencies to occur, the
Developer will not be required to fund any offsite roadway improvements/mitigation, other than
the road impact fees, which will be used to fund a portion of the costs of area -wide improvements
as set forth by Collier County’s Capital Improvement Element and Long-Range Transportation
Plan.
Although Hyde Park will not adversely impact any roadways, or cause any roadways to oper ate
below their adopted levels of service, and the E + C network will continue to ope rate at
acceptable levels of service at project build-out, the Developer will be required to pay for its
portion of “consumed” capacity via payment of road impact fees. As set forth by the County’s
Impact Fee Ordinance, the fees are a pro rata assessment towards the funding of area-wide
transportation improvements in order to support new growth. The amount of road impact fee
paid per type of land use are determined via a “consumption-based impact fee approach,” in
which new development is charged based upon the proportion of vehicles-miles of travel
(“VMT”) that each unit of new development is expected to consume of a lane mile of roadway
network. The cost of consumed lane mile is based upon current roadway construction costs
within the County. Therefore, the payment of road impact fees is the project’s pro rate share of
funding transportation improvements that are deemed necessary to support the demands
generated by growth.
In exchange for receiving road impact fee credits, the Developer will dedicate 100’ of right-of-
way along the project’s southern boundary, which will be needed to widen Oil Well Road. Also,
in exchange for receiving road impact fee credits, the Developer will provide stormwater runoff
storage capacity for the portion of Oil Well Road in front of the project. By doing so, there will
be cost savings to the County by reducing the size and/or number of pond sites.
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
16
Hyde Park is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Road capital impacts.
Collier County Law Enforcement Capital Impacts
The Law Enforcement impact fee includes the capital construction and expansion of police service
related to land facilities, and capital equipment required to support police service demand
created by new growth. Facilities and equipment consist primarily of centralized and support
buildings, patrol cars and other equipment. Fees are assessed at the recommended level.
Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the Law Enforcement facilities
and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section.
Direct capital impacts on Law Enforcement are presented in Table 10. Based on discussions with
the Sheriff’s Office, capital demands from Hyde Park include the cost to equip certified officers.
No satellite office is needed. The calculated surplus will be used to fund other Law Enforcement
capital needs.
Table 10: Hyde Park Law Enforcement Capital Impacts
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Law Enforcement Capital Revenues:
Impact Fee Revenue 1,003,000$
Other Capital Revenues*182,000
Total Capital Revenues 1,185,000$
Law Enforcement Direct Capital Costs:
Satellite Office Cost N/A
Estimated Satellite Office Sq Ft -
Land and Building Cost per Sq Ft 219$
Law Enforcement Facility Cost -$
Law Enforcement Equipment Cost
Equipment Value per Certified Police Officer 106,000$
Certified Police Officers at Achieved LOS 7.7
Law Enforcement Equipment Cost 818,000$
Total Law Enforcement Direct Capital Costs 818,000$
Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Direct Capital Costs 367,000$
Law Enforcement Indirect Capital Costs:
Law Enforcement Direct Capital Surplus 367,000
Land and Building Cost per Sq Ft 219$
Additional Law Enforcement Facility Sq Ft Funded 1,676
*Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis.
Hyde Park Funded Law Enforcement Facilities
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
17
The County’s achieved LOS for Law Enforcement is 1.77 officers per 1,000 peak population;
whereas, the adopted LOS is 1.84. As such, the achieved LOS was used to estimate the number
of certified police officers needed to serve Hyde Park.
Table 11: Hyde Park Law Enforcement Level of Service
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
The $219 per square foot value of the satellite office in Table 10 was obtained from the 2016 Law
Enforcement Impact Fee Update. The equipment value per certified police officer is calculated
in Table 12.
Table 12: Hyde Park Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Collier County Correctional Facilities Capital Impacts
The Correctional Facilities impact fee includes jail facilities (land and building) and equipment.
Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining
and operating correctional facilities and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating
Impacts section.
Correctional Facilities capital impacts are presented in Table 1 3. The calculated surplus will be
used to fund other Correctional Facility capital needs.
Peak Seasonal Population 4,361
Achieved LOS (Officers per 1,000 Peak Residents)1.77
Funded Facilities and Equipment for Certified Police Officers 7.7
LOS Share Law Enforcement Facilities
Item Amount
Equipment Inventory Value 70,020,524$
Number of Certified Police Officers 660
Equipment Value per Officer 106,000$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
18
Table 13: Hyde Park Correctional Facilities
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
The capital cost for correctional facilities is calculated below.
Table 14: Hyde Park Correctional Facilities Capital Cost
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
The indexed capital cost per bed is calculated in Table 15.
Table 15: Hyde Park Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues:
Impact Fee Revenue 849,000$
Other Capital Revenues*47,000
Total Capital Revenues 896,000$
Correctional Facilities Capital Costs:
Correctional Facilities Direct Capital Costs -$
Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues in Excess of
Direct Capital Costs 896,000$
Indirect Capital Costs (Indexed)894,000$
Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 2,000$
*Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis.
Hyde Park Funded Share Jail Facilities
Land Use
Functional
Population
Coefficient
Units/
Square Feet
Functional
Population
Single Family Detached
Less than 4,000 sq ft 1.81 1,500 2,714
Multi Family 0.83 300 249
Retail 6,001 to 25,000 sfgla 2.45 45,000 110
Total Functional Population 3,073
2017 Indexed Capital Cost per Functional Population 290.98$
Total Capital Cost 894,000$
Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 4,468
2017 Indexed Capital Cost per Peak Population 200.09$
Description Figure
Net Asset Value - Indexed 111,592,344$
Number of Beds 1,304
Net Asset Value per Bed 85,577$
Current LOS (Beds per 1,000 Functional Residents)3.40
Asset Value per Functional Resident 290.98$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
19
Collier County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Capital Impacts
According to EMS management, Hyde Park Village will be primarily served by a new EMS facility
planned for the corner of Desoto Blvd./Golden Gate Blvd East. The County acquired the site in
January 2020. The Greater Naples Fire Rescue District will co-locate a fire facility at the site. EMS
management anticipates the station will be placed in service in 2022. The cost of the new facility
will be funded by the County’s One-Cent Infrastructure surtax which was authorized in 2018.
If additional EMS capacity is needed to serve Rivergrass SRA Village, and potentially Hyde Park
SRA Village and Longwater SRA Village, EMS management anticipates leasing space for an
additional vehicle at the new NCFR station planned for 22nd Avenue/Desoto Blvd N. Because
NCFR is planning to maintain an apparatus at the new EMS station, the two entities may enter
into a mutual cost-sharing arrangement. 4
In either case, EMS Management has indicated that the capital impact from Hyde Park Village
will be limited to EMS vehicles.
The EMS level of service in the County’s AUIR is approximately 1 unit (vehicle, equipment, station
space) per 16,400 population; however, in addition to this metric, EMS also relies on demand
factors such as response time and call volume to site new facilities. Call volume is affected by
demographics in the service area. For example, nearly 70 percent of the County’s ambulance fee
collections are from Medicare and Medicaid patients.
Table 16 compares calculates the net allocable cost of the new EMS station to H yde Park Village
using a peak seasonal resident population approach.
Table 16: Allocation of New EMS Station Cost
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020
4 As described in the 2019 AUIR, the County currently leases 14 EMS stations. For 10 of the 14 leased stations, no
rent is paid but rather a shared monthly utility charged is assessed. Annual lease payments for EMS facilities are
considered in the County operating impact section of this report.
Allocation of New EMS Station Cost
Proportionate
Allocation
2019 AUIR Cost of Shared Station:
Facility 1,325,000$
Equipment 551,057
Total Capital Cost of Shared Station 1,876,057$
Less One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax Funding 1,325,000$
Net Allocable Cost 551,057$
Demand Base 16,400
Per Capita Cost 33.60$
Hyde Park Village Peak Resident Population 4,361
EMS New Station Cost Allocable to Hyde Park Village 147,000$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
20
Table 17 compares the allocable cost of the new station to projected EMS impact fees for Hyde
Park Village.
Table 17: Hyde Park Village Capital Impacts
*Included in the Collier County General Funds net fiscal impact buildout analysis.
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020
Hyde Park Regional Parks Capital Impacts
The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. Revenues and costs
associated with maintaining and operating the County’s Parks facilities are provided in the
General Funds and MSTU Operating Impacts section.
