Loading...
Ex Parte - Fiala 01/10/2017 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 01/10/2017 ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.A. ***This item has been continued from the December 13, 2016 BCC Meeting.*** 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 an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 95-74, the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Planned Unit Development, and amending Ordinance No. 2004-41,the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 5.21± acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A)to Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD; by revising the property description; by adding a recreation area to Tract A; by revising development standards; by amending the Master Plan; by adding a tennis center conceptual site plan and a landscape buffer exhibit; and providing an effective date. The subject property, consisting of 563± acres, is located south of Davis Boulevard and west of Collier Boulevard in Sections 3, 4, 9 And 10, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [PUDZPL20150001416] (Companion to agenda item 9.B And 9.C) 9.B. ***This item continued from the December 13, 2016 BCC Meeting*** 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 Petition VAC- PL20160001403 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public interest in Tract RW4, an approximately 100-foot wide, 1,300-foot long tract dedicated to the County for future right-of-way according to Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Phase One, Plat Book 26, Page 73 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. The subject property is located approximately 1/2 mile east of Santa Barbara Blvd., and 1 mile south of Davis Blvd, in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (This is a companion to Agenda Items 9.A and 9.C). 9.C. ***This item continued from the December 13, 2016 BCC Meeting.*** 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 Petition VAC- PL20160001406 to disclaim, renounce and vacate a portion of Tract C5 Conservation Area, and a portion of the 10 foot Collier County Conservation Buffer Easement within Tract C5, as shown on Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Phase One, Plat Book 26, page 73 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. The subject property is located approximately 1/2 mile east of Santa Barbara Blvd, and 1 mile south of Davis Blvd, in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (This is a companion to Agenda Items 9.A and 9.B). NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence se-mails ®Calls Met w/ Bob Mulhare & Patrick Dorbad w/ Hole-Montes (10/7/2016), phone call and meeting w/ Joe Huber and other residents (1/3/2017), met w/ Pat Dorbad, General Manager, current Association President, David Beiser& past Association President, Dick Rogan (01/09/2017), Emails & Letters from residents, spoke w/ residents on the phone, discussions w/ member(s) of the CCPC, One-Way Communication from Comm. Henning, Staff Report ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) 9.D. 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 an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code,which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A)zoning district to an Industrial Planned Unit Development(IPUD)zoning district to allow solid waste and resource recovery facilities and public vehicle and equipment storage and repair facilities for a project to be known as Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD on property located 1.5 miles east of Collier Boulevard and one mile north of White Lake Boulevard in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 344± acres; providing for repeal of Resolution No. 09-275; and by providing an effective date. [PUDZPL20150002737] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM F1 SEE FILE ®Meetings ❑Correspondence Fie-mails ['Calls Meetings w/ Staff, Staff Report CONSENT AGENDA 16.A.8. 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 for recording the minor final plat of Tract 3, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 20 Replat, Application Number PL20160000628. M NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence De-mails ❑Calls 16.A.9. 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 for recording the minor final plat of Oyster Harbor at Fiddler's Creek Phase 1 —Replat 2, Application Number PL20160002690. NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM X SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence De-mails ❑Calls Attended Ground Breaking event in November 2014 16.A.10. 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 for recording the final plat of Savannah at Naples Reserve (Application Number PL20160002827), to approve the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement, and to approve the amount of the performance security. M NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence De-mails ❑Calls BrownleeMichael Subject: Meet Bob Mulhare, Patrick Dorbad w/Hole-Montes re: Naples Heritage Location: DF Office Start: Fri 10/7/2016 8:45 AM End: Fri 10/7/2016 9:15 AM7 4) A c Recurrence: (none) Organizer: FialaDonna Stephanie 1 BrownleeMichael Subject: Call Joe Huber re: Naples Heritage Tennis Courts Location: Phone-412-680-0509 Start: Thu 12/8/2016 9:00 AM End: Thu 12/8/2016 9:30 AM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: FialaDonna 1 BrownleeMichael Subject: Joe Huber re: Naples Heritage Tennis/Parking Location: DF Office Start: Tue 1/3/2017 10:00 AM End: Tue 1/3/2017 10:30 AM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: FialaDonna Huber@ccapgh.org 412-680-0509 1 BrownleeMichael Subject: Meet w/ Patrick Dorbad re: Naples Heritage Location: DF Office Start: Mon 1/9/2017 4:00 PM End: Mon 1/9/2017 4:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: FialaDonna Mr. Brownlee, Thank you for helping me set up a time with Commissioner Fiala. I will be coming with my current President ( David Beiser) and past President ( Dick Rogan). Thank you, Patrick J. Porbad, CAM General Manager/COO Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club grana nhgcc.com (239)417-2555 Office (239)417-1717 Fax 963-3069 1 BrownleeMichael From: FialaDonna Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2016 1:55 PM To: BrownleeMichael Subject: FW: Approval of Ordinance for NHGCC Tennis Court Relocation Attachments: Signed Letter to Mr Berman for non approval of Easement Vacation 9-25-16.pdf; Naples Heritage PUDA Huber revisions.docx Importance: High Ex Pa rte From: Walt [mailto:wkulbacki@msn.com] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 4:24 PM To: FialaDonna Cc: Walt Subject: Approval of Ordinance for NHGCC Tennis Court Relocation Importance: High Ms. Fiala- My wife and I are full time residents of Naples, Florida and live in the Naples Heritage Golf and Country on Colonial Court,where there is an Ordinance to approve the relocation and addition of 2 courts(total of 6 courts)to a Conservation area directly across from our home. This was only one option of three being addressed which is the worst selection...and the only one being put forward in a single family residential area causing safety, traffic, and environmental/water issues. I have outlined these specifically in a letter to Mr. Marcus Berman attached above for revocation of an easement across from my property. I have reviewed the legal aspects of what the Collier County Board uses to evaluate the Ordinance before them and included them below: • Suitability(traffic, drainage, and access) • Compatibility(internal/external ..other areas) • Timing/Sequence of development of other major projects • CCPC (codes, regulations,..misreprentations) • Transportation(reallocation of traffic effecting residents, changes in level) • Easement and Right of Way • PUD regulations(public benefit, existing land use) • Changing Conditions(living conditions,traffic conditions, public safety, construction, drainage, property values) • Out of scale or location( other locations, better use by all residents in central location) Rather than go through each of these I have attached my letter above which addresses each of my concerns in these areas,which effect the residents both on Colonial Court and nearby roads. Also from a community perspective almost 50%of residents in NHGCC disapproved of this recommendation and felt there was a "better solution". I think this is not the best solution and want to have this project done correctly...where safety,traffic, environmental issues and the environment where I live is not changed dramatically.The key is to have these courts left where they are now...or find a suitable central location so they can be used by all residents....very doable. I along with my neighbors would appreciate your support in getting this done correctly with the options provided to you by Mr.Joe Huber my neighbor. Please confirm receipt. Most sincerely, Walter S. Kulbacki 703-894-8934(cell) 2 BrownleeMichael From: Huber, Joe [huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:38 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/41 Attachments: Naples Heritage Plan Exhibit A.pdf; NAPLES HERITAGE PUDA CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN TENNIS CENTER final.pdf; Colonial Court from Naples Heritage Drive.jpg; Close up of proposed entrance tennis.jpg; NHGCC News of Purchase 5+ acre parcel Nov 2004.pdf; Fleming Message.docx Categories: PRINTED, ATTENTION Commissioner Fiala, Here are the attachments again.Thanks. From: Huber,Joe Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 7:18 PM To: 'Donna Fiala' Subject: FW:VAC PL 2016-1406,Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/41 Dear Commissioner Fiala, This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff member Mike about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th.This proposed development(see attachment)is located adjacent to our home (Huber's=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court.These include,the Boissoneault's(lot 2), Case's(Lot 3). Leonard's(lot 4), Kulbacki's (lot 5) and Bruckerhoff's( lot 6). Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half-truths, and broken promises for further review .While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection,they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suited for the community with no adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court. I have attached material indicating the best of these site.The environmental engineers we have consulted believe this alternative site is viable and could be developed at a comparable cost. Looking at this matter on its face it would appear that this is simply an attempt to amend the PUD in order to create a recreational zone in the PUD and gain additional parking : however this is misleading,these matters are part of a project by Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club to erect a new fitness center, and administrative offices near the existing clubhouse restaurant,golf club and swimming pool. In order to accomplish this they seek to eliminate the existing four tennis courts located in the club house area and relocate these and expand to six tennis courts adjacent to our property.Attached is a promotional brochure on the Project as well the proposed site plan. Colonial Court is composed of all single family homes (6)located on the only cul de sac in the single family community of Naples Heritage known as Cypress Point composed of 101 single family homes.There are no (RA)recreational zoned areas in the PUD and other than the homes located on the golf course there are no recreational facilities in Cypress Point The existing tennis courts are located near the existing club house which are nearly 2 miles from this proposed site All of the homes on Colonial Court are currently surrounded by preserve, conservation easements and woods. See pictures One of the misrepresentation made by the applicant initially was that this land was purchased for the purpose of developing a tennis center(initial testimony at Planning Commission);however the truth is that the land was purchased 1 in 2004 due to a concern that the property would be developed and that such development could allow traffic from the development to use the roads in the PUD.(see attached) . The irony here is that they purchased it to prevent development, now they seek to do the very thing they attempted to prevent.While management contends that the property would eventually be used for a community purpose, the property could easily be left in a preserve condition and used to trade or exchange for other property currently in preserve as mentioned above. Another significant misrepresentation made during this process has been that the Army Corps of Engineers would not approve any of the alternative sites nor would they consider new property in a trade or exchange for existing preserve or conservation areas .We have learned that Naples Heritage 1)never made an application for an alternative site with the Army Corps of Engineers2) Published the alternative analysis report (April 2016)after the decision and vote on the overall campus improvement plan by the community (March 2016) 3)the Army Corps of Engineers would consider a trade of property if appropriate. (see attached email from Army Corps of Engineers0. Our objections are well documented in the file on this matter These objection include: 1) Negative Impact on the Residential Environment—Approving these matters would completely change the peaceful enjoyment of our homes as well as destroying an essential preserve and conservation area that should be maintained. Owners paid a premium for their lots in this neighborhood properties and were told that the conservation and preserve areas would be protected.Vacation of the conservation is contrary to this representation. Approval of these changes will negatively impact property values of the residents on Colonial Court making them less desirable . 2) Safety and Traffic Flow- Development of his site as a Tennis Center would greatly increase traffic, and create a safety hazard not only for the residents of Colonial Court but for those that use Colonial Court for walking,jogging and bike riding.There are no sidewalks on Colonial Court.The road network was not designed for this level of traffic nor was it designed as a feeder road.There will be two intersection within 75 feet.The tennis community holds competition with other clubs several times a year.This will inevitably lead to increase traffic and inadequate parking. Having the tennis courts located near the clubhouse where there is adequate parking and designed road network to handle this type of traffic flow would be a better alternative. 3) Buffer Inadequacy. While the buffer has been increased since our objections have been raised, they will be inadequate to prevent noise,visibility and disruption cause by locating the tennis center at this site.The entrance is off Colonial Court near residents driveway entrance. Providing a landscape buffer fails to address the end result of permanently altering the character of the neighborhood. 4) Failure to Make a Good Faith Effort for Alternative sites-As pointed out above the whole premises of this being the only suitable site is false. Management and the Board have failed to pursue a solution that would better serve the entire community without negatively impacting the residents of Colonial Court. No application was ever made for these alternatives even though their own report shows alternatives existed. Alternatives we believe are better suited and cost effective for the entire community 5) Bird and Wildlife Impact-All the land to the south, east and west of the residences on Colonial Court is currently either wooded, conservation or preserve. Residents commonly see birds, deer, squirrels, raccoons and occasionally panthers.The development of this site as a recreation with the attendant noise and traffic will negatively impact the environment for this wildlife. 6) Topographical Concerns including Water Flow- Due to the low level and topographical contour of the land,water flow, containment and sloop of the land considerable fill be required this could negatively impact drainage and create the potential for standing water. 7) Letter of Objection-All of the adjacent property owners have filed objection to the Vacation of the Conservation easement separating Colonial Court form the site. 2 The Executive Summary by the staff list Criteria for considering PUD Amendments. A number of these are relevant in regards to this matter.They include the following: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land , surrounding areas,traffic and access, drainage, sewer,water, and other utilities. Inconsistent with current use 2. The internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses,which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropriate 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?Yes. No other RA in PUD 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses....Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Likely 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?Yes 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood...?Yes 10. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use?Other sites available We believe that any one of these considerations should be sufficient to not approve the above matters. In our view there are more suitable alternative locations to locate the Tennis center .There has not has not been a good faith effort to pursue an alternative location for these courts.The residents of Colonial Court are not objecting to the Campus Improvement Plan merely the location of the tennis center for the reasons set forth above. While much of the applicants arguments for this location has focused on environmental consideration,they have not taken into consideration the environment of the residents of Colonial Court. We believe and have submitted for the record that the alternative site can be used with little or no additional impact on the environment. The Naples Heritage Community approved a Plan that included a new fitness center, administrative offices, enhanced club house and swimming pool as well as the tennis courts. Disapproval by the Board would not jeopardize these plans rather it would require Naples Heritage to choose another location for these tennis courts, one or more we recently learned were identified. This alternative site would be more convenient, less intrusive, safer, and less controversial that the proposed application and allow the residents of Colonial Court to continue to enjoy their resident in the manner they have become accustomed..There is no public benefit to approving the amendments to the PUD or vacating these easements but rather an adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent properties owners. This matter is being considered by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the South Florida Water Management District We ask that you do not approve the amendments to PUD and refuse to vacate the easements listed above or in the alternative postpone the decision until such time as these agencies approve the applications. 