Regional Park capital impacts are presented in Table 18. The calculated surplus will be used to
fund other Regional Park capital needs.
Table 18: Hyde Park Regional Parks Capital Impacts
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
The County’s achieved LOS for Regional Parks is 1.72 acres per 1,000 peak population; whereas,
the adopted LOS is 2.70 acres. As such, the achieved LOS was used to estimate the number of
Regional Park acres needed to serve Hyde Park.
EMS Capital Revenues:
Impact Fee Revenue 242,000$
Other Capital Revenues*6,000
Total Capital Revenues 248,000$
EMS New Station Cost Allocable to Hyde
Park Village 147,000$
Net Capital Revenues Available for EMS
Growth-Related Capital Needs 101,000$
Total Capital Cost 248,000$
Hyde Park Funded EMS Owned Facilities
Regional Park Capital Revenues
Impact Fee Revenue 4,411,000$
Other Capital Revenues*229,000
Total Capital Revenues 4,640,000$
Regional Park Indirect Capital Costs
2017 Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre 590,288$
Regional Park Acres at Achieved LOS 7.50
Hyde Park Funded Regional Park Acres 4,426,000$
Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 214,000$
*Included in the Collier County General Funds and MSTU expenditures analysis.
Hyde Park Funded Regional Park Facilities
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
21
Table 19: Hyde Park Regional Parks Level of Service
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
The indexed capital cost per Regional Park acre is calculated in Table 20.
Table 20: Hyde Park Regional Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Hyde Park Community Parks Capital Impacts
Community Parks capital impacts are presented in Table 21. The direct capital impact on
Community Parks is shown in Table 21. The calculated surplus will be used to fund other
Community Park capital needs.
Table 21: Hyde Park Community Parks Capital Impacts
Source: Collier County, Neal Communities, DPFG, 2018
In comparison, the County’s adopted LOS for Community Parks is 1.20 acres per 1,000 peak
population, and the achieved LOS is 1.32 acres. As such, the adopted LOS was used to estimate
the number of Community Park acres needed to serve Hyde Park.
Peak Seasonal Population 441,688
Regional Park Acres (Achieved LOS)759.42
Regional Park Acres per 1,000 population 1.72
Hyde Park Peak Seasonal Population 4,361
Hyde Park Regional Park Acreage 7.50
LOS Share of Regional Park Facilities
Component
Regional
Park
Land Purchase Cost per Acre 450,000$
Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Cost, per acre 40,000
Total Land Cost per Acre 490,000$
Facility & Equipment Cost per Acre 43,634
Total Land & Facility Cost per Acre 533,634$
2017 Index 1.106
2017 Indexed Cost per Acre 590,288$
Community Park Capital Revenues
Impact Fee Revenue 1,538,000$
Other Capital Revenues*25,000
Total Capital Revenues 1,563,000$
Community Park Indirect Capital Costs
2017 Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre 282,573$
Community Park Acres at Achieved LOS 5.23
Hyde Park Funded Community Park Acres 1,479,000$
Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 84,000$
Hyde Park Funded Community Park Facilities
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
22
Table 22: Hyde Park Community Parks Level of Service
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
The indexed capital cost per Community Park acre is calculated in Table 23.
Table 23: Hyde Park Community Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Hyde Park Libraries Impacts
Libraries impact fees include land, building, furnishings, and collection materials to serve the
entire County. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with
maintaining and operating the County’s Libraries facilities are provided in the General Funds
Operating Impacts section.
Libraries capital impacts are presented in Table 24. The calculated surplus will be used to fund
other Library capital needs.
Community Park Adopted LOS 1.20
Hyde Park Peak Seasonal Population 4,361
Hyde Park Community Park Acreage 5.23
LOS Share of Community Park Facilities
Component
Community
Park
Land Purchase Cost per Acre 107,000$
Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Cost, per acre 10,000
Total Land Cost per Acre 117,000$
Facility & Equipment Cost per Acre 148,328
Total Land & Facility Cost per Acre 265,328$
2017 Index 1.065
2017 Indexed Cost per Acre 282,573$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
23
Table 24: Hyde Park Libraries Capital Impacts
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
The County’s adopted LOS for Library facilities is 0.33 square feet per 1,000 peak population;
whereas, the achieved LOS is 0.42 square feet for owned facilities. As such, the adopted LOS was
used to estimate the library square footage needed to serve Hyde Park.
Table 25: Hyde Park Library Facilities Level of Service
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
The library square foot value of $243, and the unit cost per capital value of $42 were obtained
from the 2016 Library Impact Fee Update.
Government Buildings Capital Impacts
Government buildings impact fees include remaining non-enterprise County land, buildings,
information technology and vehicles. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and
costs associated with maintaining and operating the County’s General Government facilities are
provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section.
General Government capital impacts are presented in Table 26. The net result of $(1,000) is due
to rounding.
Library Capital Revenues:
Impact Fee Revenue 552,000$
Other Capital Revenues*74,000
Total Capital Revenue 626,000$
Library Capital Costs:
Library Facility Cost
Library Sq Ft at Adopted LOS 1,439
Library Facility Cost per Sq Ft 243.20$
Library Facility Cost 350,000$
Library Materials/Collections
Unit Cost per Capita 41.70$
Peak Seasonal Population 4,361
Total Items 182,000$
Total Library Capital Costs 532,000$
Library Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 94,000$
*Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis.
Hyde Park Funded Library Facilities
Peak Seasonal Population 4,361
Sq Ft per Peak Seasonal Resident at Adopted LOS 0.33
Library Sq Ft (Adopted LOS)1,439
LOS Share of Library Facilities
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
24
Table 26: Hyde Park General Government Capital Impacts
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Library capital costs are calculated in Table 27.
Table 27: Hyde Park General Government Capital Cost
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Hyde Park is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County Capital Impacts.
Water and Wastewater
The Hyde Park Village DCA includes sections that confirm that Collier County Water-Sewer District
(“CCWSD”) will supply both potable water and sewer service to the Hyde Park Development.
Please refer to the DCA for more detail with respect to the utility agreement, including the fiscal
requirement to prepay a portion of the impact fees.
Hyde Park is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County’s Water and Wastewater
capital and operating impacts.
Government Building Capital Revenues:
Impact Fee Revenue 1,592,000$
Revenue Credits*53,000
Total Capital Revenue 1,645,000$
Government Building Capital Costs:
Government Building Direct Capital Costs -$
Government Buildings Capital Revenues in Excess of Direct Capital Costs 1,645,000$
Government Building Indirect Capital Costs (Indexed):1,646,000$
Government Building Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs (1,000)$
*Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis.
Hyde Park Funded Government Buildings
Land Use
Functional
Population
Coefficient
Units/
Square Feet
Functional
Population
Single Family Detached
Less than 4,000 sq ft 1.81 1,500 2,716
Multi Family 0.86 300 258
Retail 6,001 to 25,000 sfgla 2.45 45,000 110
Total Functional Population 3,084
2017 Indexed Capital Cost per Functional Population 533.72$
Total Capital Cost 1,646,000$
Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 4,468
2017 Indexed Capital Cost per Peak Population 368.40$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
25
Stormwater Management
Stormwater retention and detention will comply with Florida Water Management District
(“SFWMD”) requirements, and State and County standards for off -site discharges will be met,
resulting in no adverse impacts to stormwater management (drainage) level of service.
The Hyde Park property is currently permitted as a commercial mining operation by SFWM D and
has a perimeter control berm that contains the 25 year, 3 day storm with zero discharge prior to
discharge through a control structure to the adjacent Faka Union Canal. The property also has a
small conservation area in the SE corner that is covered by a conservation easement dedicated
to SFWMD which will be vacated during the ERP permitting process. This small wetland is severely
degraded and is isolated. SFWMD staff has agreed to the proposed vacation and related impacts
to the isolated wetland. The perimeter berm is in place and functioning as designed and
permitted by SFWMD. The permitted control structure was never constructed.
The proposed development scenario would involve a reshaping of most of the existing lakes to
create a site plan with more curvilinear road network that is typical of large scale residential
developments throughout Southwest Florida. The revised lake system would begin discharging
at a controlled bleed down rate at the current control elevation and reach the full discharge
allowance during the 25 year, 3 day peak storm event with discharge occurring through two
structures that would be connected via pipes to the Faka Union canal. The system would provide
the treatment and attenuation volumes required by the SFWMD rules and the littoral shelves
required by Collier County LDC.