3 I will follow up by phone to discuss the points raised herein. Thanks you for your consideration. 4 BrownleeMichael From: Walt[wkulbacki©msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 9:27 PM To: FialaDonna Cc: Walt Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/41 Attachments: Naples Heritage Plan Exhibit A.pdf; NAPLES HERITAGE PUDA CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN TENNIS CENTER final.pdf; Colonial Court from Naples Heritage Drive.jpg; Close up of proposed entrance tennis.jpg; Fleming Message.docx Importance: High Dear Commissioner Fiala— I am forwarding you the below letter that I wrote with Joe Huber which supports my strong objection to relocating tennis courts to a single family residential area, where I am a full time resident, when other more suitable locations could have been selected. I solicit your rejection of this PUD Ordinance to incorporate them as a Recreational area at this location for the specific reasons outlined below and look forward to discussing with you. Thanking you for your support in this matter, Walter S. Kulbacki 7677 Colonial Court Dear Commissioner Fiala- This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th.This proposed development (see attachment )is located adjacent to our home (Huber's=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court.These include, the Boissoneault's(lot 2), Case's(Lot 3). Leonard's (lot 4), Kulbacki's (lot 5) and Bruckerhoff's( lot 6). Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half-truths, and broken promises for further review .While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection,they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suited for the community with no adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court. I have attached material indicating the best of these site.The environmental engineers we have consulted believe this alternative site is viable and could be developed at a comparable cost. Looking at this matter on its face it would appear that this is simply an attempt to amend the PUD in order to create a recreational zone in the PUD and gain additional parking : however this is misleading,these matters are part of a project by Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club to erect a new fitness center, and administrative offices near the existing clubhouse restaurant,golf club and swimming pool. In order to accomplish this they seek to eliminate the 1 existing four tennis courts located in the club house area and relocate these and expand to six tennis courts adjacent to our property.Attached is a promotional brochure on the Project as well the proposed site plan. Colonial Court is composed of all single family homes(6)located on the only cul de sac in the single family community of Naples Heritage known as Cypress Point composed of 101 single family homes.There are no (RA)recreational zoned areas in the PUD and other than the homes located on the golf course there are no recreational facilities in Cypress Point The existing tennis courts are located near the existing club house which are nearly 2 miles from this proposed site All of the homes on Colonial Court are currently surrounded by preserve, conservation easements and woods. See pictures One of the misrepresentation made by the applicant initially was that this land was purchased for the purpose of developing a tennis center(initial testimony at Planning Commission);however the truth is that the land was purchased in 2004 due to a concern that the property would be developed and that such development could allow traffic from the development to use the roads in the PUD.(see attached) . The irony here is that they purchased it to prevent development, now they seek to do the very thing they attempted to prevent.While management contends that the property would eventually be used for a community purpose,the property could easily be left in a preserve condition and used to trade or exchange for other property currently in preserve as mentioned above. Another significant misrepresentation made during this process has been that the Army Corps of Engineers would not approve any of the alternative sites nor would they consider new property in a trade or exchange for existing preserve or conservation areas . We have learned that Naples Heritage 1)never made an application for an alternative site with the Army Corps of Engineers2) Published the alternative analysis report (April 2016) after the decision and vote on the overall campus improvement plan by the community (March 2016) 3)the Army Corps of Engineers would consider a trade of property if appropriate. (see attached email from Army Corps of Engineers0. Our objections are well documented in the file on this matter These objection include: 1) Negative Impact on the Residential Environment—Approving these matters would completely change the peaceful enjoyment of our homes as well as destroying an essential preserve and conservation area that should be maintained. Owners paid a premium for their lots in this neighborhood properties and were told that the conservation and preserve areas would be protected.Vacation of the conservation is contrary to this representation.Approval of these changes will negatively impact property values of the residents on Colonial Court making them less desirable . 2) Safety and Traffic Flow- Development of his site as a Tennis Center would greatly increase traffic, and create a safety hazard not only for the residents of Colonial Court but for those that use Colonial Court for walking,jogging and bike riding.There are no sidewalks on Colonial Court.The road network was not designed for this level of traffic nor was it designed as a feeder road.There will be two intersection within 75 feet.The tennis community holds competition with other clubs several times a year.This will inevitably lead to increase traffic and inadequate parking. Having the tennis courts located near the clubhouse where there is adequate parking and designed road network to handle this type of traffic flow would be a better alternative. 3) Buffer Inadequacy. While the buffer has been increased since our objections have been raised, they will be inadequate to prevent noise,visibility and disruption cause by locating the tennis center at this site.The entrance is off Colonial Court near residents driveway entrance. Providing a landscape buffer fails to address the end result of permanently altering the character of the neighborhood. 4) Failure to Make a Good Faith Effort for Alternative sites-As pointed out above the whole premises of this being the only suitable site is false. Management and the Board have failed to pursue a solution that would better serve the entire community without negatively impacting the residents of Colonial Court. No application was ever 2 made for these alternatives even though their own report shows alternatives existed.Alternatives we believe are better suited and cost effective for the entire community 5) Bird and Wildlife Impact-All the land to the south, east and west of the residences on Colonial Court is currently either wooded, conservation or preserve. Residents commonly see birds, deer, squirrels, raccoons and occasionally panthers.The development of this site as a recreation with the attendant noise and traffic will negatively impact the environment for this wildlife. 6) Topographical Concerns including Water Flow- Due to the low level and topographical contour of the land, water flow, containment and sloop of the land considerable fill be required this could negatively impact drainage and create the potential for standing water. 7) Letter of Objection-All of the adjacent property owners have filed objection to the Vacation of the Conservation easement separating Colonial Court form the site. The Executive Summary by the staff list Criteria for considering PUD Amendments.A number of these are relevant in regards to this matter.They include the following: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land , surrounding areas,traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Inconsistent with current use 2. The internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses,which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropriate 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?Yes . No other RA in PUD 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses....Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Likely 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?Yes 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood...?Yes 10. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use? Other sites available We believe that any one of these considerations should be sufficient to not approve the above matters. In our view there are more suitable alternative locations to locate the Tennis center .There has not has not been a good faith effort to pursue an alternative location for these courts.The residents of Colonial Court are not objecting to the Campus Improvement Plan merely the location of the tennis center for the reasons set forth above. While much of the applicants arguments for this location has focused on environmental consideration,they have not taken into consideration the environment of the residents of Colonial Court.We believe and have submitted for the record that the alternative site can be used with little or no additional impact on the environment. 3 ' The Naples Heritage Community approved a Plan that included a new fitness center, administrative offices, enhanced club house and swimming pool as well as the tennis courts. Disapproval by the Board would not jeopardize these plans rather it would require Naples Heritage to choose another location for these tennis courts, one or more we recently learned were identified. This alternative site would be more convenient, less intrusive, safer, and less controversial that the proposed application and allow the residents of Colonial Court to continue to enjoy their resident in the manner they have become accustomed.. There is no public benefit to approving the amendments to the PUD or vacating these easements but rather an adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent properties owners. This matter is being considered by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the South Florida Water Management District We ask that you do not approve the amendments to PUD and refuse to vacate the easements listed above or in the alternative postpone the decision until such time as these agencies approve the applications. I will follow up by phone to discuss the points raised herein. Thanks you for your consideration. 4 BrownleeMichael From: Bob Mulhere [BobMulhere@hmeng.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 4:18 PM To: FialaDonna Cc: BrownleeMichael Subject: FW: HM File No.: 2015.055 Attachments: NHGCC Perspective on Tennis Center pdf.pdf; ATT00001.htm Categories: ATTENTION, PRINTED Commissioner Fiala: The Naples heritage PUDA and related easement actions are on the December 13,BBC agenda. We are proposing to add about 5 acres of land to the PUD to accommodate a relocation of the Tennis Center and then redevelopment of the Club Hose Community Center area to add parking and enhanced amenities. As you are probably aware,this minor PUD Amendment was approved by the Planning Commission unanimously back in May. After the CCPC hearing in May, a few of the residents on Colonial Court expressed concerns and we began to work with them to address those concerns.The BCC hearing was postponed in order to allow us time to address the concerns. We added a number of limitations and redesigned the site to minimize any potential impacts.At the October BCC hearing,the item was remanded back to the CCPC so the CCPC could review the changes we made to address these resident's concerns. We went back to the CCPC on November 17th and again received unanimous approval.The item is now scheduled for the December 13,2016 BCC. Here are the limitation and changes made to the PUD and the Site Plan, including all of the CCPC stipulations: • Redesigned tennis courts so they will be at least 150 feet from any residential lot; • Limited uses to only limited to tennis courts, restrooms, storage space, and roofed and unroofed seating areas, landscaping and stormwater facilities; • No night play or lit courts(hour of operation limited to 7:000 am to sunset); • No amplified sound; • Lighting: Lighting shall be limited to bollard style as may be necessary for public safety and security and shall be limited to a maximum 4 feet in height. • Maximum height of building is limited to one story not to exceed 12 Feet Zoned and 15 feet Actual Height. • The tennis courts shall be Har-Tru, clay, or a comparable material. • When special events such as member guest tournaments are scheduled at the tennis center, in order to minimize parking demand at the center, additional parking shall be provided at the clubhouse and a shuttle shall be utilized to transport players and/or spectators to from the clubhouse parking area to the tennis center. • Within the areas labeled Natural Area on PUD master plan Exhibit"A-1" Naples Heritage Tennis Center Conceptual Site Plan,existing vegetation shall be retained to the greatest degree possible, after removal of any exotic vegetation. In the event that existing vegetation dies, it shall be replaced with the same or a comparable plant type, and shall be replanted in the future as needed. In no case shall there be less than 50%of the native vegetation remaining. If clearing results in less than 50%of retained native vegetation,then supplemental plantings shall be required to achieve 50%of the original native vegetation. I hope this summary is helpful. know how busy you are, but I am happy to meet with you of you feel it is helpful. Bob Mulhere, FAICP Vice President, Planning Services HOLE MONTES 1 limit HOLE MONTES 239-254-2000 Direct: 239-254-2026 Cell: 239-825-9373 From: Richard Rogan [mailto:rmrogan40@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:33 PM To: Donna Fiala; AndySolis@icolliergov.net; BurtSaunders@colliergov.net; Pennytaylor@colliergov.net; BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net Subject: HM File No.: 2015.055 Ladies and Gentlemen, The above referenced file is on the BCC agenda for December 13,2016. The attached letter, dated October 26,2016, was sent to the then current members of the Board of Commissioners. I am resending it in light of the appointment of three new Commissioners and the passage of time. The intent of the letter remains the same, namely to restore some perspective that has been lost during the exchange between Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club and three of its residents. I hope that the insight it provides facilitates your support. If you have any questions,feel free to contact me at(239) 825-0164. Thank you for your consideration. Richard M. Rogan 2 Brown lee Michael From: Huber, Joe [huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:34 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/41 Dear Commissioner Fiala, Hopefully you received the material I sent. I will send again under a separate email., and try to touch base tomorrow morning.ThanksDid you receive the ma From: FialaDonna [mailto:DonnaFiala@colliergov.net] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 1:48 PM To: Huber,Joe Subject: RE:VAC PL 2016-1406,Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/41 I haven't gotten my material yet„ so all I could do is listen, but not speak knowledgably. Donna Fiala From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 1:43 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Dear Commissioner, As mentioned I would like to speak with you or your aide Mike Brownlee about this matter and answer any question you may have..Thanks. From: FialaDonna [mailto:DonnaFiala@colliergov.net] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 1:32 PM To: Huber,Joe Subject: RE: VAC PL 2016-1406,Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/41 Thank you for writing and sharing your views. Donna Fiala From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber(aCCAPGH.org] Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 7:18 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Dear Commissioner Fiala, This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff member Mike about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th.This proposed development(see attachment)is located adjacent to our home (Huber's=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial 1 Court.These include, the Boissoneault's(lot 2), Case's(Lot 3). Leonard's (lot 4), Kulbacki's (lot 5) and Bruckerhoffs( lot 6). Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half-truths, and broken promises for further review . While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection,they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suited for the community with no adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court. I have attached material indicating the best of these site.The environmental engineers we have consulted believe this alternative site is viable and could be developed at a comparable cost. Looking at this matter on its face it would appear that this is simply an attempt to amend the PUD in order to create a recreational zone in the PUD and gain additional parking : however this is misleading,these matters are part of a project by Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club to erect a new fitness center, and administrative offices near the existing clubhouse restaurant,golf club and swimming pool. In order to accomplish this they seek to eliminate the existing four tennis courts located in the club house area and relocate these and expand to six tennis courts adjacent to our property. Attached is a promotional brochure on the Project as well the proposed site plan. Colonial Court is composed of all single family homes(6)located on the only cul de sac in the single family community of Naples Heritage known as Cypress Point composed of 101 single family homes.There are no (RA)recreational zoned areas in the PUD and other than the homes located on the golf course there are no recreational facilities in Cypress Point The existing tennis courts are located near the existing club house which are nearly 2 miles from this proposed site All of the homes on Colonial Court are currently surrounded by preserve, conservation easements and woods. See pictures One of the misrepresentation made by the applicant initially was that this land was purchased for the purpose of developing a tennis center(initial testimony at Planning Commission);however the truth is that the land was purchased in 2004 due to a concern that the property would be developed and that such development could allow traffic from the development to use the roads in the PUD.(see attached) . The irony here is that they purchased it to prevent development, now they seek to do the very thing they attempted to prevent.While management contends that the property would eventually be used for a community purpose,the property could easily be left in a preserve condition and used to trade or exchange for other property currently in preserve as mentioned above. Another significant misrepresentation made during this process has been that the Army Corps of Engineers would not approve any of the alternative sites nor would they consider new property in a trade or exchange for existing preserve or conservation areas . We have learned that Naples Heritage 1)never made an application for an alternative site with the Army Corps of Engineers2) Published the alternative analysis report (April 2016) after the decision and vote on the overall campus improvement plan by the community (March 2016) 3)the Army Corps of Engineers would consider a trade of property if appropriate. (see attached email from Army Corps of Engineers°. Our objections are well documented in the file on this matter These objection include: 1) Negative Impact on the Residential Environment—Approving these matters would completely change the peaceful enjoyment of our homes as well as destroying an essential preserve and conservation area that should be maintained. Owners paid a premium for their lots in this neighborhood properties and were told that the conservation and preserve areas would be protected.Vacation of the conservation is contrary to this representation. Approval of these changes will negatively impact property values of the residents on Colonial Court making them less desirable . 2) Safety and Traffic Flow- Development of his site as a Tennis Center would greatly increase traffic, and create a safety hazard not only for the residents of Colonial Court but for those that use Colonial Court for walking,jogging and bike riding.There are no sidewalks on Colonial Court.The road network was not designed for this level of traffic nor was it designed as a feeder road.There 2 will be two intersection within 75 feet.The tennis community holds competition with other clubs several times a year.This will inevitably lead to increase traffic and inadequate parking. Having the tennis courts located near the clubhouse where there is adequate parking and designed road network to handle this type of traffic flow would be a better alternative. 3) Buffer Inadequacy. While the buffer has been increased since our objections have been raised, they will be inadequate to prevent noise,visibility and disruption cause by locating the tennis center at this site.The entrance is off Colonial Court near residents driveway entrance. Providing a landscape buffer fails to address the end result of permanently altering the character of the neighborhood. 4) Failure to Make a Good Faith Effort for Alternative sites-As pointed out above the whole premises of this being the only suitable site is false. Management and the Board have failed to pursue a solution that would better serve the entire community without negatively impacting the residents of Colonial Court. No application was ever made for these alternatives even though their own report shows alternatives existed.Alternatives we believe are better suited and cost effective for the entire community 5) Bird and Wildlife Impact-All the land to the south, east and west of the residences on Colonial Court is currently either wooded, conservation or preserve. Residents commonly see birds, deer, squirrels, raccoons and occasionally panthers.The development of this site as a recreation with the attendant noise and traffic will negatively impact the environment for this wildlife. 6) Topographical Concerns including Water Flow- Due to the low level and topographical contour of the land, water flow, containment and sloop of the land considerable fill be required this could negatively impact drainage and create the potential for standing water. 7) Letter of Objection-All of the adjacent property owners have filed objection to the Vacation of the Conservation easement separating Colonial Court form the site. The Executive Summary by the staff list Criteria for considering PUD Amendments. A number of these are relevant in regards to this matter.They include the following: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land , surrounding areas,traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Inconsistent with current use 2. The internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses,which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design,and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropriate 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?Yes . No other RA in PUD 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses....Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Likely 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?Yes 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood...?Yes 3 10. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use? Other sites available We believe that any one of these considerations should be sufficient to not approve the above matters. In our view there are more suitable alternative locations to locate the Tennis center.There has not has not been a good faith effort to pursue an alternative location for these courts.The residents of Colonial Court are not objecting to the Campus Improvement Plan merely the location of the tennis center for the reasons set forth above. While much of the applicants arguments for this location has focused on environmental consideration,they have not taken into consideration the environment of the residents of Colonial Court.We believe and have submitted for the record that the alternative site can be used with little or no additional impact on the environment. The Naples Heritage Community approved a Plan that included a new fitness center, administrative offices, enhanced club house and swimming pool as well as the tennis courts. Disapproval by the Board would not jeopardize these plans rather it would require Naples Heritage to choose another location for these tennis courts, one or more we recently learned were identified. This alternative site would be more convenient, less intrusive, safer, and less controversial that the proposed application and allow the residents of Colonial Court to continue to enjoy their resident in the manner they have become accustomed..There is no public benefit to approving the amendments to the PUD or vacating these easements but rather an adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent properties owners. This matter is being considered by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the South Florida Water Management District We ask that you do not approve the amendments to PUD and refuse to vacate the easements listed above or in the alternative postpone the decision until such time as these agencies approve the applications. I will follow up by phone to discuss the points raised herein. Thanks you for your consideration. Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 4 BrownleeMichael From: SmithCamden Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 9:21 AM To: DLCOMM; OchsLeo; CasalanguidaNick Subject: One Way Communication on Items 9A-C Naples Heritage Alternative Attachments: CentralMailRoom@ccapgh org_20160930_160907.pdf; Naples Heritage PUDA 10-4-16 rjm Struck-through 1.docx; Naples Heritage PUDA Huber revisions.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Commissioners and County Manager, Commissioner Henning has requested I send a one way communication regarding Agenda Items 9A, 9B and 9C: Naples Heritage. It appears there is a claim there was no objection to a portion of the plan and he is sharing the below email from a constituent who did in fact object. The constituent, Mr. Huber has proposed an alternative and outlined his concerns in the attached documents.The Central Mail Room pdf is Mr. Huber's area of concern which I believe may have been taken from a staff report. Please, see his below email sent to Commissioner Henning (below my signature line). Respectfully, Camden Smith Executive Coodinator to Commissioner Tom Henning, District 3 O. 239-252-8605 Media inquiries may call my personal cell phone which your news desks have on file. From: "Huber,Joe" <huber@CCAPGH.org> Date: October 5, 2016 at 7:31:43 PM EDT To: HenningTom <TomHenning@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Aerial Views Dear Mr. Henning, Thank you for getting back with me . I know that I sent you a lot of material. I believe that the imposition of this planned recreational area in what has been a private residential neighbor is unconscionable. All of the residents six in all are opposed to this plan we ask for your support.This matter has been fraught with lies and misrepresentation which I only recently discovered when I was asked to send a letter of no objection on the conservation easement they seek to vacate in this matter. Here are what we would like to see insofar as possible outcomes. 1. Have the petition rejected by the Board of Commissioners.This will force Naples Heritage to explore other alternative locations for the Tennis courts. We are willing work with the Association including support to appropriate government agencies to achieve this end.At no time did they seek an application with any governmental agency attempting to seek approval of an alternative location 1 2. Have the matter referred back to the Planning Commission and County Staff for additional evaluation 3. If it appears the Petition will be approved by the Board of Commissioners we would propose amendments to the PUD ordinance and to the Site Plan. I have attached their latest version of changes Naples Heritage has made in response to our objection market Struck-through(attachment 1 above). I have attached my revisions . 4. Insofar as the site plan(attached) is concerned we would like the following changes: a) Relocate the Structure or Pavilion further from the residences by putting either on the other side of the courts or at the end of the parking area. b) Move the courts to the left .The current distance from our property is only 78 feet.We feel it should be a minimum of 150 feet(50 yards) This could be accomplished by eliminating two of the tennis courts.There are only 4 tennis courts that are being currently eliminated by the development at the clubhouse. Again thank you for your help and support .Please call me with any questions. END EMAIL Under Florida Law.e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead.contact this office by telephone or in writing. 2 BrownleeMichael From: Leon Case [leoncase36@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 3:13 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Fwd: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/41 Attachments: Naples Heritage Plan Exhibit A.pdf; ATT00001.htm; NAPLES HERITAGE PUDA CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN TENNIS CENTER final.pdf; ATT00002.htm; Colonial Court from Naples Heritage Drive.jpg; ATT00003.htm; Close up of proposed entrance tennis.jpg; ATT00004.htm; NHGCC News of Purchase 5+ acre parcel Nov 2004.pdf; ATT00005.htm; Fleming Message.docx; ATT00006.htm Importance: High Categories: PRINTED Commissioner Fiala - We one of the residents on Colonial Court referenced below and fully support our opposition to the relocation of the tennis courts off of Colonial Ct for the reasons outlined by Mr. Huber below. Sincerely, Leon and Barbara Case Dear Commissioner Fiala- This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th.This proposed development(see attachment )is located adjacent to our home (Huber's=lot 1)and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court.These include, the Boissoneault's(lot 2), Case's(Lot 3). Leonard's(lot 4), Kulbacki's (lot 5) and Bruckerhoffs( lot 6).Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half-truths,and broken promises for further review .While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection,they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suited for the community with no adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court. I have attached material indicating the best of these site.The environmental engineers we have consulted believe this alternative site is viable and could be developed at a comparable cost. Looking at this matter on its face it would appear that this is simply an attempt to amend the PUD in order to create a recreational zone in the PUD and gain additional parking : however this is misleading,these matters are part of a project by Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club to erect a new fitness center, and administrative offices near the existing clubhouse restaurant,golf club and swimming pool. In order to accomplish this they seek to eliminate the 1 • existing four tennis courts located in the club house area and relocate these and expand to six tennis courts adjacent to our property.Attached is a promotional brochure on the Project as well the proposed site plan. Colonial Court is composed of all single family homes(6)located on the only cul de sac in the single family community of Naples Heritage known as Cypress Point composed of 101 single family homes.There are no (RA)recreational zoned areas in the PUD and other than the homes located on the golf course there are no recreational facilities in Cypress Point The existing tennis courts are located near the existing club house which are nearly 2 miles from this proposed site All of the homes on Colonial Court are currently surrounded by preserve, conservation easements and woods. See pictures One of the misrepresentation made by the applicant initially was that this land was purchased for the purpose of developing a tennis center(initial testimony at Planning Commission);however the truth is that the land was purchased in 2004 due to a concern that the property would be developed and that such development could allow traffic from the development to use the roads in the PUD.(see attached) . The irony here is that they purchased it to prevent development, now they seek to do the very thing they attempted to prevent.While management contends that the property would eventually be used for a community purpose,the property could easily be left in a preserve condition and used to trade or exchange for other property currently in preserve as mentioned above. Another significant misrepresentation made during this process has been that the Army Corps of Engineers would not approve any of the alternative sites nor would they consider new property in a trade or exchange for existing preserve or conservation areas .We have learned that Naples Heritage 1)never made an application for an alternative site with the Army Corps of Engineers2) Published the alternative analysis report(April 2016) after the decision and vote on the overall campus improvement plan by the community (March 2016) 3)the Army Corps of Engineers would consider a trade of property if appropriate. (see attached email from Army Corps of Engineers0. Our objections are well documented in the file on this matter These objection include: 1) Negative Impact on the Residential Environment—Approving these matters would completely change the peaceful enjoyment of our homes as well as destroying an essential preserve and conservation area that should be maintained. Owners paid a premium for their lots in this neighborhood properties and were told that the conservation and preserve areas would be protected.Vacation of the conservation is contrary to this representation.Approval of these changes will negatively impact property values of the residents on Colonial Court making them less desirable . 2) Safety and Traffic Flow- Development of his site as a Tennis Center would greatly increase traffic, and create a safety hazard not only for the residents of Colonial Court but for those that use Colonial Court for walking,jogging and bike riding.There are no sidewalks on Colonial Court.The road network was not designed for this level of traffic nor was it designed as a feeder road.There will be two intersection within 75 feet.The tennis community holds competition with other clubs several times a year.This will inevitably lead to increase traffic and inadequate parking. Having the tennis courts located near the clubhouse where there is adequate parking and designed road network to handle this type of traffic flow would be a better alternative. 3) Buffer Inadequacy. While the buffer has been increased since our objections have been raised, they will be inadequate to prevent noise ,visibility and disruption cause by locating the tennis center at this site.The entrance is off Colonial Court near residents driveway entrance. Providing a landscape buffer fails to address the end result of permanently altering the character of the neighborhood. 4) Failure to Make a Good Faith Effort for Alternative sites-As pointed out above the whole premises of this being the only suitable site is false. Management and the Board have failed to pursue a solution that would better serve the entire community without negatively impacting the residents of Colonial Court. No application was ever 2 made for these alternatives even though their own report shows alternatives existed. Alternatives we believe are better suited and cost effective for the entire community 5) Bird and Wildlife Impact-All the land to the south, east and west of the residences on Colonial Court is currently either wooded, conservation or preserve. Residents commonly see birds, deer, squirrels, raccoons and occasionally panthers.The development of this site as a recreation with the attendant noise and traffic will negatively impact the environment for this wildlife. 6) Topographical Concerns including Water Flow- Due to the low level and topographical contour of the land, water flow, containment and sloop of the land considerable fill be required this could negatively impact drainage and create the potential for standing water. 