In addition to providing the required treatment and attenuation volumes for the proposed Hyde
Park SRA, the draft DCA anticipates that Hyde Park Phase 1 will accept, treat, and attenuate the
stormwater runoff from the proposed Oil Well Road expansion along the southern border. This
mile long stretch of road expansion is currently designed to flow into two offsite ponds that
would have to be acquired by Collier County Transportation.
The Developer of Hyde Park will be responsible for all costs associated with the design,
permitting, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements required to
serve the Hyde Park development. In the event that the Oil Well Road runoff was routed through
the system and the internal pipes had to be upsized to accommodate the additional volumes, the
Developer may seek road impact fee credits via the Developer’s Agreement for the cost of the
pipe upsizing.
Hyde Park is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Stormwater Management capital and
operating impacts.
Irrigation Water
The Hyde Park Village DCA confirms that CCWSD will provide Irrigation Quality (IQ”) water to the
residential and commercial lots within Hyde Park. The common areas and buffers will be irrigated
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
26
via lake water withdrawn from the onsite lake system. The Hyde Park Homeowners Association
will own and manage the irrigation system for the common areas and buffers. Please refer to the
DCA for greater detail.
Hyde Park is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Irrigation Water capital and operating
impacts.
Solid Waste
Single family residences are required to have garbage disposed of through the County’s
contractor, and residents are billed mandatory collection fees for the cost of collection and
disposal service
The Collier County Landfill is financed and operated under design/build/operate Landfill
Operating Agreement with Waste Management Inc. of Florida (“WMIF”). All capital revenue and
expenses incurred, including new cell construction, are paid through tipping fees paid to WMIF.
Under the LOA, (a) no debt is carried by the County; (b) design/build/operate provisions ensure
proper cell capacity; and (c) landfill cells vary by size and disposal capacity. The 2017 Solid Waste
AUIR projects the County has 50 years of remaining landfill capacity.
Revenues and expenses of the solid waste operations describe above are accounted for in the
County’s Solid Waste Fund, a self-supporting enterprise fund.
Hyde Park is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County’s Landfill.
NORTH COLLIER FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT
North Collier Fire & Rescue Capital Impacts
Hyde Park is located within the Big Corkscrew Island Service Delivery Area (“SDA”) of the Nort h
Collier Fire & Rescue District (“Fire & Rescue District”).
Based on discussions with Fire & Rescue District personnel, Hyde Park is within 1.6 miles of a
planned fire facility which North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District has already prepped for
vertical development. The project has no incremental impact on the building and equipment
programmed for the new facility.
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
27
Table 28: Hyde Park North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts
Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2018
Capital costs are estimated in Table 29.
Table 29: Hyde Park Fire & Rescue District Capital Costs
Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2018
Projected impact fee revenues are presented in Table 30 and total $1.1 million.
Table 30: Hyde Park North Collier Fire & Rescue Impact Fee Revenues
Note: These impact fee rates take effect October 1, 2018.
Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2018
Fire District Capital Revenues:
Impact Fee Revenue 1,089,000$
Other Capital Revenues*65,000
Total Capital Revenue 1,154,000$
Fire District Direct Capital Costs:
North Collier Fire District Direct Capital Costs (Indexed)1,154,000$
Fire District Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs -$
*Included in the North Collier Fire & Rescue operating expenditures analysis.
Hyde Park Funded Fire Stations
Land Use
Functional
Population
Coefficient
Units/
Square
Feet
Functional
Population
Single Family Detached
Less than 4,000 sq ft 1.71 1,500 2,565
Multi Family 0.87 300 261
Retail 6,001 to 25,000 sfgla 2.46 45,000 111
Total Functional Population 2,937
2017 Indexed Capital Cost per Functional Population 392.85$
Total Capital Cost 1,154,000$
Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 4,468
2017 Indexed Capital Cost per Peak Population 258.28$
Units or Fire
Sq Ft Impact Fee Total
Residential
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories 300 322.64$ 97,000
Single Family Product A 534 634.16$ 339,000
Single Family Product B 598 634.16$ 379,000
Single Family Product C 368 634.16$ 233,000
Total Residential 1,800 1,048,000$
Non-Residential
Retail 6,001-25,000 sf 45,000 0.91396$ 41,000
Total Non-Residential (sf)45,000 41,000$
Total Fire & Rescue Impact Fees 1,089,000$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
28
North Collier Fire & Rescue Annual Operating Impacts
Because the current operating millage of the Big Corkscrew Island SDA is geared to much lower
density development, Hyde Park is currently projected to generate significant operating
surpluses. However, a vote on non-ad valorem fire assessment fees is included on the August
28, 2018 ballot. If approved, the fees will go into effect on October 1, 2019, and the millage rate
will likely decrease to 0.5 mill in each Service Delivery Area. The combination of the non -ad
valorem fire assessment fee and the ad valorem assessment fee at a proposed 0.5 mills
districtwide is anticipated to increase the District’s General Fund revenue by $3.5 million
annually.
Table 31: Hyde Park Big Corkscrew Island SDA Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout
Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2018
Hyde Park is deemed fiscally positive with respect to the North Collier Fire & Rescue Control
District.
COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT
Collier County Schools Capital Impacts
The projected enrollment of Hyde Park on the Collier County School District is shown in Table 32.
The student generation rates in the 2015 School Impact Fee Update, the most recent data
available, were used to calculate enrollment.
Annual Revenues:
Hyde Park Ad Valorem Tax Base 473,701,000$
Big Corkscrew Island SDA Millage Rate 3.50
Annual Ad Valorem Revenues 1,658,000$ 1,658,000$
Annual Expenditures:
2017-18 North Collier Fire Budget:
Personnel Expenses 28,798,383$
Operating Expenses 4,966,479
Debt Service 519,775
Capital 291,500
Total Expenditures 34,576,137$
North Collier Fire District Functional Population 147,405
Operating Cost per Functional Resident 235$
Hyde Park Functional Population 2,937
Annual Operating Cost 690,000$ 690,000$
Annual Operating Surplus 968,000$
Annual Operating Impacts Big Corkscrew Island SDA at Buildout
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
29
Table 32: Hyde Park Projected Public School Enrollment
Source: Collier County School District, Neal Communities, DPFG, 2018
Hyde Park is located in the E10 North Central Area CSA for elementary schools, the M3 North
Central Area CSA for middle schools, and the H3 North Central Area CSA for high schools. The
FISH capacity and enrollment data from the Collier County Public Schools Capital Improvement
Plan Fiscal Years 2019-2038 is shown in Table 33. As indicated, the School District is expecting
additional available elementary and middle school seats in FY 2022-23. The projected enrollment
decline for those school types is a function of age cohort trends and the potential effects from
Collier Charter Academy (K-8) opening in the 2017-18 school year.
Table 33: Collier County School District 2022-23 Available Capacity
Source: Collier County School District, Neal Communities, DPFG, 2018
A comparison of Hyde Park’s projected public school enrollment by school type to available
capacity anticipated in FY 2022-23 is shown in Table 34.
Residential Unit Type Units SGR
Projected
Students
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories 300 0.11 33
Single Family Product A 534 0.34 182
Single Family Product B 598 0.34 203
Single Family Product C 368 0.34 125
Total Residential 1,800 543
# School
Year
Opened
FISH
Capacity
2017-18
2017-18
Peak
Enrolled
2017-18
Available
Seats
2022/23
Enrolled
2022/23
Available
Seats
Elementary
1 Corkscrew 1999 809 631 178 599 210
2 Estates 2004 690 589 101 596 94
Total Elementary 1,499 1,220 279 1,195 304
Middle
1 Corkscrew 2000 1,014 778 236 734 280
2 Cypress Palm 2007 1,146 718 428 742 404
3 Golden Gate 1981 1,059 1,110 (51)1,061 (2)
Total Middle 3,219 2,606 613 2,537 682
High (1)
1 Golden Gate 2004 1,989 1,872 117 1,795 194
2 Palmetto Ridge 2004 2,006 1,950 56 2,200 (194)
Total High 3,995 3,822 173 3,995 0
Note 1: New high school planned for opening in 2023.