7) Letter of Objection-All of the adjacent property owners have filed objection to the Vacation of the Conservation easement separating Colonial Court form the site. The Executive Summary by the staff list Criteria for considering PUD Amendments. A number of these are relevant in regards to this matter.They include the following: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land , surrounding areas,traffic and access, drainage,sewer, water, and other utilities. Inconsistent with current use 2. The internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses,which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropriate 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?Yes . No other RA in PUD 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses....Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Likely 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?Yes 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood...?Yes 10. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use? Other sites available We believe that any one of these considerations should be sufficient to not approve the above matters. In our view there are more suitable alternative locations to locate the Tennis center .There has not has not been a good faith effort to pursue an alternative location for these courts.The residents of Colonial Court are not objecting to the Campus Improvement Plan merely the location of the tennis center for the reasons set forth above. While much of the applicants arguments for this location has focused on environmental consideration,they have not taken into consideration the environment of the residents of Colonial Court. We believe and have submitted for the record that the alternative site can be used with little or no additional impact on the environment. 3 The Naples Heritage Community approved a Plan that included a new fitness center, administrative offices, enhanced club house and swimming pool as well as the tennis courts. Disapproval by the Board would not jeopardize these plans rather it would require Naples Heritage to choose another location for these tennis courts, one or more we recently learned were identified. This alternative site would be more convenient, less intrusive, safer,and less controversial that the proposed application and allow the residents of Colonial Court to continue to enjoy their resident in the manner they have become accustomed.. There is no public benefit to approving the amendments to the PUD or vacating these easements but rather an adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent properties owners. This matter is being considered by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the South Florida Water Management District We ask that you do not approve the amendments to PUD and refuse to vacate the easements listed above or in the alternative postpone the decision until such time as these agencies approve the applications. I will follow up by phone to discuss the points raised herein. Thanks you for your consideration. 4 4 SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO PUD DOCUMENT, SECTION I, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION, ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 95-74, NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PUD SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The North half(N'/2)of the North half(N Y2)of Section 10,Township 50 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida,less the easterly 100 feet thereof. AND The East half(E Y2)of Section 9,Township 50 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. EXCEPT the Southeast Quarter(SE 3/4)of the Southeast Quarter(SE 1/4)of the Southeast Quarter (SE'/4)of Section 9,Township 50 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. ALSO EXCEPT the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 3/4) of Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. AND The Southerly 1,370 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida,lying southerly of Davis Boulevard(S.R.84). AND The Southeast quarter (SE 1/4) less the southerly 1,370 feet of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida,lying southerly of Davis Boulevard(S.R. 84). AND The North half(N '/2) of the West half(W '/2)of the West half(W Y2) of the Southwest quarter (SW 1/4)of Section 3,Township 50 South,Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, lying southerly of Davis Boulevard(S.R.84). Formatted:Font:(Default)Times New Roman, j 9 pt,Do not check spelling or grammar Page 1 of 6 Words underlined are added;words stwek-through are deletions \DATA\FIALA\Data\Ex Parte\2016\12-13\9ABC-Naples Heritage-Tennis\Naples Heritage PUDA 10-4-16 rim Struck- , through 1.docxll:\2015\2015055\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Naples Itentage PUDA(PL 20150000116)(5 5 2016).doox AND The East V2 of the Southwest Y of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, Section 9,Township 50, Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. * * * * * * * * * * * * 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The 558 563 acre project site is comprised of portions of Sections 3 4,9& 10,Township 50 S,Range 26 E. The irregularly shaped development parcel abuts Davis Boulevard on the north and CR 951 on the east. The primary development objective is an 18 hole regulation golf course and country club, together with a maximum of 799 single and multiple family dwelling units. Maximum gross project density is 1.43 1.42 units per acre. * * * * * * * * * * * * 1.6 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Development of The Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club will comply with the goals and objectives set forth in the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. A. The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map as set forth in Objective 1, of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), and the uses contemplated are consistent therewith. B. The proposed density of Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club is 1.13 1.42 units per acre and less than the maximum density permitted by the FLUE Density Rating System is therefore consistent with the Future Land Use Element Policy 5.1.The entire subject property qualifies for a base density of four units per acre. Certain parts of the subject property are further subject to density adjustments including a proximity to Activity Center density bonus. * * * * * * * * * * * * SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.4 MAXIMUM PROJECT DENSITY , Formatted:Font:(Default)Tmes New Roman, 9 pt,Do not check spelling or grammar Page 2 of 6 Words underlined are added;words:truck through are deletions \DATA\FIALA\Data\Ex Parte\2016\12-13\9ABC-Naples Heritage-Tennis\Naples Heritage PUDA 10-4-16 rim Struck- , through 1.docxlL'\2015\2015055\WP\PUDZ\Poet CCPC\Naplcs IIcritage PUDA(PL 20150000416)(5 5 2016).docx No more than 799 combined single and multiple family dwelling units shall be constructed in the 558 563 acre total project area. If all 799 dwelling units are constructed,gross project density will be 1.43 1.42 units per acre. SECTION III TRACT A DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 3.2 USES PERMITTED No building or structure,or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used,or land use, in whole or part,for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Single family detached dwellings. 2. Single family attached dwellings, zero lot-line and patio dwellings and/or multi-family units. 3. An 18 hole golf course, clubhouses and related facilities,practice driving range, and golf course maintenance facility. These facilities will be substantially completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 39r dwelling unit. 4. Recreation Area, labeled RA on the Master Plan, which can include, limited to —tennis courts, piek-lebc ll cou-irta, restrooms, Lnacic--bar. -{Formatted:Strikethrough landscaping and stormwater facilities, bocce ball, indoor and outdoor • . . , - . . - _ for use by all residents and guests. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customary in golf course, single and multiple family residential projects. 2. Project sales and administrative offices, which may occur in a residential or recreational building and/or in the Country Club complex, and/or in a temporary building until such time as permanent structures are available. , Formatted:Font:(Default)Times New Roman, 9 pt,Do not check spelling or grammar Page 3 of 6 Words underlined are added;words sfruek-through are deletions \DATA\FIALA\Data\Ex Parte\2016\12-13\9ABC-Naples Heritage-Tennis\Naples Heritage PUDA 10-4-16 rim Struck- through 1.docxll:\2015\2015055\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Naplcs IIeritage PUDA(PL 201500001-16)(5 5 2016).docx 3. Model dwellings, in the single family lot are and/or in the single family/ multiple family tracts,during the period of project development and sales. Model dwellings shall be converted to permanent residents at the end of a two year period unless otherwise specifically approved by the County. 4. Signs as permitted by the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time permits are requested. 3.3 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS A maximum of 799 dwelling units may be constructed in this 558 563 acre project. * * * * * * * * * * * * 3.6 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * F. Recreation area,labeled RA on the Master Plan Principal structures: Front yard: 50 feet' Side yard: 25 feet Rear yard: 25 feet Preserve: 25 feet Lighting shall be limited to that necessary for public safety and security. All lighting shall have full cut-off shields to prevent glare and spillage on adjacent residential development, shall utilize motions sensor for activation, and shall be limited to a maximum 10 feet in height. 1111 pole lighting shall be limited to flat panel fixtures with full cut off shields and {Formatted:Strikethrough i limited to 15 feet in height. Maximum height shall be limited to one story not to exceed`38 12 feet Zoned .- {Formatted:Strikethrough i Height and 15 Feet-aActual height. Hours of operation shall be limited to 87 AM to 9 PM.dusk. Amplified sound of any type shall not be permitted. ...•. - • -- .. . -- residential property line. Formatted:Font:(Default)Times New Roman, 9 pt,Do not check spelling or grammar Page 4 of 6 Words underlined are added;words wr uek"rig:are deletions J-I:\DATA\FIALA\Data\Ex Parte\2016\12-13\9ABC-Naples Heritage-Tennis\Naples Heritage PUDA 10-4-16 rim Struck- through 1.docx1L\2015\2015055\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Naplea Ileritagc PUDA(PL 20150000116)(5 5 2016).docx • * * * * * * * * * * * * 3.11 REQUIRED BUFFERS Buffers shall be installed along the rear yard of multi-family sites or recreational facilities which abut off-site single family zoned or vacant agriculturally zoned lands.Buffers shall separate the single family and multi-family development areas unless the necessity for such buffers is waived due to a common architectural theme housing project. Buffers shall meet the criteria set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code.Buffering requirements may be met with existing natural vegetation, installed vegetation, structural screening, or any combination thereof Buffering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Collier County Development Services Director prior to issuance of permits for the facility required to be buffered. * * * * * * * * * * * * SECTION VI TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * 6.2 IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * . .--- ---- ' -- -by made that the southerly 100 feet of that portion of the Naples Township 50 S, Range 26 E will be reserved for poc..iblc future public thoroughfare right of way acquisition. i * * * * * * * * * * * * SECTION VIII WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * 8.2 THE WATER MANGEMENT PLAN CONCEPT 354.1 acres of the 558 563 acre project is planned as a stormwater catchment basin. 68.7 acres of lakes and 91.9 acres of natural/preserve area are included in this area. Stormwater originating on lands to the north of the project will flow through the project Formatted:Font:(Default)Tmes New Roman, 9 pt,Do not check spelling or grammar Page 5 of 6 Words underlined are added;words struck through are deletions }-I:\DATA\FIALA\Data\Ex Parte\2016\12-13\9ABC-Naples Heritage-Tennis\Naples Heritage PUDA 10-4-16 rim Struck- through 1.docxil:\2015\2015055\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Naples Ilcritage PUDA(PL 20150000'116)(5 5 2016)docx ' by using culverts, swales, and preserved areas of the site in a manner intended to duplicate predevelopment conditions. Flood protection will be provided to the project by raising buildings, roads, etc. in conformance with South Florida Water Management District criteria for building pad elevation is the 100-yr./zero-discharge storm elevation and the minimum road elevation is based on the 25 year storm event.After heavy rainfall events,surface waters stored in the catchment areas will be slowly discharged through small bleed down structures into the existing preserved wetland slough. Off-site outfalls which receive stormwater discharge from the property will likely undergo modification in the future due to development/modification, at which time modifications to the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club water management plan may be required. * * * * * * * * * * * * Exhibit"A",PUD Master Development Plan,of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 95-74,is deleted in its entirety and is hereby replaced by the new Exhibit"A",PUD Master Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein. Formatted:Font:(Default)Times New Roman, 9 pt,Do not check spelling or grammar Page 6 of 6 Words underlined are added;words stale-lc-through are deletions DATA\FIALA\Data\Ex Parte\2016\12-13\9ABC-Naples Heritage-Tennis\Naples Heritage PUDA 10-4-16 rim Struck- through 1.docxll:\2015\2015055\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Naples Heritage PUDA(PL 20150000416)(5 5 2016).docx SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO PUD DOCUMENT, SECTION I, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION, ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 95-74, NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PUD SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The North half(N 'A)of the North half(N''A)of Section 10,Township 50 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida,less the easterly 100 feet thereof. AND The East half(E'h)of Section 9,Township 50 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. EXCEPT the Southeast Quarter(SE 1/4)of the Southeast Quarter(SE 1/4)of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4)of Section 9,Township 50 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. ALSO EXCEPT the Southwest Quarter (SW '/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 'A) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier I County,Florida. AND The Southerly 1,370 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida,lying southerly of Davis Boulevard(S.R. 84). AND The Southeast quarter (SE 1/4) less the southerly 1,370 feet of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida,lying southerly of Davis Boulevard(S.R. 84). AND The North half(N ''A)of the West half(W ''/z)of the West half(W '/2) of the Southwest quarter (SW 1/4)of Section 3, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, lying southerly of Davis Boulevard(S.R.84). AND Page 1 of 6 Words underlined are added;words are deletions H:\DATA\FIALA\Data\Ex Parte\2016\12-13\9ABC-Naples Heritage-Tennis\Naples Heritage PUDA Huber revisions.docx ill The East'/2 of the Southwest t/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, Section 9,Township 50, Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. * * * * * * * * * * * * 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The 558 563 acre project site is comprised of portions of Sections 1_4,9& 10,Township 50 S,Range 26 E. The irregularly shaped development parcel abuts Davis Boulevard on the north and CR 951 on the east. The primary development objective is an 18 hole regulation golf course and country club, together with a maximum of 799 single and multiple family dwelling units. Maximum gross project density is 1.43 1.42 units per acre. * * * * * * * * * * * * 1.6 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Development of The Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club will comply with the goals and objectives set forth in the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. A. The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map as set forth in Objective 1, of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), and the uses contemplated are consistent therewith. B. The proposed density of Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club is 1.13 1.42 units per acre and less than the maximum density permitted by the FLUE Density Rating System is therefore consistent with the Future Land Use Element Policy 5.1.The entire subject property qualifies for a base density of four units per acre. Certain parts of the subject property are further subject to density adjustments including a proximity to Activity Center density bonus. * * * * * * * * * * * * SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.4 MAXIMUM PROJECT DENSITY Page2of6 Words underlined are added;words are deletions H:\DATA\FIALA\Data\Ex Parte\2016\12-13\9ABC-Naples Heritage-Tennis\Naples Heritage PUDA Huber revisions.docx No more than 799 combined single and multiple family dwelling units shall be constructed in the 558 563 acre total project area. If all 799 dwelling units are constructed,gross project density will be 1.43 1.42 units per acre. SECTION III TRACT A DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 3.2 USES PERMITTED No building or structure,or part thereof, shall be erected,altered or used, or land use,in whole or part,for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Single family detached dwellings. 2. Single family attached dwellings, zero lot-line and patio dwellings and/or multi-family units. 3. An 18 hole golf course, clubhouses and related facilities,practice driving range, and golf course maintenance facility. These facilities will be substantially completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 39e dwelling unit. 4. Recreation Area, labeled RA on the Master Plan, which can include, limited to —tennis courts, pickleball counts, restrooms, knack--bad {Formatted:Strikethrough landscaping and stormwater facilities, bocce ball. indoor and outdoor . ' - . . . . .. , .. .. . . . _ . foruseby all residents and guests. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customary in golf course, single and multiple family residential projects. 2. Project sales and administrative offices, which may occur in a residential or recreational building and/or in the Country Club complex, and/or in a temporary building until such time as permanent structures are available. 