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
30
Table 34: Hyde Park Projected Enrollment by School Type
Source: Collier County School District, Neal Communities, DPFG, 2018
Based on discussions with School District staff, the new students from Hyde Park are not expected
to trigger level of service issues given existing and planned schools. At this point, it cannot be
determined how many, if any, new student seats will be required for Hyde Park’s elementary and
middle school students.
The capital costs of the Hyde Park students are presented in Table 35 and are based on the 2015
School Impact Fee Update which includes a capitalized interest component. These estimates are
very conservative as they do not consider statutory student station cost caps set forth by F.S.
1013.64(b) which became effective on July 1, 2017. As of June 2018, the statutory cost caps are
Elementary $22,402, Middle $24,191, and High $31,423.
Table 35: Hyde Park School Capital Costs
Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2018
School impact fee revenue, under the adopted rates as of February 8, 2018, is shown in Table 36.
School Type
Projected
Students Percent
North Central
CSA Available
Capacity
2022-23
Elementary 248 46%304
Middle 118 22%682
High 177 33%0
Total 543 100%
Facility Costs Students
Cost per
Student Total
School Facility Cost:
Elementary TBD 36,058$ TBD
Middle TBD 42,266 TBD
High 154 48,381 7,451,000
Cost of New School Facilities 154 48,383$ 7,451,000$
Transportation and Ancillary Costs - Initial:
Transportation 543 $ 1,097 596,000
Anxillary Facility 543 $ 1,206 655,000
Total Transportation/Ancillary 543 $ 2,303 1,251,000
Total Capital Costs 16,026$ 8,702,000$
TBD = To Be Determined
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
31
Table 36: Hyde Park School Impact Fee Revenue
Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2018
As seen in Table 37, capital revenues consist primarily of ad valorem taxes and impact fees. The
Capital Outlay Millage, which is determined locally by the School Board within parameters
established by the State Legislature, is currently 1.48 mills. The millage was lowered from the
statutory maximum of 1.50 mills in FY 2018; however, increased property values resulted in
additional Capital Outlay revenues.
Table 37: Hyde Park School Net Capital Impacts – Total Cash Flow Approach
Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2018
Units or
Sq Ft Total
Residential
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories 300 2,844.19$ 853,000
Single Family Product A 534 8,789.54$ 4,694,000
Single Family Product B 598 8,789.54$ 5,256,000
Single Family Product C 368 8,789.54$ 3,235,000
Total 1,800 14,038,000$
Rates As of
Feb 8, 2018
School Impact
Fee Revenue
Capital
Improvement
Tax*
School Impact Fee Revenue 14,038,000$
Direct School Capital Expenditures:
New High School 7,451,000$
New School Buses K-12 596,000
Direct School Capital Expenditures:8,047,000$
Other Eligible Capacity-Adding Capital Expenditures 5,991,000$
Total School Impact Fee Expenditures 14,038,000$
Capital Improvement Tax Revenue
School District Capital Tax - Residential 13,068,000$
School District Capital Tax - NonResidential 244,000
Total School Capital Revenues 13,312,000$
School Capital Expenditures:
School Bus Replacement Cost 596,000$
Charter School Pass-Through 423,000
Other Direct School and/or Systemwide Capital Expenditures 12,293,000
Total School Capital Expenditures 13,312,000$
* Consistent with 25-Year Credit Period in CCPS School Impact Fee Study.
Revenue/Expense
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
32
Collier County Schools Operating Impacts
The Florida Legislature establishes the school operating millage based on the General
Appropriations Act. Legislative committees meet to debate continuing and new initiatives in
education and set a budget based on these results within the General Appropriations Act. The
State budget determines the Required Local Effort Millage (“RLE”) for each school district. The
RLE is the amount of funding that each district provides annually towards the cost of the Florida
Education Finance Program (“FEFP”). The aggregate RLE for all school districts is prescribed by
the Legislature as a specific line item in the annual General Appropriations Act. The
Commissioner of Education is also authorized to adjust the millage rate to make sure no school
district’s RLE exceeds 90 percent of that district’s total FEFP entitlement. The Legislature
establishes a per student funding amount which is based upon the local authorities taxing of both
the RLE and the 0.748 discretionary tax millage. According to the School District, the school tax
millage for Collier County is much lower than the statewide average and typically ranks within
the three lowest out of all Florida school districts.
A comparison of the School District’s tax roll and millage history is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 1: Collier County School District Tax Roll and Millage History
Source: Collier County School District, 2018
Because the Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through a series
of statewide equalization formulas, most fiscal analysts do not attempt to model school
operating impacts. An estimate of local ad valorem school operating revenues is shown in Table
38.
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
33
Table 38: Hyde Park Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout
Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2018
Hyde Park is deemed fiscally neutral respect to the Collier County School District.
School District Operating Results At Buildout
Ad Valorem Local Millage - Residential 3.642 1,774,000$
Ad Valorem Local Millage - NonResidential 3.642 42,000
Ad Valorem Local Millage Revenues 1,816,000$
Ad Valorem Local Millage Operating Expenditures 1,816,000$
Ad Valorem Local Millage Net Revenues -$
Operating
Millage
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
34
APPENDIX
Appendix Table 1: Collier County Base Assumptions
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
COLLIER COUNTY STUDY PERIOD
FY 2018 County Budget Year
COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION
368,073 2018 County Permanent Population - Collier County 2017 AUIR
1.20 Seasonal Population Coefficient - Collier County
441,688 2018 County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2017 AUIR
73,615 2018 County Peak Seasonal Population
COLLIER COUNTYWIDE EMPLOYMENT
196,065 Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update
0.8897602 FTE Conversion Factor - IMPLAN
174,451 Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update
COLLIER COUNTY PEAK TOURIST POPULATION
230,700 Collier County CVB 2017 Profile - March 2017
7,442 Peak Daily Tourists
COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION AND JOBS
542,524 County Permanent Population and Jobs
616,139 County Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs
623,581 County Peak Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Jobs
COLLIER UNINCORPORATED COUNTY POPULATION
326,511 2018 Unincorporated County Permanent Population - Collier County 2017 AUIR
1.21 Seasonal Unincorporated Population Coefficient - Collier County
395,964 2018 Unincorporated County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2017 AUIR
69,453 2018 Unincorporated County Peak Seasonal Population
COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED EMPLOYMENT
154,752 Allocation based on Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update
COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED POPULATION AND JOBS
481,263 County Permanent Population and Jobs
550,716 County Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs
COLLIER COUNTY MILLAGE RATES
3.5645 County General Fund
0.8069 MSTD General Fund
0.0293 Water Pollution Control
COLLIER COUNTY % HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION
Shimberg Center for Housing Studies - 2017 Final Tax Roll Year
65%Single Family
31%Condominium
50,000$ County Homestead Exemption
25,000$ School Homestead Exemption
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
35
Appendix Table 2: Hyde Park Resident Population and Seasonal Population Coefficients
Source: Neal Communities, Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Appendix Table 3: Hyde Park Population and Employment Estimates
Source: Neal Communities, Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Appendix Table 4: Hyde Park Population and Employment Summary
Source: Neal Communities, Inc., Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Appendix Table 5: Hyde Park Public School Enrollment
Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2018
Land Use by Impact Fee Category
Permanent
Population
Per Unit
Seasonal
Index
Peak
Seasonal
Persons
Per Unit
Residential (Units)
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories 1.05 1.20 1.26
Single Family Product A 2.21 1.20 2.65
Single Family Product B 2.21 1.20 2.65
Single Family Product C 2.21 1.20 2.65
Land Use by Impact Fee Category Units Units Total Units
Peak
Seasonal
Persons Per
Unit
Peak
Seasonal
Population
Permanent
Population
Per Unit
Permanent
Population
Residential (Units)