3. Model dwellings, in the single family lot are and/or in the single family/ multiple family tracts,during the period of project development and sales. Page 3 of 6 Words underlined are added;words streek-through are deletions H:\DATA\FIALA\Data\Ex Parte\2016\12-13\9ABC-Naples Heritage-Tennis\Naples Heritage PUDA Huber revisions.docx Model dwellings shall be converted to permanent residents at theend of a two year period unless otherwise specifically approved by the County. 4. Signs as permitted by the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time permits are requested. 3.3 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS A maximum of 799 dwelling units may be constructed in this 558 563 acre project. 3.6 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * F. Recreation area,labeled RA on the Master Plan Principal structures: Front yard: 50 feet' Side yard: 25 feet Rear yard: 25 feet Preserve: 25 feet Lighting shall be limited to the restrooms and any structure unless required by law. All lighting shall have full cut-off shields to prevent glare and spillage on adjacent residential development, shall utilize motions sensor for activation,. No lightening extending from any structure shall be limited to a maximum 10 feet in height. E1ll pole lighting shall be limited to flat panel fixtures with full cut off shields and ---{Formatted:Strikethrough limited to 15 feet in height. Maximum height shall be limited to one story not to exceed 39 12 feet Zoned Formatted:Strikethrough Height and 15 Feet-aActual height and shall not exceed 400 square feet. Hours of operation shall be limited to S7 AM to 9 PM.dusk. Amplified sound of any type shall not be permitted. audible f-om the adjacent residential property line. * * * * * * * * * * * * Page 4 of 6 Words underlined are added;words s'truek-threugh are deletions H:\DATA\FIALA\Data\Ex Parte\2016\12-13\9ABC-Naples Heritage-Tennis\Naples Heritage PUDA Huber revisions.docx 3.11 REQUIRED BUFFERS Buffers shall be installed along the rear yard of multi-family sites or recreational facilities which abut off-site single family zoned or vacant agriculturally zoned lands.Buffers shall separate the single family and multi-family development areas unless the necessity for such buffers is waived due to a common architectural theme housing project. Buffers shall meet the criteria set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code.Buffering requirements may be met with existing natural vegetation,installed vegetation, structural screening, or any combination thereof. Buffering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Collier County Development Services Director prior to issuance of permits for the facility required to be buffered. * * * * * * * * * * * * SECTION VI TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * 6.2 IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * G. Commitment is hereby made that the southerly 100 feet of that portion of the Naples Heritage Colf and Country Club project which abuts the south line of Section 9, Township 50 S, Range 26 E will be reserved for possible future public thoroughfare right of way acquisition. * * * * * * * * * * * * SECTION VIII WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * 8.2 THE WATER MANGEMENT PLAN CONCEPT 354.1 acres of the 558 563 acre project is planned as a stormwater catchment basin. 68.7 acres of lakes and 91.9 acres of natural/preserve area are included in this area. Stormwater originating on lands to the north of the project will flow through the project by using culverts, swales, and preserved areas of the site in a manner intended to duplicate predevelopment conditions. Page 5 of 6 Words underlined are added;words are deletions H:\DATA\FIALA\Data\Ex Parte\2016\12-13\9ABC-Naples Heritage-Tennis\Naples Heritage PUDA Huber revisions.docx Flood protection will be provided to the project by raising buildings, roads, etc. in conformance with South Florida Water Management District criteria for building pad elevation is the 100-yr./zero-discharge storm elevation and the minimum road elevation is based on the 25 year storm event.After heavy rainfall events,surface waters stored in the catchment areas will be slowly discharged through small bleed down structures into the existing preserved wetland slough. Off-site outfalls which receive stormwater discharge from the property will likely undergo modification in the future due to development/modification, at which time modifications to the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club water management plan may be required. * * * Exhibit"A",PUD Master Development Plan,of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 95-74,is deleted in its entirety and is hereby replaced by the new Exhibit"A",PUD Master Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein. II Page6of6 Words underlined are added,words straek-thresh are deletions H\DATA\FIALA\Data\Ex Parte\2016\12-13\9ABC-Naples Heritage-Tennis\Naples Heritage PUDA Huber revisions.docx -..N. 1'' / lf,-.),.4- -: ,,i..... .1-4,:i.,,,fl4 i I f- 111"."7,,,sr' VS;y2;;:<. 4 - - - r...- '... 3:::.-..- .- - ft.,93,,,- , , ,,,,,,- y ,ii., � "fi c , sa-:-; 71i,i:.1...--.0ii .,: 1 4 3 , ., ,. _ , t i , , , ,,,,....,.. 1 ' . Subject Property . , Nigi fat1`' ill li I,i'— 's , SHA60t74. -... t..or 7 Aerial(County GIS) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP)CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject site is identified as Urban Designation,Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict in the FLUE of the GMP. Staff reviewed the proposed land uses for consistency with the Urban Designation. Adding the ±5.21 acres to the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD for the development of additional recreational facilities and a portion of this acreage for preserve are both non-residential uses listed(#2 - Parks, open space and recreational uses) in the Urban Designation of the FLUE; and therefore are consistent with the GMP. As such, Comprehensive Planning staff finds this rezone petition may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP(see Attachment#2 - Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review). Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff reviewed the application and found this petition consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). There is no increase in the number of residential dwelling units/traffic generation, no changes to point(s) of access or circulation,and no changes to the developer commitments; therefore there is no impact on the previous findings of approval. PUDA-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 3 of 12 April 22,2016 ov..r�w:.._.....S.WSn•.w.»:w 4- ,.----- ,.w.mu-�:+.,n..,...+,,.�, E,,, -,-,-g.7'r'''::''-s---f!:-:% 2 4.4 j*.... - ,.,,,- . co - z s t........s-x- F H - s . COOK PROPERTY. '', y Al ktoWrit' a Z 0 t . Cfri , 'elk F€Y o p y1 Stix r. +' 'k�' �'u+�.'.— ?�EPD � 5 ". .4� ,a �� � �` r n:`sem v % tor,„ 1! -.. 4 e.:.::r> b.. .:.:..ice '"` s trr, _ Vi = i= is ' � �5 � � , .,� }` P` a F ' t▪ . AYI�A�� `TC�r ;-w."+' 4M � a n)--,- � '{_t i rid ...1 ,,,„ .....,. .„,,,,,. . 4 FQi 4 J 3 1`G ^Y y { � it -` ▪ >hlr� �{{� 1 4' = B f O -41 GF 4r /j} 3 :.--..?ii c- - 4 , , ..'"•‘. 1,3* %:,„,-, - z ,„,.......1,1 Wt., ' �A'''''' �t. t ,s r, cgs: 76* 0 3:cepa n tttttttF `'", S . ;'' #' ' qui icy 4 a s Ic : '. �..i, { 4 # c x #cam+ {r, y �'" y — . m sn _ 14,,,f., pi .Z7 Q '� { i >ri r r rn _ - rm - '.. -C--1 ..,.. _ I— > Z A ILII ll II: 1 1 I 1qi � 4 ]g 444 f es% le -# '� r x 4§ , '.., z , '_x" �:_ 7nks ' � ' 'rrrr��r � — se m get rrrrr � ° all � an a w w nr r• w *k + mss 0\� i 0100' i 10'00' } t. 4. I, 00 10 ' 3u. % I } I .�. s i ' to tJt C!1 .° C) nto a ► �.- �`�. 1 ,,,-41#41-.04 ,..6i.,-,rt,,,t:4,,,),,,:: ..,, lti 4,•-•,--,;;:',.,,-:1-t..,:=-,.. N. t. r F °' _ ••,,, -,: .;#.... -. , .S1 --4-, 4... : :".......t.i . .- 4-.1‘„,•*,„,„:-..„...-,- „,,,,,,,- ' s '-, '' ;,. 4,Fi' Ver 3 {,{ s ,,--,.:,--,,-,.-.:--„.--,.„-..—:,-_,_:,,'-.-,,.,.-:i.?E--..t.:--,-.-,:--,, •,-.:-:. .•--r,:,”-',_'-,,,-,,.-'„,:::''-,-'•'-',,- M '°' :. a cs rf.t^ v rF. Y ^r TRAFFIC . t-'''' : . • ` '- -.,...w..,. - ".,� s.1-+ z . • ,,W. • gitttag�a s r tea•.---‘,1: -,''''', `'' _ tib_ • s p 211 �E2 � E ,' a r v t . .fig r z' :. � �#a "`zt Y L� k� 4' ....rn. te# 74: ': 5 '”- - - " : _� � - --- ,4 , .,, " E" . v, i ' � t" : ..,.: .a ,., _$g .« tl § ';��,,i'. _ § mw....., . ,,,,:..,,,.!.:00,01.,...... w RICHARD M. ROGAN 7703 NAPLES HERITAGE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112 October 26, 2016 To: Members of the Collier County Planning Commission Members of the Collier County County Board of Commissioners Re: Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) Proposed Tennis Center HM File No.: 2015.055 The above referenced item was to be on the Board of Commissioners agenda for October 11, 2016 but was sent back to the Planning Commission for further review of its unanimous favorable recommendation. Presumably this action was in response to letters written by three residents of Naples Heritage Golf & Country (NHGCC) objecting to the relocation of the community's main tennis courts. While they raise a number of valid concerns, which have been addressed, it is also apparent that a great deal of perspective has been lost since the original plan was presented at to the Planning Commission meeting held on May 5, 2016. Of particular concern are the interests of the 464 NHGCC homeowners who have voted to approve a club expansion project of which the tennis court relocation is a part. I am a former President of the NHGCC Board of Trustees and, in 2015, served as the Chair of the Long Range Planning Committee which was responsible for developing the Campus Expansion Plan. I am also past president of the Cypress Pointe Homeowners Association; the single-family neighborhood within Naples Heritage consisting of 101 homes, six of which are located on Colonial Court and face the site slated to house new tennis courts. I live within five homes of the site under consideration. In 2004 the NHGCC Board of Trustees was approached by a developer who was planning to build some 140 multi-family units on several pieces of property adjacent to Colonial Court. The proposal contemplated providing access to these units through the Naples Heritage main entrance off of Davis Boulevard, down Naples Heritage Drive and though Colonial Court. It was the judgement of the Board that the proposal offered no significant advantages to current residents and, in deed, would place added strain on the community resources already in place. Subsequent to turning down the proposal, the owner of one adjacent five-acre parcel offered to sell it to NHGCC. In light of everything that had taken place, it made sense to go ahead and make the purchase, which was approved in September, 2004. As is documented in the minutes of the Board of Trustees, as early as February, 2005, discussions concerning potential uses of the newly acquired property were begun. In the intervening years a number conversations were held about possible uses of this site as well as other sites within the NHGCC PUD. A frequently discussed prospect was the movement of the Club's main tennis courts to a site near the driving range which is dedicated preserve. On several occasions inquiries made of the Corps of Engineers (COE) resulted in strong admonitions about attempting to convert property already designated as preserve; this regardless of any offers to swap other land. Then, in July, 2014 the COE demonstrated its resolve by refusing to issue a permit to Quail West Country Club to convert dedicated preserve for use as tennis courts; a situation identical to ours. We concluded that going forward with an identical proposal was not likely to succeed. Taking the COE to court would not only be futile, but also expensive. The suggestion has been made that there has not been a good faith effort to find alternative sites for the tennis courts. The fact is that no fewer than 16 alternative sites were evaluated and documented in an Alternatives Analysis submitted as part of our application to the Corps of Engineers. The analysis, which goes on for 24 pages, reduces the practical sites to 3. They are the five-acre site adjacent to Colonial Court, the site near the driving range (discussed above) and a site west of the existing club house parking lot, a portion of which would be used for additional parking spaces. When these three sites are subjected to further analysis, the five-acre site comes out as being the least environmentally damaging. With respect to wildlife, all three sites contain no known listed species. As to loss of wetlands, development on the five-acre site is rated as the least damaging by a factor of over three times when compared to the driving range site and by a factor of 1.25 times when compared to the site west of the existing parking lot. I am not sure exactly how one would go about defining a "good faith effort," but I am sure that what was done qualifies under any rational definition. When NHGCC was planned in 1996, the Collier County Land Development Code dictated that only 185 parking spaces were required at the Clubhouse. Since then, the demographics of the residents have changed increasing the activity and usage of club facilities. Predictably, problems caused by the lack of parking are magnified during season and when Naples Heritage hosts events open to members and their guests as well as when inter-club events take place. The lack of space often leads to overflow parking along nearby roadways and other areas. This creates an unsafe condition for residents and complicates access for emergency vehicles. As far back as 2012, both the Club's insurance carrier and the East Naples Fire District have served notice that parking available to support the main Clubhouse area was inadequate. The plan under Page 2 consideration adds 66 parking spaces, an increase of 35%. To suggest that this is not a problem is to demonstrate total disinterest in the welfare of the community. In addition to responding to a growing problem with parking, the planned expansion addresses the increasing interest in health and wellness by including a new fitness center and an enlarged main pool. Finally some modification to the clubhouse are being made to accommodate additional activities. In March, 2015, the NHGCC Long Range Planning Committee was charged with the responsibility of developing a plan that would positively impact as many residents of the 799 homes as possible and to do so in a cost effective manner. Between April and October a plan was crafted following a broad-based examination of what other comparable clubs and newer communities were offering their residents. Between early October and mid-November, 22 neighborhood meetings were conducted to present the initial concept and to gain input that was used to make modifications. Between January and early February, 2016 three town hall meetings were held to present a mostly finished plan and to gather additional feedback. Approximately 1,000 people attended the small group and town hall meetings. It is inconceivable to suggest that there was insufficient notice given to the community. As a side note, one of the 22 meetings was actually a presentation made to the NHGCC Tennis Association annual dinner. If, as mentioned in one of the complaining correspondence, "many of the tennis players . . . were opposed to locating the tennis facility as proposed. . .," it was not at all evident at the meeting. In fact there was some concern about having spent a considerable sum to upgrade the existing tennis courts, to address safety concerns, just two years ago (at that time). Otherwise the overwhelming sentiment was favorable. They would finally have a facility worthy of hosting inter club competitions. But, since there is no objective data supporting either position, I suppose we are left with dueling anecdotes. On March 25, 2016 the results of a community-wide vote were published. 464 households voted yes. NHGCC documents require that a project like this must receive one more than 50% "yes" votes to be approved. Non-votes are counted as "no" votes. Against this stringent standard the project was approved by 58% of the 799 homeowners. Many other clubs require only that a majority of those voting is necessary for approval. Against that standard the project was approved by 64.7%. Within NHGCC there are 9 voting districts based on type of home; single family, terraces, verandas and villas. When the 464 votes are broken down by voting district, every single district, including the one composed of the single family homes, voted in favor of the project. The point here is that the Board of Trustees has the responsibility to serve the membership at large invariably leaving some individuals dissatisfied. Nonetheless, the residents in 464 homes have a legitimate expectation that this project will go forward as Page 3 has been presented to them. After all, their approval included a commitment to fund the project. One or more of the complaints made some reference to the impact on resale value of the homes on Colonial Court. Keeping pace with the marketplace begins with the community. Prospective buyers are not even going to look at individual homes if the community does not offer the features and amenities that they require. There are 799 homes a NHGCC that all suffer if we cannot keep pace with other communities. As you are aware from the written exchanges with the residents of Colonial Court, their concerns have been more than adequately addressed. Giving appropriate consideration to the wishes of the community at large is well overdue. I urge you to conclude your review and to move on. Thank you for your consideration. Since y, <24 t Richard M. Rogan Page 4 WALTER S. KULBACKI • 7677 Colonial Court. Naples Florida, 34112 703-894-8934 September 25, 2016 Marcus L. Berman, P.S. M. County Land Surveyor Development Review Division Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples Florida 34104 RE: Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club Vacation of Easement Petition VAC-PL20160001406 Dear Mr. Berman; My wife and I are full time residents and live at 7677 Colonial Court, Naples FL 34112 in the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Community.We are the owners of Lot 5 shown as Folio 61870001702 as shown on the site plan for vacation submitted by Gina Green, P.A. In addition I have been discussing this proposed relocation of a recreation area...specifically 6 tennis courts and associated additional infrastructure elements with Bob Mulhere( Planning Engineer Hole Montes), Eric Johnson(Collier County Planning Engineer), and Pat Dorbad, the GM of NHGCC. This letter expresses my strong objection to the vacation easement as outlined with the significant reasons below: • Safety and Traffic Flow—Putting the 6 courts in this residential area would greatly and dramatically increase traffic and create a safety hazard for not only the residents of Colonial Court..but a safety issue for all those that use this quiet residential area for walking and jogging.The road network on Colonial Court was not designed for this level of traffic ...as well as the feeder roads to Colonial Court. This is why the courts are currently located in a central location with the appropriate road network...as all Country Clubs in Naples have done. • The Residential Environmnet -Vacation of this easement would completely change the peaceful environment of a completely single family home environment....as well as destroying an essential preserve and conservation area that needs to be maintained in our residential community. Owners paid a premium for the Colonial Court location and were told the land across from their homes would remain a preserve and conservation area. • Buffer for Colonial Court Residents-The easement provides a buffer for our property from any development including the proposed relocation of courts in this plan. The proposed landscape buffer is insufficient to prevent the disruption and attendant noise and activity associated with a tennis recreational area. • Bird and Wildlife Impact-All of land to the south east and west is currently either wooded, conservation or preserve, except for the six single family homes. Vacation of this easement and the subsequent development of a recreational area on the adjacent property will have a negative environmental impact on birds and wildlife as well the residents of Colonial Court. • Topographcal Concerns to Include Water Flow—Because of the low level and topographical contour of the land, water flow, containment and contour of the land will require significant fill ..which when completed would not satisfy the efficient flow of water out of the area...and would cause a good deal of standing water which would not be good for health reasons.The SW Florida Water Authority is currently evaluating this for approval and more than likely will not be able and should not approve the plan for this area. . The Collier County planning Board also has raised concerns of water flow and associated issues for this plan. • Purchase of Land—The purchase of this land was to prevent any further development in this area and to maintain the preserve and conservation areas not only for the Colonial Court resident..but for all the residents of NHGCC who use the Colonial Court as a walking and jogging area. • No Good Faith Effort for Central Location—The 6 Tennis courts were initially planned in a central location near in the area of the golf driving range. For some reason there was no application developed and sent to the Corps of Engineers(COE)for this site. Approval could have been attained since once the 5 acres near Colonial Ct were traded for the proposed driving range location it would be a"zero plus"swap for preserve area. The Project Manager COE responsible for this effort was not sure why this was not done. • Buffers—Adequate buffering for the residents on Colonial Ct, as well as all residents bordering this proposed recreation area cannot be done if this easement is vacated. This again was a concern for the County Planning Board..in particular its Chairmen as noted in the planning board minutes. • Summary and Conclusion—There is no public benefit as highlighted in the letter requesting vacation. As outlined above, it is a public negative to not only the Colonial Court residents, but all NGCC residents(almost 50%voted against this plan).As highlighted above, safety,the preserve, and conservation environment are critical factors, along with the imminent water issues idenitified for vacating the easement. The Naples Heritage PUD has available property that could be utilized to develop this tennis facility near the existing clubhouse, golf club, swimming pool and restaurant. Adding this existing tract rather than developing it would add to the preserve and conservation area in the PUD. In our view and many other residents, there has not been a good faith attempt to pursue another location for the tennis courts. If this were a new development, no developer would propose to put a recreation facility such as proposed here in the midst of a single family residential area nor would a municipality in my view approve such a plan. In this instance, NHGCC seek to impose such a plan on residents some of whom have resided in the community for decades, and have done so with misrepresentations and half-truths. We respectfully and strongly request that you reject the application for Vacation of this conservation Easement. Should you need any additional information or clarification please do not hesitate o call me. (4, • Akie Walter and Catherine Kulbacki \402000.) ) ../\/,/ --,...., , _-------\---- TOT 38,BLOCK B `I )) " NAPLES HERITAGE II GCC PHASE TWO-A, TRACT GCI-GOLF COURSE \PB 28,PGS 11-13 \,,, NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE 1, - II PB 26,PGS 71-80 ,\ I II `/_ _ LOT 39,BLOCK B NAPLES HERITAGE I II / E%.LAKE N.-, \ GCC PHASE TWO-A, II \. PB 28,PGS 11-13 '\ A1ER CLAIROL SIRUCNIE TRACT GM,NAPLES HERITAGE \ I I GCC TRACTS B&C5 REPEAT,PB 27,PGS 98-100 LOT 6.BLOCK F, I \ II I NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TWO-A, PB 28,PGS 11-13 RUT a_ AREA EX CONSERVATION li • IINCO 81EF3T 9x IRAC1S B a _ EASEMENT TO REMAIN / RAFAAL PB 27,PCS 98-1W '\ �,, LOT 5,BLOCK F. ' NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TWO-A. 6' "NATURAL AREA w ¢ \ PB 28,PGS 11-13 E C b m v • W � F- EY 0' o m U LOT 4,BLOCK F, CI R tal n NAPLES HERITAGE NEVdNG _J Q GCC PHASE TWO-A, roil 11 AREA \ 5 Z PB 28,PGS 11-13 I. twL� _ - 5 l 44111-11 LOT 3,BLOCK F o NAPLES HERITAGE #11.1111l• ,, \ GCC PHASE TWO-A, PB 28,PGS 11-13 I A ,,________140IiiIRCE1II o NIS PAVILION i LL 111111:0111111 \ / LOT 2,BLOCK F — �� RESIRO(M1S, P z \ NAPLES HERITAGE . STORAGE k = GCC PHASE TWO-A, COVERED PORCH m PB 2&PGS 11-13 C o �rrrrl �- N m _ L I "NATURAL AREA (� sn - L - w LOT 1,BLOCK P NAPLES HERITACC� IGCC PHASE TWO��SMI log PB 28,PGS 11-3 1■t� 4R o VIEWING L _ T A INC 52' L - J 1. 68' I. �I I .I 1 2. . 0 ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +' "y`Y ``a` ` `.` ` `+` `.'+` `.' ' TRACT C5-CONSERVATION AREA ` . . . ` . ` ' . ` ` ' NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE 1, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.*.*.*.* *W*„LTONSDRyATIQN AREA_•.*.*.*.*_. •.*..*. . . v W . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . TRACT RW4-RIGHT-OF-WAY 1 . *` W *. *. *. •. RESERVATION NAPLES HERITAGE GCC I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PHASE 1,PB 26,PGS 71-80 I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'IN NO CASE SHALL THERE BE LESS THAN 50%OF THE NATIVE VEGETATION REMAINING. IF CLEARING RESULTS IN LESS THAN 50%OF RETAINED NATIVE VEGETATION,THEN SUPLLEMENTAL PLANTINGS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE 50%OF THE ORIGINAL NATIVE VEGETATION. EXHIBIT "A-1 " NAPLES HERITAGE TENNIS CENTER CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN NO SCALE 1 I l �� Highlights Pool/Deck Area:A refurbished pool and enlarged deck. mr }+[..(.�{.��jf"p'{�g---. Outdoor Concession Area end Beverage Bar An expanded na k hor ares IOCI di tg a small ha w th_17::::717,7„"!,;7,1,,,, tut seattn6 11 L111--1 lI I1'3t /rtnemCenter d t 1 approxmrately 2,/IIMFsyuam-f rot ,-,4,..0,1„5.,., .. .-_-,.... ,� , t 9 die(machine)area protides s larger `'� yew 9, " E.' -u. rt vy 4P i° d $ cumin en for equipment and a inure spavotus >?r, • Hoof plan. v df ,a .+: .,_—*toe"'fy�:.F+ MEN 5 r � ♦ �, ots . .g, AI proximately 2.(N70 square leo are �e-t i Eedmated for exercise classes which is G�+ f c times larger than the extsung exen:ise .. i' 9assroum.This allows rtwre attendees -,;.,,,,w..: t♦ _ -^' nd more class otPerm �. gs,allev,atiog Inc ,ki� �°' aq prohlemnfnxmhersheingiemedaway p ;w sxxs�oexca sue to oven-rowtied classes. .,A • noon i naw row. *O. • 3, ' a i ueearr N w"nfrared(IR)saunas will be an ,, err�,+s ur�wc - ...... e@ective tool fur❑atuml heating and V -'--a 1 uJth promotwn.in addinmt!o duir F Lwra wdue; relaxing etTect.IR saunas are cited as ` t= d :1111F/' : . Lee , • POOAr beneficial for musculoskeletal ailtnenu. .� T �" increased blood flmv,and boxtsting the - - =a '' I i a«•.«.... immures system's cell activity , ? m" Y 1 atanruarosc da A, ,,A A7AG S . li = A new physical therapy mom ueahles „� q,� rembers,at their own cost,to schedule // uacm onvenient onsite massage and fhempy .• '"" enar fort. sn+auss r n+c,se euxcsr -''eons at NH rather than having to drive • s I cuss ,isite. • t • a� r .. Idministration Offices 1 new reception area will provide, ;p;- �,�,,,_ `" i ieadly`face"to vtsnol5,guests,and CAW MGM h. ce .. ..embers of Naples Heritage.Added space �x �` ''''1';4t � gt "' t ' r' . 1,_ and improved design will foster better Note Thts illttstration is conceptual as of Feb 9,2016. funcnnnality and etliiciency for employees. Highlights M— — Note:This illustration is conceptual as of pool Deck Outdoor Concession Area/Beverage Bar "-I •� Feb ti 2018. A larger deck area supports a substantial increase in the An expanded snack bar,with several screened-in fables', I Itis t I enter and Admmtstrnfion Othces:A t wly conatru, .budJing number of lounge chairs.Plantings create a naturah tropical offers a casual dining venue for ptwl users,golfers,and r on the site of the existing tennis courts housing[he F`imeas Center and feel. tither--with a great poolside view. Administrative O Bees. Pow/ A concession window for golfers provides service with less A larger pool,updated to meet AD.4 and local code tongestion white offering an expanded menu. requirements,enables larger and more vaned water exercise li classes.The new design will improve overall aesthetics. A screened-in beverage bar,scaling a dozen people,provides j all-day ervice capability,with coffee,juices,and smrwtluas /-' -''/:t"At Geothermal energy will provide an environmentally friendly in the rooming ihn?ugh cocktails later in the day.This will and asst-cihc,ont method to nut only heat,but also cool,the help to alleviate happy hour Mtttlenecks,as well an otter an pool. attractive view of the poo}area Lane sttiping on the Fwol's floor will enable lap swimming. l — Multi-use Rooms:A renovation of the existing fitness facility to create two multipurpose moms. Tennis:A newly constructed facility located off of Colonial Court the live-sere property!. T NEw y ! +c'' - . sp '0,"'"' ," POOL ... f ENTRY> .,�"' �. =kms t �7 fCVE f, 4:-. / �`, t` \L,ttwsgY1 POOL i''T"Y i GAMING i }�f as. -- '�� t ; .----- 1, s r 1 ;° ' UOIE6" L - y(- y.-. li - l GALLERY y ,(`i t'7 : - ,'1 a MULTIPURPOSE ' " ' I � MEN'S �.. ` 'ti�..._ ;,1",...___-_,--7-2C:.-', i "S `" NEW SOUTH a '',.1..'. +t+., j.r.. ^ TERRACE ,v 4 SPA I \ 1\R. q-\ •" ♦ Y . ~ 4 A 1l a Note:This illustration is conceptual as of Feb 9,2016. ,. Note:This illustration is conceptual as of P ` Feb 9,2016. Highlights Highlights Mnhi-rose Ruomv Tennis Courts Tennis Postilion Two new rooms provide space for meetings,bridge,mahjong,poker,me.,and a venue for smaller functions(such as private Six contiguous Har-Tru tennis courts offer optimal match An approxmately 1,250-square-(loot roofed tennis pavilion dinners,luncheons,and cocktail parties).These dedicated rooms will help ensure that scheduled meettngs�evenLs will not be play conditions. olfets covered seating,washrooms,ice'water,and storage i disrupted by noise nor cancelled due to special events. space for tennis equipment. Multipurpose Room 1 The larger room,with seating for approximately 70,has a large window providing an exquisite view of the pool arca. R also offers access to a covered terrace area via three French doors,overlooking the 9th and 18th holes,which will be ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS an attractive option for dinner and cocktail patties. Library/Gaming Room Parking The smaller room,seating 24 people,serves as a library and game room and will be WiFi-enabled. The tennis relocation creates approximately 60 additional parking spaces at the clubhouse. Storage Converting existing office space into a storage area provides sorely needed storage space for tables,chairs.etc.and fors ill reduce juggling of furniture for event setup. i Co ier Co r�.nty t . STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2016 I SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20150001416 NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PUD PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT & AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club, Inc. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP 8150 Heritage Club Way Hole Montes, Inc. Naples,FL 34112 950 Encore Way Naples,FL 34110 There are hundreds of other property owners in this PUD. REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to amend Ordinance No. 95-74, the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Planned Unit Development (PUD), and to amend Ordinance No. 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code,by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 5.21±acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A)to Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD. The application also includes revising the property description, adding a recreation area, revising development standards, amending Exhibit "A" Master Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as Master Plan), and providing an effective date. The CCPC recommended approval of this petition on May 5, 2016. At the hearing, the applicant presented a conceptual site plan [see Attachment 3 -Items Presented by Applicant at CCPC(May 05 2016)] illustrating how the subject site would be developed. Subsequent to that meeting; however, the applicant requested changes to the PUD Document, including changes to the conceptual site plan, which is provided in this staff report after the location map. The petitioner PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 1 of 12 1 November 4, 2016 t r intended to present the change to the Board of County Commissioners (Board), but the item was remanded to the CCPC. Since the initial CCPC hearing, there has been public opposition to this amendment request or to the companion request (VAC-PL20160001406) that would vacate a portion of Tract C5 Conservation Area, including a portion of the 10-foot wide Collier County Conservation Buffer Easement with Tract 5 as shown on the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Phase One, Plat Book 26, Page 73 (see Attachment 5 - Vacation of Conservation Easement and Attachment 6 -Emails_Letters from Public). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 5.21± acres, is located south of Davis Boulevard and west of Collier Boulevard in Sections 3, 4, 9 and 10, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner, who owns a 5.21±-acre parcel of land that is currently located externally and abutting the southwest border of the PUD, is requesting to add this parcel into the PUD to be used for recreational purposes for the residents of the PUD. The master plan shows the subject parcel would be assigned two (2) land use categories, Recreation Area (RA) and Preserve (P). Most of the parcel would be designated RA while the southern portion would be added to the preserve of the PUD. According to the applicant, "The application also seeks to change the southerly 100' of PUD totaling approximately 3.0 acres, from `possible future public thoroughfare right-of-way acquisition' to preserve."These changes can be found in the proposed ordinance (see Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance). Since the future public thoroughfare right-of-way is contained in the subdivision plat, a vacation of this right-of-way is being processed separately (VAC- PL20160001403) as well as the aforementioned VAC-PL20160001406 petition. These vacation petitions will be reviewed as companion items when the PUD Amendment is reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners (Board). Staff is recommending approval of both vacation petitions. Since the petition was reviewed by the CCPC on May 5,2016,the applicant is requesting to modify the conceptual site plan by proposing a different location for the access point (to the subject parcel) as well as making further changes to the proposed uses, exterior lighting, hours of operation, and amplified sound. (See location map and revised conceptual site plan on the following pages) PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 2 of 12 November 4,2016 mLONAOES AT PRONw ENOP o OaOQ1 LATE ESTATES ��t,\\1111111111111111111111 d1111�1P� � 29A BARBARA ANDA �p�.Ftl ¢ �T '.1�O�,I111111111111111111I111 BM/1 AP Z m ♦ ip ii \\III 1 �II`canes BATE ESTATES= �� 27 �� ? :;���111111111�RI2B aNroms @ .. : _ . _NIT _ 1111 ,4), _ ¢"Y GO DEN GATE w ��C �J- ;�- ►`o PARTWAY CITY 1�O i ��0�,, �h `71 m I/ll � �� GOLDEN OAIF • '3 £i ''�Illl 7 BDTN9IA a LAKES HERON y POND A CONVERGE ,`_ Mit 9 (�) INS -- _— 'OW' • I , sss��� COLLIER BLVD. \O I 1 'AK INTERSTATE-]5 y(2,VSE (Des) `•�/� !!! 32 33 yWRYOOD 34■ WOE LATE i`CCINELX 35 `' WE 1 GREEN PARK 8 i MUSTS..PARK � _ I��= _i' BFAKSHNiE LAKES 1 _ = ' - - - (DRO (DW) TUAo Awu PI% g ALIAY A. I RADIO ROAD (C.R.855) _ 0% PL' •• • a% .,` let \� = i 1 y►� 3 w ( = lsly T.- AISI MOR r) ,� \aao9oE BDUIivARo J B IAKES TELE COIIYEItCET cIAL PLAZA / ,�,, i't , Iw —co,„,,, 2 EAST a IILI\� �T� �� ( / OF NAPLES SNE 5 rDRI) 4LAIQ5 .114 --- MON 3FOREST OLEN PLAZA \\\ ,�� 11 (ptl) BENBDa£ � •� II g 9HOPPEs aDAR PROJECT f Vika-1 1p ' -gUQppj/ • 8 ASMRA I�'• HANNOCK 41 LOCATION A- i- .......k.„ i -'1111111 4411! _o . �i�iii�'1042_�uu� i. IS R 84)DAVIS BOULEVARD a ! Ii I/II �t �, / - A s BAI I 1�11.=��� - - �/�!=` /«I \ 1111111;1111A = � ilml HER TAM IIIU111111111111111�. i� 4D .. ,` 1 mann m " SITE yip 8 TEM •C�"- NAPLES NARaIAI - NHoa l 9 o II LOCATION I PME - ��� 4 Wuow aw d M. _� Si :: I o ` NOES a rsLAw1A 1it ' IeRADDW— LAMP CONSERVATOR AREA E17 WATEAF' Wom H _ ■ �: ®TATER SE R^_ID ASSEMBLY HACIENDA LAYS FEST �:= �- � �`[ y y COLONY - O TRMAL Toms p!o((P) 18 CWNN 1RY CMB M,.LANES ? 14 (�) , , _ �{! iiIf s■i•i'i■i- MUD ESTATES O MC CUM yyNTMOTON I S m \ — .- ,+!''