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories 300 300 1.26 378 1.05 315
Single Family Product A 534 534 2.65 1,418 2.21 1,181
Single Family Product B 598 598 2.65 1,588 2.21 1,323
Single Family Product C 368 368 2.65 977 2.21 814
Total Residential 1,800 1,800 4,361 3,633
Non-Residential
Occup
% Sq Ft Total Sq Ft
Employment
Coefficient Employees
Retail 6,001-25,000 sf 95%45,000 45,000 2.50 107
Cumulative Population and Employment At Buildout
Permanent Population 3,633
Permanent Population and Jobs 3,740
Residential Seasonal Population 4,361
Residential Seasonal Population and Tourists 4,361
Employment 107
Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 4,468
Residential Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Employment 4,468
Residential Unit Type Units SGR
Projected
Students
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories 300 0.11 33
Single Family Product A 534 0.34 182
Single Family Product B 598 0.34 203
Single Family Product C 368 0.34 125
Total Residential 1,800 543
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
36
Appendix Table 6: Hyde Park County Tax Base
Source: Neal Communities, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2018
Appendix Table 7: Hyde Park School District Tax Base
Source: Neal Communities, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2018
Units or Taxable Value
Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout
Residential
Condo, Duplex, or Single-Family Attached - -$ -$
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories 300 158,000$ 47,400,000
Single Family Product A 534 232,300$ 124,048,000
Single Family Product B 598 290,300$ 173,599,000
Single Family Product C 368 318,300$ 117,134,000
Total Residential 1,800 462,181,000$
Non-Residential
Retail 6,001-25,000 sf 45,000 256$ 11,520,000
Total Non-Residential (sf)45,000 11,520,000$
Total Tax Base 473,701,000$
Units or Taxable Value
Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout
Residential
Condo, Duplex, or Single-Family Attached - -$ -$
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories 300 158,000$ 47,400,000
Single Family Product A 534 249,000$ 132,966,000
Single Family Product B 598 307,000$ 183,586,000
Single Family Product C 368 335,000$ 123,280,000
Total Residential 1,800 487,232,000$
Non-Residential
Retail 6,001-25,000 sf 45,000 256$ 11,520,000
Total Non-Residential (sf)45,000 11,520,000$
Total Tax Base 498,752,000$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
37
Appendix Table 8: FY 2018 Collier County General Funds and MSTU Revenue Budget Summaries
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Ad Valorem
Taxes
Licenses &
Permits
Inter-
Governmental
Revenues
State Revenue
Sharing
Half Cent
Sales Tax
Fed Payment
in Lieu of
Taxes
Charges for
Services
Fines &
Forfeitures
Miscellaneous
Revenues
Interest/
Miscellaneous
Indirect
Service Charge Carry Forward
001 General Fund 298,046,800$ 317,300$ 453,000$ 10,000,000$ 39,000,000$ 900,000$ 12,896,000$ 401,000$ 201,700$ 860,000$ 8,053,100$ 51,431,600$
002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - - - - - 9,000
003 Emergency Relief - - - - - - - - - 2,400 - 488,100
007 Economic Development - - 400,000 - - - - - - 15,600 - 1,718,200
011 Clerk of Circuit Court - - - - - - 3,087,800 - - 15,000 - -
040 Sheriff - - - - - - - - - - - -
060 Property Appraiser - - - - - - - - - - - -
070 Tax Collector - - - - - - 21,456,600 - - 250,200 - -
080 Supervisor of Elections - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total General Fund Grouping Revenues 298,046,800$ 317,300$ 853,000$ 10,000,000$ 39,000,000$ 900,000$ 37,440,400$ 401,000$ 201,700$ 1,143,200$ 8,053,100$ 53,646,900$
Ad Valorem
Taxes
Licenses &
Permits
Inter-
Governmental
Revenues
State Revenue
Sharing
Half Cent
Sales Tax
Fed Payment
in Lieu of
Taxes
Charges for
Services
Fines &
Forfeitures
Miscellaneous
Revenues
Interest/
Miscellaneous
Indirect
Service Charge Carry Forward
111 Unincorporated Area General Fund 41,794,300$ $ 450,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,353,100$ 339,000$ 232,100$ 120,000$ -$ 7,436,300$
GENERAL FUND GROUPING
REVENUES AND SOURCES
UNINCORPORATED GENERAL FUND REVENUES
AND SOURCES
Communication
Services Tax
Special
Assessments
Transfers from
General Fund
(001)
Transfers from
Constitutional
Officers Other Transfers
Reimburse from
Other
Departments
Less 5%
Required by Law Total
001 General Fund -$ -$ -$ 6,600,000$ 2,182,800$ 792,700$ (18,183,300)$ 413,952,700$
002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - 9,000
003 Emergency Relief - - - - - - (200) 490,300
007 Economic Development - - - - - - (20,800) 2,113,000
011 Clerk of Circuit Court - - 6,823,000 - - - (154,400) 9,771,400
040 Sheriff - - 174,720,200 - - - - 174,720,200
060 Property Appraiser - - 6,739,300 - 723,200 - - 7,462,500
070 Tax Collector - - - - - - - 21,706,800
080 Supervisor of Elections - - 3,702,100 - - - - 3,702,100
Total General Fund Grouping Revenues -$ -$ 191,984,600$ 6,600,000$ 2,906,000$ 792,700$ (18,358,700)$ 633,928,000$
Communication
Services Tax
Special
Assessments
Transfers from
General Fund
(001)
Transfers from
Constitutional
Officers Other Transfers
Reimburse from
Other
Departments
Less 5%
Required by Law Total
111 Unincorporated Area General Fund 4,600,000$ 37,000$ 841,900$ 200,000$ 493,300$ 21,500$ (2,546,900)$ 57,371,600$
GENERAL FUND GROUPING
REVENUES AND SOURCES
UNINCORPORATED GENERAL FUND REVENUES
AND SOURCES
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
38
Appendix Table 9: FY 2018 Collier County General Funds Revenue Demand Units
Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2018
Appendix Table 10: FY 2018 Collier County MSTU Revenue Demand Units
Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2018
General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Budget Demand Base Multiplier
Base
Demand
$ Per
Demand
Unit
Ad Valorem Taxes 298,046,800$ CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A
Licenses & Permits 317,300 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 542,524 0.58$
Inter- Governmental Revenues 853,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 542,524 1.57$
State Revenue Sharing - Fixed Portion 998,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion 9,002,000 PERMPOP 1.00 368,073 24.46$
Half Cent Sales Tax 39,000,000 PERMPOP 1.00 368,073 105.96$
Fed Payment in Lieu of Taxes 900,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Charges for Services 37,440,400 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 542,524 69.01$
Fines & Forfeitures 401,000 PEAKPOP 1.00 441,688 0.91$
Miscellaneous Revenues 201,700 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 542,524 0.37$
Interest/ Miscellaneous 1,143,200 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 542,524 2.11$
Indirect Service Charge 8,053,100 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 542,524 14.84$
Carry Forward 53,646,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfers from General Fund (001)191,984,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfers from Constitutional Officers 6,600,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 10.71$
Other Transfers 2,906,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Reimburse from Other Departments 792,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 1.29$
Less 5% Required by Law (18,358,700) FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Total 633,928,000$ 231.81$
General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Budget Demand Base Multiplier
Base
Demand
$ Per
Demand
Unit
Ad Valorem Taxes 41,794,300$ CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A
Licenses & Permits 450,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 481,263 0.94$
Charges for Services 3,353,100 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 481,263 6.97$
Fines & Forfeitures 339,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 481,263 0.70$
Miscellaneous Revenues 232,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 0.42$
Interest/ Miscellaneous 120,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 0.22$
Carry Forward 7,436,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Communication Services Tax 4,600,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 8.35$
Special Assessments 37,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfers from General Fund (001)841,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfers from Constitutional Officers 200,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Other Transfers 493,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Reimburse from Other Departments 21,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 0.04$
Less 5% Required by Law (2,546,900) FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Total 57,371,600$ 17.64$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
39
Appendix Table 11: Hyde Park General Funds Revenue at Buildout
Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2018
Appendix Table 12: Hyde Park MSTU Revenue at Buildout
Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2018
GENERAL FUND GROUPING
REVENUES Demand Base At Buildout
Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV 3.5645$ 1,689,000$
Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS 0.58$ 2,000
Inter- Governmental Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS 1.57$ 6,000
State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion PERMPOP 24.46$ 89,000
Half Cent Sales Tax PERMPOP 105.96$ 385,000
Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS 69.01$ 258,000
Fines & Forfeitures PEAKPOP 0.91$ 4,000
Miscellaneous Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS 0.37$ 1,000
Interest/ Miscellaneous PERMPOP&JOBS 2.11$ 8,000
Indirect Service Charge PERMPOP&JOBS 14.84$ 56,000
Transfers from Constitutional Officers PEAKPOP&JOBS 10.71$ 48,000
Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.29$ 6,000
Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues 231.81$ 2,552,000$
$ Per
Demand
MSTU GENERAL FUND
REVENUES Demand Base At Buildout
Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV 0.8069$ 382,000$
Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS 0.94$ 4,000
Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS 6.97$ 26,000
Fines & Forfeitures PERMPOP&JOBS 0.70$ 3,000
Miscellaneous Revenues PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.42$ 2,000
Interest/ Miscellaneous PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.22$ 1,000
Communication Services Tax PEAKPOP&JOBS 8.35$ 37,000
Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.04$ -
Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues 17.64$ 455,000$
$ Per
Demand
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
40
Appendix Table 13: FY 2018 Collier County General Funds and MSTU Expenditure Budget Summaries
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Personal
Services
Operating
Services Capital Outlay
Grants and
Aid Remittances
Advance/
Repay
Indirect Cost
Reimbursement
Transfers to
Constitutional
Officers
Transfers to
General Fund
(001)
Other
Transfers Reserves
001 General Fund 33,903,700$ $ 35,626,000 371,500$ 3,404,400$ 4,727,700$ 1,325,000$ -$ 206,905,500$ -$ 87,238,600$ 40,450,300$
002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - - 9,000 - -
003 Emergency Relief - 50,000 - - - - - - - - 440,300
007 Economic Development 7,000 - 850,000 3,600 - - -
011 Clerk of Circuit Court 7,940,600 1,625,500 205,300 - - - - - - - -
040 Sheriff 141,308,500 26,394,900 7,016,800 - - - - - - - -
060 Property Appraiser 5,771,100 1,666,400 25,000 - - - - - - - -
070 Tax Collector 11,365,500 2,610,400 627,600 - - - - - - - -
080 Supervisor of Elections 2,204,200 1,477,900 20,000 - - - - - - - -
Total General Fund Grouping Expenditures 202,493,600$ 69,458,100$ 8,266,200$ 3,404,400$ 5,577,700$ 1,325,000$ 3,600$ 206,905,500$ 9,000$ 87,238,600$ 40,890,600$
Personal
Services
Operating
Services Capital Outlay
Grants and
Aid Remittances
Advance/
Repay
Indirect Cost
Reimbursement
Transfers to
Constitutional
Officers
Transfers to
General Fund
(001)
Other
Transfers Reserves
111 Unincorporated Area General Fund 18,043,000$ $ 15,791,700 411,100$ -$ 500,000$ -$ 2,192,400$ 1,374,400$ 396,400$ 15,679,500$ 2,983,100$
GENERAL FUND GROUPING
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES
UNINCORPORATED GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES
Restricted for
Unfunded
Requests
Distribution of
Excess Fees to
Govt Agencies Total
Personal Services
Operating Services
Capital Outlay
Grants and Aid
Remittances
001 General Fund - -$ 413,952,700$ 78,033,300$
002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - 9,000 -
003 Emergency Relief - - 490,300 50,000
007 Economic Development 1,252,400 - 2,113,000 860,600
011 Clerk of Circuit Court - - 9,771,400 9,771,400
040 Sheriff - - 174,720,200 174,720,200
060 Property Appraiser - - 7,462,500 7,462,500
070 Tax Collector - 7,103,300 21,706,800 14,603,500
080 Supervisor of Elections - - 3,702,100 3,702,100
Total General Fund Grouping Expenditures 1,252,400$ 7,103,300$ 633,928,000$ 289,203,600$
Restricted for
Unfunded
Requests
Distribution of
Excess Fees to
Govt Agencies Total
Personal Services
Operating Services
Capital Outlay
Grants and Aid
Remittances
Indirect Cost
Reimbursement
111 Unincorporated Area General Fund -$ -$ 57,371,600$ 36,938,200$
GENERAL FUND GROUPING
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES
UNINCORPORATED GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
41
Appendix Table 14: FY 2018 Collier County Expenditure Budget Summaries
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Fund #General Fund Description Total Budget
001 General Fund 413,952,700$
002 Utility Impact Fee Deferral Program 9,000
003 Emergency Disaster 490,300
007 Economic Development 2,113,000
011 Clerk of Circuit Court 9,771,400
040 Sheriff 174,720,200
060 Property Appraiser 7,462,500
070 Tax Collector 21,706,800
080 Supervisor of Elections 3,702,100
Total General Fund Groupings 633,928,000$
Fund Type Operating Budget
General Fund Groupings 289,203,600$
Special Revenue Funds 150,471,300
Capital Funds -
Enterprise Funds 43,986,600
Internal Service Funds 71,161,800
Trust and Agency Funds 16,700
Transfers and Reserves 153,745,500
Total Operating Services, Excluding Public Utilities 708,585,500$
Division/Agency Operating Budget
Board of County Commissioners 15,257,800$
Constitutional Officers 228,397,800
Administrative Services 170,290,500
Growth Management 120,009,800
Court Related Agencies 5,665,100
Office of County Manager 50,079,400
Public Services 102,547,100
Public Utilities - Facilities Management 16,338,000
Total Operating Services, Excluding Public Utilities 708,585,500$
Public Utilties 232,459,000
Total Operating Budget 941,044,500$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
42
Appendix Table 15: FY 2018 Collier County Appropriations by Program Budget Summaries
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Division
General Funds
Grouping Total
Special Revenue
Funds Total
Capital Funds
Total
Enterprise
Funds Total
Internal Service
Funds Total
Trust and
Agency Funds
Total
Transfers and
Reserves Total
General Funds
Grouping Total
Less
Remittances
Board of County Commissioners 8,925,900$ 3,375,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12,301,700$ 4,991,500$
County Attorney 2,772,700 183,400 - - - - - 2,956,100 2,772,700
Property Appraiser 7,638,000 - - - - - - 7,638,000 7,638,000
Supervisor of Elections 3,767,100 - - - - - - 3,767,100 3,767,100
Clerk of Courts 10,261,200 - - - - - - 10,261,200 10,261,200
Sheriff 178,139,600 3,652,400 - - - - 3,014,000 184,806,000 178,139,600
Tax Collector 14,822,200 - - - - - 7,103,300 21,925,500 14,822,200
Administrative Services 643,000 - - - - - - 643,000 643,000
Dori Slosberg Driver Education - 223,000 - - - - - 223,000 -
Fleet Management - - - - 9,215,200 - 611,600 9,826,800 -
Motor Pool Capital Recovery Program - - - 2,960,300 3,385,900 - 10,332,000 16,678,200 -
Human Resources 2,151,800 - - - - - - 2,151,800 2,151,800
Information Technology - 1,293,900 - - 9,736,300 - 1,273,200 12,303,400 -
Procurement Services 1,937,100 - - - - - - 1,937,100 1,937,100
Risk Management - - - - 48,824,400 - 36,049,700 84,874,100 -
Communications & Customer Relations Division - 1,377,200 - - - - - 1,377,200 -
Bureau of Emergency Services 3,023,400 102,500 - - - - 440,300 3,566,200 3,001,500
Emergency Medical Services EMS - - - 31,746,600 - - 2,029,300 33,775,900 -
Fire Districts - 2,460,000 - - - - 473,800 2,933,800 -
Growth Management Administration - 20,075,200 - - - - - 20,075,200 -
Planning 109,800 3,327,200 - - - - - 3,437,000 109,800
Regulation - 25,153,600 - - - - 2,130,200 27,283,800 -
Maintenance - 19,810,800 - - - - - 19,810,800 -
Improvement Districts and MSTU - 2,084,300 - - - - 793,100 2,877,400 -
Operations - 7,407,400 - - - - 109,900 7,517,300 -
Project Management - 5,459,700 - - - - 90,300 5,550,000 -
Airport - - - 3,415,000 - - 1,009,900 4,424,900 -
Reserves and Transfers - - - - - - 29,033,400 29,033,400 -
Court Administration - 2,910,600 - - - - 245,700 3,156,300 -
Circuit & County Court Judges 65,900 - - - - - - 65,900 65,900
Public Defender 303,400 - - - - - - 303,400 303,400
State Attorney 345,800 - - - - - - 345,800 345,800
Guardian Ad Litem Program 4,600 - - - - - - 4,600 4,600
Court Related Technology - 1,034,100 - - - - 755,000 1,789,100 -
County Manager Operations 1,358,100 - - - - - - 1,358,100 1,358,100
Corporate Compliance and Performance Impr.648,000 - - - - - - 648,000 648,000
Office of Management & Budget 1,334,600 1,234,200 - - - - 172,500 2,741,300 1,334,600
Tourist Development Council - 12,405,900 - - - - 9,131,200 21,537,100 -
Pelican Bay Services - 4,816,900 - - - - 1,993,100 6,810,000 -
Business and Economic Development 2,421,300 - - - - - 3,272,700 5,694,000 799,900
Ava Maria Innovation Zone - 1,000 - - - - 114,200 115,200 -
Bayshore CRA - 6,034,700 - - - - 3,080,200 9,114,900 -
Immokalee CRA - 1,098,800 - - - - 962,000 2,060,800 -
Public Services Administration 363,900 - - - - - - 363,900 363,900
Operations and Veteran Services 935,900 - - - - - - 935,900 935,900
Domestic Animal Services 3,371,600 81,200 - - - - 278,700 3,731,500 3,371,600
Community and Human Services 7,416,300 815,100 - - - - 705,500 8,936,900 7,416,300
Library 8,173,400 374,800 - - - - 11,600 8,559,800 8,173,400
Museum - 2,040,700 - - - - 471,400 2,512,100 -
Parks & Recreation 10,311,900 16,167,200 - - - 16,700 35,279,200 61,775,000 10,311,900