�� /fir +►I►4 Y AP -_ wN\DBa1m— Mo009 wvnAUY V• ff�-000 "1" =� '' + ..1100000111."I" ��rsYln RATTLESNAKE y p( "7217.. IAM 217. III ro HCg1YGDQ E ' "= LLLY ` yDAODW3outs HACIENDA LANES eLPDu � LELY PAWS (ORO COUNTRY COHEOEMOCO �- 2A 21 PARK zi Vs CLUB V ISOE I J ' \111111111NIIII111111RIVV1IA�Ai. I A 22 cOLIT qIRmaD� —IA ,1111►,A�� 0" 111 ILLY,A RESO11 RT COMMUNITY O '■ I ,,• 11W El Mp SABAL PALM ROAD 1.II,,I. ,�1�io i� LOCATION MAP ZONING MAP PETITION #PUDR-PL-2015-1416 a I j LW l 39,BLOCK d -\ I NAPLES PHASE HERITAGTWO-AE , TRACT DC4-RIGHT-OF-WAY / � ^v/ GCC/ PB 28,PGS 11-13 �— RESERVATION NAPLES HERITAGE I t OCK B GCC PHASE 1,PB 26,PGS 71-80P ASE TWO-A II I \ • LOT 39,BLOCK 9 ��, NAPLES HERITAGE II II \ / `�• GCC PHASE T11-13 I I I I PB 28,PGS 11-13 I 1 /�' ,-11111-111°1111/1--''.7' E%.LAKE \ \ I II I \ - I VII I \ • I TRACT GC4B,NAPLES HERITAGE \'� GCC TRACTS B&C5 REPLAT,PB 27,PGS 98-100 I ' LOT 6,BLOCK F, �\\ I NCP PH HERITAGE I GCC PHASE TWO—A, TRACT a-COHRVAIIM ARG I I I PB 28,PGS 11-13 TRACT a-C019RYAlION ARG / NAPI61Btl1AQ GCC 1RACR B NAA6ItRTA(i C[C 1RICIS B t �� --___ __ t a PEAAT.PB D,PIS 98-100/• II I F---------------- 05 tR At PB 7/,PR 9B 1ao I II LOT 5,BLOCK F, NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TWO-A, ir) 3 PB 28,PGS 11-13 NATURAL ARE ' III I �� 0 I LOT 4,BLOCK F, • I I J I NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TWO-A, PB 28,PGS 11-13 I i I o N o oi- I I 0 FRE IRMA - — - LOT 3,BLOCK F le•W; �_ NAPLES HERITAGE �� {_—riq�—i • GCC PHASE TWO—A, I �, �� I PB 28,PGS 11-13 i 1„., b.b el ._ 1 III11111* 11PB28PGS113 II III ail LOT 1,BLOCK F • I• Edq; NAPLES HERITAGE I I . � _ EE33 • GCC PHASE TWO-A, PB 28,PGS 11-13 1111111 TEN 3��1�(3„ 6,11 ibi• , ,1 8 iiin II 111111 I 1111111i ,LIIMI .11[ •1 4 [ � W. W v. * ` ` * " *W** ***W* *. W* * * * * " I TRACT C5-CONSERVATION AREA . ` ` • . . ` ` ` ` ` ` " NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE 1, `• *'.' '.'. •'W`+'* `4'* " PB 26,PGS 71-80 ., * *,PRO SE CQN E,,(R17ATIOK1.AgE6• W ' W V • •., "V" ` ' .. " " ' ` ` ' " " " ` " ` " ` ' N'd TRACT RW4—RIGHT—OF—WAT " ' • • *' " " . * 4. * ' RESERVATION NAPLES HERITAGE GCC W . r .. ,. ,. . .. .. .. ,. •• • .y PHASE 1,PB 26,PGS 71-80 v • • 4, * WWW * W WW * * .4. W .*W S828'945W6W.8 .We • r . W .*v. 4P . �, EXHIBIT "A-1 " NAPLES HERITAGE TENNIS CENTER CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN NO SCALE 4 4 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the subject site. North: Tract C5 Conservation and Buffer Easement (water management area), then farther north are single-family dwellings, zoned Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD. East: Tract C5 Conservation and Buffer Easement,including a portion of a ten(10)- foot wide Collier County Conservation and Buffer Easement/Tract RW4 100- foot wide Future Right-of-Way Reservation. Farther northeast is right-of-way for Colonial Court, still farther northeast are single-family dwellings. All aforementioned lands are zoned Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD. South: Vacant/undeveloped land Tract E (for future multi-family residential), zoned Shadow Wood PUD. West: Vacant/undeveloped land, zoned A. f.APLES S'F11 q; 1ERITAGE „ �, P' e6 ,cosy ,7 R LSCC „ K t. X31. 4�..CaK # F tit1. $ s t It p\ �4. 1 Xx+ Subject Property ^A4 ' _tIPS,p(, zoning; ' x H P,<f It ayg F-` O III 1 4 , 1: SHADOW s WOOD K tirtS I ;ct - Aerial(County GIS) PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 3 of 12 November 4, 2016 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject site is identified as Urban Designation, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff reviewed the proposed land uses for consistency with the Urban Designation. Adding the 5.21±,acres to the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD for the development of additional recreational facilities and a portion of this acreage for preserve are both non-residential uses listed (#2-Parks,open space and recreational uses)in the Urban Designation of the FLUE and therefore, consistent with the GMP (see Attachment 4-FLUE Consistency Review). Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff reviewed the application and found this petition consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. There is no increase in the number of residential dwelling units/traffic generation,no changes to point(s) of access or circulation,and no changes to the developer commitments; therefore, there is no impact on the previous findings of approval. Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. The acreage of preserve, as shown on the PUD Master Plan, will increase by approximately 3.9 acres with this amendment to the PUD [three (3) acres from vacation of the 100-foot wide right-of-way reservation and 0.9 acre from the parcel to be added to the PUD]. In total, approximately 251.9 acres or 44.7% of the land within the PUD, as shown on the PUD Master Plan, will be set aside as preserve. This acreage exceeds the twenty-five percent (25%) minimum native vegetation retention (preserve)requirement pursuant to CCME Policy 6.1.1. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. ANALYSIS: Applications for amendments to, or rezoning to, the PUD shall be in the form of a PUD Master Plan of development along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table. The PUD Application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed deviations from the LDC. Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5,Planning Commission Recommendation(commonly referred to as the"PUD PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 4 of 12 November 4,2016 II Findings"), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns. The project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. There are no impacts or changes in location to previously approved preserves, as shown on the PUD Master Plan, and no listed species of wildlife were observed on-site during the listed species survey performed by the environmental consultant. The proposed PUD Amendment will add approximately 3.9 acres of preserve to the PUD [three (3) acres from vacation of the 100-foot wide right-of-way reservation and 0.9 acre from the parcel to be added to the PUD]. Landscape Review: No buffer is proposed along the south boundary of the RA-zoned area of the subject parcel because it would abut a preserve. The Master Plan illustrates that a ten (10)-foot wide buffer is proposed along the west property line of the subject parcel where abutting the A- zoned lands. Finally, the Master Plan shows that a twenty-five (25)-foot wide buffer is proposed along the east boundary of the subject parcel, internal to the PUD. Essentially, this buffer would be combined with the twenty-five(25)-foot wide strip of natural area that results from the approval of the companion petition (VAC-PL20160001406), which seeks to vacate that portion of Tract C5 Conservation and Buffer Easement. Staff has reviewed the PUD Document and the master plan and has no issues with the requested changes. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition request, the PUD Document, and the Master Plan for compliance with Collier County Access Management Resolution Number 13-257; and as noted above, for consistency with the transportation elements of the GMP. Transportation Planning staff is recommending approval of the request. Utilities Review: Approved. No comment. Zoning Services Review: The proposed Master Plan shows that the parcel that would be incorporated into Tract A of the Naples Golf and Country Club PUD and assigned the "RA" land use category. The applicant proposes a new principal use under Section 3.2.A.4 of the PUD Document, which reads as follows: "4. Recreation area,labeled RA on the Master Plan,limited to tennis courts,restrooms, landscaping and stormwater facilities, for use by all residents and guests." Staff has no issue with any of the uses proposed in the RA land use category. As a means of further controlling the future design of this parcel,the proposed ordinance includes a conceptual site plan, PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 5 of 12 November 4, 2016 illustrating the location of the tennis courts,restrooms,and off-street parking areas. The remaining undeveloped portions of the site would be comprised of natural/preserve areas. The PUD Document contains new setbacks for principal structures in the RA land use category. The proposed setbacks listed in Section 3.6.F are as follows: Front yard: 50 feet Side yard: 25 feet Rear yard: 25 feet Preserve: 25 feet Staff has no issue with any of the proposed setbacks. The PUD Document also contains limitations on building height,exterior lighting, and hours of operation. Amplified sound shall be prohibited. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08": 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land,surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage,sewer, water,and other utilities. Potable water and sanitary sewer lines are in the vicinity of the subject parcel. Notwithstanding the fact that new recreational facilities are proposed next to residential areas,the proposed Master Plan shows that Colonial Court would serve both as a means of access and as a separation between the two land uses. Based on this design, which would include appropriate buffering, in conjunction with the development standards contained in the PUD Document, staff determined the intended recreational use would be compatible with the existing development in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in thosero osedparticularly P � as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application,which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. The applicant states that "the continuing operation and maintenance of areas and facilities that are private (not to be provided or maintained at public expense) shall be maintained through the existing homeowners association. Additionally, the development will be required to obtain SDP approval. This processes [sic] will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer." PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 6 of 12 November 4, 2016 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals,objectives,and policies of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives,and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum). 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements,restrictions on design,and buffering and screening requirements. Section 3.11 of the PUD Document indicates that"Buffers shall be installed along the rear yard of multi-family or recreational facilities which abut off-site single-family zoned or vacant agriculturally zoned lands." The Master Plan shows buffers would be placed along the east and west boundaries of the subject parcel. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. A majority of the acreage associated with the subject property is to be used for recreational purposes with the remaining used as a natural/preserve area. The applicant's response to this criterion was, "There are adequate areas within usable open space proximate to and nearby this development. The existing PUD contains approximately 103 acres of golf course; 248 acres of preserve; and 87 acres of lake." The site will be required to demonstrate compliance with usable open space requirements at the time of SDP review. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities,both public and private. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations,or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case,based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. No deviations are being requested with this petition. PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 7 of 12 November 4,2016 Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable": 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals,objectives,and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report.Staff determined the recreational facilities proposed in connection with this amendment are appropriate for this area of the County. By adding the ±5.21 acres, the PUD density would decrease from 1.43 dwelling units per acre to 1.42 dwelling units per acre. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The parcel proposed to be added into the PUD directly abuts another PUD. It is staff's opinion that this would not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The subject parcel is currently owned by the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club,Inc., who purchased the property in 2004. The boundary of the PUD would change if the new parcel were incorporated into the PUD, but not to the extent that the new PUD boundary would be illogically drawn. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff does not anticipate the new uses would adversely impact living conditions in the neighboring community. PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 8 of 12 November 4, 2016 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development,or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. The project is subject to the Transportation commitments contained in the PUD Ordinance, which includes provisions to address public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Stormwater Best Management Practices, flow paths, treatment, and storage from this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District,and County staff will evaluate all required stormwater calculation, site plans, and documentation during the development review process. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated that this amendment would significantly reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property.Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Staff does not anticipate the proposed amendment at the subject site would be a deterrent to the improvement of the vacant land to the west or to the south. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 9 of 12 November 4,2016 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Recreational facilities are not permitted in the A zoning district. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff's opinion the proposed uses and associated development standards and developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance,as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF) and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety,and welfare. To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing. PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 10 of 12 November 4,2016 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent conducted a duly noticed NIM on February 9,2016 at the Collier County South Regional Library at 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway. The applicant summarized the petition by indicating the project intent was to construct a small building for refreshments and a pro-shop, but that the primary use will be for tennis courts (see Attachment 2 -Application and Support Material). The attendees asked questions related to the anticipated development process: likelihood and length of time for project approval: whether there are other lands that can be improved with tennis courts: the anticipated buildable area for the subject parcel,and the future for the non-buildable areas(e.g., Will it become preserve? Maintenance/oversight of preserve?): the number of departments reviewing the petition; and property owner notification. It should be noted that subsequent to the original CCPC hearing, staff received letters of objection to the project as contained in Attachment 6 -Emails_Letters from Public. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on October 31, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Application and Support Material 3) Items Presented by Applicant at CCPC (May 5, 2016) 4) FLUE Consistency Review 5) Vacation of Conservation Easement 6) Emails_Letters from Public 7) Legal Notifications PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 11 of 12 November 4, 2016 PREPARED BY: g „-- 7 l'1>----- / /z 7--A ERIC JOHNSON,AICP, CFM,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: i ',73 "-- i // - 2- /4 RAYM1/s V. ELLOWS, ZON ANAGER DATE ZONIN DIVISION MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: -_- / JA ES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT riv) , //(/„. 1,47 _ '''' / iN„ . , 1i 73 A 6 DAVID S. WILKISON DATE DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 12 of 12 "11) Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2016 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL201500002737 COLLIER COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY BUSINESS PARK PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT & AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Collier County Tim Hancock,AICP c/o Dan Rodriguez, Solid and Hazardous Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Waste Management Division Director 3200 Bailey Lane, #200 3339 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 302 Naples, FL 34105 Naples,FL 34112 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to rezone property from a Rural Agricultural(A)zoning district to an Industrial Planned Unit Development (IPUD) zoning district to allow solid waste and resource recovery facilities and public vehicle and equipment storage/repair facilities for a project on 344± acres to be known as Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located within the North Belle Meade Overlay (NBMO) and the Rural Mixed-Use Overlay, Sending Lands (RMUO-Sending Lands), approximately one and one-half (1.5) miles east of Collier Boulevard and one (1) mile north of White Lake Boulevard in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida(see location map on page 2). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: In 2009, the subject property was approved for a conditional use (Resolution 09-275) for uses associated with the recovery of solid waste and public vehicle equipment storage/repair. This petition seeks to rezone the property to IPUD to allow for more flexibility with respect to future site design and development standards, including proposed access to the site. The list of uses in the proposed ordinance for this IPUD would generally remain the same as those approved in connection with Resolution 09-275. Approval of this IPUD would repeal the conditional use. (See location map on page 2) PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 1 of 18 November 21,2016 t Y 1 1 1i11ii1ii11111111111113 =- °e Green i , 1i�11ii1111i1i�1i�11� EN-55!-2.1_:-.-2.21-Em.-mi BLVD .. .. � { 1 od � --- . 111iiii161111ii1111� MINEMMEMMMINIIIIMII �o� ®sa� e®mpc®asp it S-_-'+' ,._._m... , i l i n aml¢6®ommmaceomGF�O�� ' iii111iii1111111��11i�ee Ill c° 111111111 S!l111911ii111111191e 11111111:;;;-111111 _iqIu11111111p11111® �kWv ---� I i , � I II � , LOCATION it li r L - PROJECT 1ii11il1111ii111ii111 LOCATION �' ' , ®100141 1 ilii11i1111ii111111�e ,e:'�1111�11 � 1111111111116111 1 11e o��` T - -� � i117 ve�' �1e11111 �c __ S� 0 11111 a, �o� 1111011 � _._ ��� oMPUD 1111 1111 111111111 Davig \ ri; _V4 .. ° i IS---! pun. __. 1111111 .Z 1111111' N rillevta. 