University Extension Service 756,600 75,500 - - - - 45,100 877,200 756,600
Public Health 1,815,600 - - - - - - 1,815,600 1,815,600
Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 347,800 - - 5,864,700 - - 897,600 7,110,100 347,800
Improvement Districts and MSTU - 5,305,200 - - - - 623,900 5,929,100 -
Facilities Management 15,037,100 89,000 - - - - 1,211,900 16,338,000 15,037,100
Total 289,203,600$ 150,471,300$ -$ 43,986,600$ 71,161,800$ 16,700$ 153,745,500$ 708,585,500$ 283,625,900$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
43
Appendix Table 16: FY 2018 Collier County General Funds Expenditure Demand Units
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Department Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand
Board of County Commissioners 4,991,500$ PERMPOP 0.50 368,073 6.78$
County Attorney 2,772,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 616,139 2.25$
Property Appraiser 7,638,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 12.40$
Supervisor of Elections 3,767,100 PERMPOP 0.50 368,073 5.12$
Clerk of Courts 10,261,200 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 616,139 8.33$
Sheriff 178,139,600 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 623,581 285.67$
Tax Collector 14,822,200 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 542,524 27.32$
Administrative Services 643,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 616,139 0.52$
Human Resources 2,151,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 616,139 1.75$
Procurement Services 1,937,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 616,139 1.57$
Bureau of Emergency Services 3,001,500 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 623,581 4.81$
Planning 109,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 0.18$
Circuit & County Court Judges 65,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 441,688 0.15$
Public Defender 303,400 PERMPOP 1.00 368,073 0.82$
State Attorney 345,800 PERMPOP 1.00 368,073 0.94$
Guardian Ad Litem Program 4,600 PERMPOP 1.00 368,073 0.01$
County Manager Operations 1,358,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 616,139 1.10$
Corporate Compliance and Performance Impr.648,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Office of Management & Budget 1,334,600 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 616,139 1.08$
Business and Economic Development 799,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Public Services Administration 363,900 PERMPOP 0.50 368,073 0.49$
Operations and Veteran Services 935,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Domestic Animal Services 3,371,600 PERMPOP 1.00 368,073 9.16$
Community and Human Services 7,416,300 PERMPOP 0.50 368,073 10.07$
Library 8,173,400 PEAKPOP 1.00 441,688 18.50$
Parks & Recreation 10,311,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 441,688 23.35$
University Extension Service 756,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Public Health 1,815,600 PERMPOP 0.20 368,073 0.99$
Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 347,800 PERMPOP 0.50 368,073 0.47$
Facilities Management 15,037,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 24.41$
General Funds Grouping Totals Less Remittances 283,625,900$
Remittances 5,577,700 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
General Funds Grouping Totals Plus Remittances 289,203,600$
Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund 21,670,400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 35.17$
Transfer to 111 Unincorp Gen Fd 841,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 298 Sp Ob Bond 2,855,200 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 301 Capital Projects 13,977,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 301 Capital Projects 3,335,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 5.41$
Transfer to 306 Parks Ad Valorem Cap Fund 1,100,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 1,670,400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 2.71$
Transfer to 313 Gas Tax Cap Fund 9,980,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 16.20$
Transfer to 314 Musuem Cap 313,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 325 Stormwater Cap Fund 1,627,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfet to 426 CAT Mass Transit 1,765,000 PEAKPOP 1.00 441,688 4.00$
Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 2,681,400 PERMPOP 1.00 368,073 7.28$
Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 17,579,100 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 623,581 28.19$
Transfer to 491 EMS Grant Fund 1,250,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 623,581 2.00$
Transfer to 506 IT Capital 750,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 523 Motor Pool Capital 239,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 662 Legal Aid 147,700 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 681 Court Services 1,518,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfers to General Fund (001)9,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Other Transfers 3,935,400 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Advance/Repayments 1,325,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfers to Constitutional Officers 206,905,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Reserves 40,890,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Restricted for Unfunded Requests 1,252,400 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 7,103,300 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 542,524 13.09$
Total 633,928,000$ 1.00 562.31$
$ Per
Demand
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
44
Appendix Table 17: FY 2018 Collier County MSTU Expenditure Demand Units
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Department Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand
Board of County Commissioners 1,183,400 PERMPOP 0.50 326,511 3.62$
Communications & Customer Relations Division 1,377,200 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 550,716 2.50$
Growth Management Administration 559,600 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 1.02$
Planning 1,809,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 3.29$
Regulation 5,328,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 9.67$
Maintenance 8,798,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 15.98$
Bureau of Emergency Services 102,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 0.19$
Project Management 939,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 1.71$
Pelican Bay Services 150,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Immokalee CRA 207,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Community and Human Services 105,600 PERMPOP 0.50 326,511 0.32$
Parks & Recreation 13,392,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 395,964 33.82$
Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund 1,250,000 PEAKPOP 1.00 395,964 3.16$
Transfer to 313 Gas Tax Cap Fund 4,000,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 7.26$
Transfer to 325 Stormwater Cap Fund 4,267,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Improvement Districts and MSTU 291,700 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Indirect Cost Reimbursement 2,192,400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 3.98$
Remittances 500,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfers 7,932,400 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Reserves 2,983,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Total 57,371,600$ 1.00 86.52$
$ Per
Demand
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
45
Appendix Table 18: Hyde Park General Funds Expenditures at Buildout
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
GENERAL FUND GROUPING
EXPENDITURES Demand Base At Buildout
Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP 6.78$ 25,000$
County Attorney PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.25 10,000
Property Appraiser PEAKPOP&JOBS 12.40 55,000
Supervisor of Elections PERMPOP 5.12 19,000
Clerk of Courts PEAKPOP&JOBS 8.33 37,000
Sheriff PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 285.67 1,276,000
Tax Collector PERMPOP&JOBS 27.32 102,000
Administrative Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.52 2,000
Human Resources PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.75 8,000
Procurement Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.57 7,000
Bureau of Emergency Services PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 4.81 22,000
Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.18 1,000
Circuit & County Court Judges PEAKPOP 0.15 1,000
Public Defender PERMPOP 0.82 3,000
State Attorney PERMPOP 0.94 3,000
County Manager Operations PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.10 5,000
Office of Management & Budget PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.08 5,000
Public Services Administration PERMPOP 0.49 2,000
Domestic Animal Services PERMPOP 9.16 33,000
Community and Human Services PERMPOP 10.07 37,000
Library PEAKPOP 18.50 81,000
Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP 23.35 102,000
Public Health PERMPOP 0.99 4,000
Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement PERMPOP 0.47 2,000
Facilities Management PEAKPOP&JOBS 24.41 109,000
Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund PEAKPOP&JOBS 35.17 157,000
Transfer to 301 Capital Projects PEAKPOP&JOBS 5.41 24,000
Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.71 12,000
Transfer to 313 Gas Tax Cap Fund PEAKPOP&JOBS 16.20 72,000
Transfet to 426 CAT Mass Transit PEAKPOP 4.00 17,000
Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged PERMPOP 7.28 26,000
Transfer to 490 EMS Fund PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 28.19 126,000
Transfer to 491 EMS Grant Fund PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 2.00 9,000
Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies PERMPOP&JOBS 13.09 49,000
Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures 562.31$ 2,443,000$
$ Per
Demand
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
46
Appendix Table 19: Hyde Park MSTU Expenditures at Buildout
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
MSTU GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES Demand Base At Buildout
Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP 3.62$ 13,000$
Communications & Customer Relations Division PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.50$ 11,000
Growth Management Administration PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.02$ 5,000
Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS 3.29$ 15,000
Regulation PEAKPOP&JOBS 9.67$ 43,000
Maintenance PEAKPOP&JOBS 15.98$ 71,000
Bureau of Emergency Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.19$ 1,000
Project Management PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.71$ 8,000
Community and Human Services PERMPOP 0.32$ 1,000
Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP 33.82$ 148,000
Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund PEAKPOP 3.16$ 14,000
Transfer to 313 Gas Tax Cap Fund PEAKPOP&JOBS 7.26$ 32,000
Indirect Cost Reimbursement PEAKPOP&JOBS 3.98$ 18,000
Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures 86.52 380,000$
$ Per
Demand
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
47
Appendix Table 20: Collier County Impact Fee Schedule
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018
Land Use
Demand
Unit
Community
Parks
Regional
Parks Roads EMS
Schools
(Rates As of
Feb 8, 2018)
Government
Buildings
Condo, Duplex, or Single-Family Attached Unit 455.20$ 1,230.24$ 4,844.91$ 67.50$ 2,844.19$ 443.94$
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories Unit 455.20$ 1,230.24$ 5,541.89$ 67.50$ 2,844.19$ 443.94$
Single Family Detached < 4,000 Sq Ft Living Unit 933.83$ 2,694.32$ 7,443.99$ 142.07$ 8,789.54$ 934.34$
Single Family Detached 4,000+ Sq Ft Living Unit 1,067.72$ 3,080.67$ 8,958.89$ 159.33$ 8,789.54$ 1,047.91$
Retail 6,001-25,000 sf Sq Ft -$ -$ 10.67640$ 0.19230$ -$ 1.27547$
Land Use
Demand
Unit Libraries
Law
Enforcement Jail Water Wastewater
Condo, Duplex, or Single-Family Attached Unit 159.78$ 296.56$ 259.25$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories Unit 159.78$ 296.56$ 228.91$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$
Single Family Detached <4,000 Sq Ft Living Unit 336.05$ 586.95$ 499.19$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$
Single Family Detached 4,000+ Sq Ft Living Unit 376.63$ 661.09$ 570.90$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$
Retail 6,001-25,000 sf Sq Ft -$ 0.76499$ 0.67571$ 38,430.00$ 40,515.00$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
48
48 Appendix Table 21: Hyde Park Impact Fee Revenues
Source: Collier County, Neal Communities, DPFG, 2018
Land Use
Demand
Units
Demand
Unit
Community
Parks
Regional
Parks Roads EMS
Schools
(Rates As of
Feb 8, 2018)
Government
Buildings Libraries
Law
Enforcement Jail Water Wastewater
Condo, Duplex, or Single-Family Attached - Unit 455.20$ 1,230.24$ 4,844.91$ 67.50$ 2,844.19$ 443.94$ 159.78$ 296.56$ 259.25$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories 300 Unit 455.20$ 1,230.24$ 5,541.89$ 67.50$ 2,844.19$ 443.94$ 159.78$ 296.56$ 228.91$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$
Single Family Product A 534 Unit 933.83$ 2,694.32$ 7,443.99$ 142.07$ 8,789.54$ 934.34$ 336.05$ 586.95$ 499.19$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$
Single Family Product B 598 Unit 933.83$ 2,694.32$ 7,443.99$ 142.07$ 8,789.54$ 934.34$ 336.05$ 586.95$ 499.19$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$
Single Family Product C 368 Unit 933.83$ 2,694.32$ 7,443.99$ 142.07$ 8,789.54$ 934.34$ 336.05$ 586.95$ 499.19$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$
Retail 6,001-25,000 sf 45,000 Sq Ft 10.67640$ 0.19230$ -$ 1.27547$ -$ 0.76499$ 0.67571$
Land Use
Demand
Units
Demand
Unit
Community
Parks
Regional
Parks Roads EMS
Schools
(Rates As of
Feb 8, 2018)
Government
Buildings Libraries
Law
Enforcement Jail Water Wastewater
Condo, Duplex, or Single-Family Attached - Unit -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories 300 Unit 137,000 369,000 1,663,000 20,000 853,000 133,000 48,000 89,000 69,000 769,000 810,000
Single Family Product A 534 Unit 499,000 1,439,000 3,975,000 76,000 4,694,000 499,000 179,000 313,000 267,000 1,368,000 1,442,000
Single Family Product B 598 Unit 558,000 1,611,000 4,452,000 85,000 5,256,000 559,000 201,000 351,000 299,000 1,532,000 1,615,000
Single Family Product C 368 Unit 344,000 992,000 2,739,000 52,000 3,235,000 344,000 124,000 216,000 184,000 943,000 994,000
Retail 6,001-25,000 sf 45,000 Sq Ft - - 480,000 9,000 - 57,000 - 34,000 30,000 38,000 41,000
Total 1,538,000$ 4,411,000$ 13,309,000$ 242,000$ 14,038,000$ 1,592,000$ 552,000$ 1,003,000$ 849,000$ 4,650,000$ 4,902,000$
Rounding - - - - - - - - - - -
Total of Buildout Schedules 1,538,000$ 4,411,000$ 13,309,000$ 242,000$ 14,038,000$ 1,592,000$ 552,000$ 1,003,000$ 849,000$ 4,650,000$ 4,902,000$
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
49
49 Appendix Table 22: Collier County School District Base Assumptions
Source: Collier County School District, DPFG 2018
STUDENT GENERATION RATES - 2015 IMPACT FEE UPDATE
0.34 Single Family
0.11 Multi Family and Single Family Attached
0.28 Mobile Home
FY 18 SCHOOL FTE ENROLLMENT
19,886 Elementary
9,824 Middle
13,337 High
698 Alternate Schools
3,112 Contracted Services
(328) To Balance to Budgeted FTE
46,529 Total
FY 18 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
46,529 Enrollment
9,652$ General Fund Cost per Student
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 2015 IMPACT FEE UDPATE
49%Elementary
23%Middle
28%High
100%Total
FY 18 MILLAGE RATES
2.894 Required Local Effort
0.748 Discretionary
- Addiitional Millage
3.642 Total General Fund Millage
1.480 Capital Improvement Millage
5.122 Total Millage
2.894 Required by State Law
2.228 Total Discretionary Local
5.122 Total Millage
HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
50
50 GENERAL AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the data contained in this report are
accurate as of the date of this study; however, factors exist that are outside the control of DPFG
and that may affect the estimates and/or projections noted herein. This study is based on
estimates, assumptions and other information developed by DPFG from its independent research
effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by and consultations with
the client and the client's representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in
reporting by the client, the client's agent and representatives, or any other data source used in
preparing or presenting this study.
This report is based on information that was current as of June 2018 (except for the sections
identified as being updated in July 2019 , November 2019, and March 2020), and DPFG has not
undertaken any update of its research effort since such date.
Because future events and circumstances, many of which are not known as of the date of this
study, may affect the estimates contained therein, no warranty or representation is made by
DPFG that any of the projected values or results contained in this study will actually be achieved.
Possession of this study does not carry with it the right of publication thereof or to use the name
of DPFG in any manner without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. No abstracting,
excerpting or summarization of this study may be made without first obtaining the prior written
consent of DPFG. This report is not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering
of securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by
any person other than the client, nor is any third party entitled to rely upon this report, without
first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. This study may not be used for purposes other
than that for which it is prepared or for which prior written consent has first been obtained from
DPFG. Any changes made to the study, or any use of the study not specifically prescribed under
agreement between the parties or otherwise expressly approved by DPFG, shall be at the sole
risk of the party making such changes or adopting such use.
This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations,
conditions and considerations.