1P tae:° 7-4101 /1/11111 __ Kelnsal�_�I11IL X00000 M....o ME A 7. I m i ro w�. o000 4441 ate, r c,,,,,,_ v0vs J ossa II. Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL-2015-2737 11 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD boundaries: Northwest: Hide Out Golf Club,zoned A within the RFMUO-Sending Lands and the NBMO. Northeast: Jenkins Way right-of-way, then a single-family dwelling, zoned A within the RFMUO-Sending Lands and the NBMO. East: A mix of vacant residential lands and parcels with single-family dwellings, zoned A within the RFMUO-Sending Lands Overlay and the NBMO. The subject property also has frontage on Garland Road. There are three (3) parcels east of Garland Road, which are comprised of a vacant residential parcel, a parcel with a single-family dwelling, and another vacant parcel owned by Collier County, all zoned A within the RFMUO-Sending Lands and the NBMO. South: Land owned by Collier County, zoned A, including the Collier County Landfill Site,which is located within the RFMUO-Sending Lands and the NBMO. West: Canal, then farther west, are a mix of vacant residential lands and parcels with single-family dwellings zoned Estates (E). 27t�ti AYE'5W-_ ,✓' , p I -ll AVF SYV _, �`Markley AV F_ � rhsW+Fs/12...@ft[StMt. � q Aerial(County GIS) PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 3 of 18 November21, 2016 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property is located within the Agricultural/Rural designated area, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District(RFMUD), Sending Lands, as identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The RFMUD generally provides a transition between the Urban and Estates designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural/Rural and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The RFMUD employs a balanced approach to protect natural resources and private property rights and provides for large areas of open space. The RFMUD allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service. The Sending Lands have been identified as being least appropriate for development within the RFMUD. Based on the evaluation of available data, these lands have a greater degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than Receiving Lands or Neutral Lands and generally have avoided being disturbed through previous development or agricultural operations. The Sending Lands designation allows participation in the Transfer of Development Rights(TDR)program, including Rural Villages and residential clustering, single-family residences at a density of one(1)dwelling unit per five (5) acres or legally nonconforming parcel, agricultural uses, and other non-residential uses including facilities for the collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste. The RFMUD allows for resource recovery activities within Sending Lands, stating, Public facilities, including solid waste and resource recovery facilities, and public vehicle and equipment storage and repair facilities, shall be permitted within Section 25, Township 49S, Range 26E, on lands adjacent to the existing County landfill. This shall not be interpreted to allow for the expansion of the landfill into Section 25 for the purpose of solid waste disposal. The existing Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park was approved as a conditional use on June 23,2009,by Resolution No.09-275,allowing for yard waste and storm debris processing [seventy-two(72) acres], construction and debris processing [fourteen (14) acres], a recycled material processing facility [fourteen(14)acres],a household hazardous waste facility[five(5)acres],an administration and equipment maintenance facility [nine (9) acres], tire processing [three (3) acres], and white goods (old appliances) processing [three (3) acres]. This petition would provide for the same type uses within PUD zoning. Applicable Future Land Use Element(FLUE)policies were evaluated by staff as part of the original (2009) conditional use request. The proposed changes do not necessitate new re-evaluation of applicable FLUE policies under Objective 7. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed rezoning petition may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 4 of 18 November 21,2016 Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states, The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions,SRA designation applications, 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 access 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 traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic 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 traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. The proposed rezoning was reviewed based on the then applicable 2015 AUIR. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed development will generate approximately ninety-one (91)PM peak hour trips, on the adjacent roadway links, as follows: PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 5 of 18 November 21,2016 Table 1. Level of Service(LOS) and Capacity Roadway Link 2015 AUIR Current Peak Hour 2015 Existing Peak Direction Remaining LOS Service Capacity Volume/Peak Direction Collier Boulevard Golden Gate C 2,300/North 853 (C.R. 951) Parkway to Golden Gate Main Canal (4- lane divided) Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Main B 3,600/North 2,054 (C.R. 951) Canal to I-75 (8- lane divided) Collier Boulevard I-75 to Davis D 3,600/North 764 (C.R. 951) Boulevard(8- lane divided) Collier Boulevard Davis Boulevard to C 3,000/North 1,012 (C.R. 951) Rattlesnake Hammock Road (6-lane divided) Davis Boulevard Radio Road to B 2,900/West 1,629 Collier Boulevard (6-lane undivided) Based on the 2015 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for the amended project within the five(5)-year planning period. Therefore,the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME). Policy 6.1.2 requires eighty percent (80%) preservation of native habitat outside the Natural Resources Protection Area (NRPA) Sending Lands. The land preservation requirement is reduced where lands contiguous to the Collier County Landfill are to be developed pursuant to CCME Policy 6.1.6. The policy is specific to this site and states: On the County owned land located in Section 25, Township 26 E, Range 49 S (+/- 360 acres), the native vegetation retention and site preservation requirements may be reduced to 50% if the permitted uses are restricted to the portions of the property that are contiguous to the existing land fill operations; exotic removal will be required on the entire +/- 360 acres. The proposed development will require the preservation of fifty percent(50%) of the native vegetation on site, which equates to 172.15 acres. PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 6 of 18 November 21,2016 1 GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. ANALYSIS: Applications to rezone to or amend IPUDs shall be in the form of an IPUD Master Plan of development, along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table. The IPUD application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed deviations from the LDC. Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report(referred to as"Rezone Findings"),which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (Board), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the IPUD Document to address environmental concerns. The minimum preserve requirement of 172.15 is being provided. In addition, the 200-foot wide native vegetation buffer tract will consist of six (6) acres of existing native vegetation. The location of the minimum required preserve has not been modified from the site plan previously approved with the conditional use (Resolution 09-275). The document Recent Preserve Monitoring & Status Report has been provided to summarize the habitat management that has taken place within the onsite preserve areas. The habitat management activities are intended to benefit a number of listed species, including Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides Borealis),Florida Bonneted Bat(Eumops floridanus),Big Cypress Fox Squirrel(Sciurus Niger Avicennia), Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon Corais Couperi), and Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus Polyphemus). The project has obtained the Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)Environmental Resource Permit(ERP) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit. Collier County Pollution Control requested the IPUD address 2016 modeling results that indicate the Collier County Water-Sewer District's Golden Gate wellfield recharges from portions of the Golden Gate Canal during the dry season. The proposed site's discharge point to the canal is within the recharge area. As such, the PUD Document (#2 under General in Exhibit F of Attachment 1 —Proposed Ordinance) contains the following commitment: At the time of SDP application for any future land uses, Collier County Pollution Control or its successor will review each land use to determine if water quality testing is warranted based on the proposed land use. Where warranted, minimum standards for storm water testing at the point of discharge to the canal at a reasonable frequency will be developed and made part of the SDP approval.Additionally, all facilities shall be managed using the relevant industry best management PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 7 of 18 November 21,2016 practices. The above are considered to be guidelines until specific standards are developed and made part of the Land Development Code at which time, the LDC standards shall apply. It is requested that the stormwater is tested at the point of discharge to the canal for the following parameters: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-8 metals [Arsenic (As), Barium (Ba), Cadmium(Cd),Chromium(Cr),Lead(Pb),Mercury(Hg), Selenium(Se),and Silver(Ag)];organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)—Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8081/8082; extractable organics [semi-volatile organics and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)]-EPA 8270; organophosphorus pesticides—EPA 8141; and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—EPA 624 at a reasonable frequency. Testing for some of these parameters may become a component of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit;however,as of the date of this report,this permit has not yet been obtained. Landscape Review: The Master Plan shows that a twenty(20)-foot wide utility easement would run along the IPUD's north property line. No landscape buffer is required at this location due to the large expanse of preserve area located just south of the aforementioned utility easement. Along much of the IPUD's southern property line,a Type"A"Buffer(on the subject site)would be installed between the internal roadway of the IPUD and the Collier County Landfill site. Along the east property line, the Master Plan shows the existing preserve area may be used to satisfy the Type "C" Buffer requirement where the developable area of the subject property (i.e., Tract D) abuts the adjacent A-zoned lands. In this area, the proposed preserve is 160 feet wide. It should be noted that no landscape buffer is proposed in the area where the subject property abuts the A-zoned parcel owned by Collier County. The Master Plan shows that a twenty(20)-foot wide utility easement would run along much of the IPUD's western boundary. A 200-foot wide native vegetation buffer tract, which may be used to satisfy the twenty (20)-foot wide Type "C" Buffer requirement, would separate the IPUD from the canal and E-zoned properties to the west. Transportation Review: Approved. Utilities Review: The proposed IPUD Document contains commitments regarding future water and wastewater connections. The Collier County Water-Sewer District has sufficient capacity to provide water and wastewater service to the site in the future. The drawing labeled, "Future Access and Utilities Exhibit" (see Attachment 2 –Application and Support Material) is a conceptual drawing that was provided by the applicant to show that water and sewer lines would be installed along the future access. Zoning Services Review: As previously mentioned,the subject property was approved for a conditional use pursuant to Resolution 09-275. The conceptual site plan approved in 2009 contained all the uses proposed in this petition,albeit,with a different labeling convention. With respect to the proposed uses,the following is a non-exhaustive and simplified list, which briefly describes the activities or items associated with each use (as itemized in Exhibit A of the IPUD Document): 1. Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Facilities. PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 8 of 18 November 21,2016 i. Construction and Demolition Debris includes but is not limited to woods, metals, drywall, concrete, and the like,which are removed from active construction sites. ii. Dirty Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) is a specialized facility that receives, separates, and prepares recyclable materials to the extent that they are available to be marketed to end-user manufacturers. An example of a MRF includes but is not limited to a sorting facility with the bi-products that are sold, or a bio-solids facility that may generate energy. iii. Household Hazardous Waste are waste items typically found in a common household garage or a substance that needs special handling, such as but not limited to paint, oil, cleaners and solvents, computers, monitors,printers and peripherals, fluorescent bulbs, batteries, and the like. iv. Storm Debris includes vegetative materials that are typically collected after a storm event. v. Tires includes any and all tires. vi. White Goods predominately includes common household appliances, such as washing machines, dryers, refrigerators, air-conditioning/heating units, and the like. vii. Yard Waste includes but is not limited to vegetative materials from households, such as lawn/yard trimmings and the like. viii. Landfill Gas Management involves control of the gas that is typically produced by landfills. The gases must be effectively collected in order to reduce odors or emissions,and they can be potential sources of energy, such as a system similar to the Landfill Gas-to- energy facility at the Landfill, etc. ix. Leachate Management is the management of the liquid bi-products derived from the decomposing of organic materials that typically drains from a landfill. This may involve the use of pipes, tanks, deep injection wells, and similar infrastructure. x. Recycled Materials Processing Facility may process typical recyclables such as, but not limited to, glass,plastic, paper, Styrofoam, or cardboard. xi. Brown Goods includes but is not limited to furniture, mattresses, and the like. 2. Public Utilities Department Buildings/Solid Waste Administration Building Complex buildings may include but are not limited to Wastewater Collections, Water Distribution, Utility Billing and Customer Service, Solid Waste and Compliance Laboratory facilities, and off-street parking areas and other appurtenances. 3. Equipment Maintenance Building may include but is not limited to various public utilities and solid/hazardous waste equipment. PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 9 of 18 November 21,2016 4. Public Vehicle and Equipment Storage and Repair involves the storage and/repair of County vehicles including but not limited to vehicles for water, wastewater, and solid/hazardous waste). Public utilities equipment may include but is not limited to a parts inventory of pipes, valves,pumps, and the like. The subject property lies within close proximity to low density residential lands. Staff recognizes the importance of mitigating the potential for adverse impact (from the IPUD) as it interfaces with these residential lands. The Master Plan illustrates how the developable areas of the site are oriented to the center/interior, identified as Tracts A,B, C, and D. The Master Plan depicts a twenty(20)-foot wide utility easement located along a majority of the west property line and a forty (40)-foot wide access easement along a majority of the east property line. These easements are located along the perimeter of the property near where the IPUD's developable lands are generally proposed. The Master Plan also depicts the locations of the preserve and the native vegetation buffer tract. These areas are located to the interior of the aforementioned easements and would effectively separate the developable lands of the IPUD from the adjacent residential properties outside the IPUD. As shown on the Master Plan,the preserve along the east property line would be a minimum of 160 feet in width. The native vegetation buffer tract along the west property line would be a minimum of 200 feet in width. It should be noted that the majority of the IPUD's intense industrial uses and all of the tallest buildings are intentionally proposed in Tracts B and C. Tracts B and C are nestled between Tracts A and D,which are located between the native vegetation and preserve tracts. The western periphery of Tract B would be located over 500 feet from the IPUD's west property line. The eastern edge of Tract C would be located over 460 feet from the IPUD's east property line. The applicant is requesting to rezone to IPUD, in part,to allow for flexibility with respect to site design and development standards. The following table compares the proposed IPUD's design and development standards with the same in the A and Industrial (I) zoning districts. Table 2. Design and Development Standards Design Standard A I IPUD Tract A Tract B Tract C Tract D Minimum Floor Area of Buildings 550 1,000 550 550 550 550 (square feet) Minimum Lot Area(square feet) 217,800 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Minimum Lot Width(linear feet) 165 100 100 100 100 100 Maximum Building Height-Zoned 35 feet 50 35 50 50 35 (feet) Maximum Building Height-Actual N/A 50 47 62 62 47 (feet) Minimum Yards (feet) Front Yard 50 feet 25 25 25 25 25 Side Yard 30 feet * 15 15 15 15 Rear Yard 50 feet 50 25 25 25 25 * The total of all side yard setbacks shall equal twenty percent(20%)of the lot width,with a maximum of fifty(50)feet.No side yard shall be less than ten(10)feet.Alternative dimensions may be possible when approved through a unified plan of development involving one or more lots under common ownership where the yard requirements are met for the unified site but not necessarily for each parcel within the unified site. PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 10 of 18 November 21,2016 When comparing standards, it is noteworthy to consider that the IPUD's proposed minimum lot area represents the standard with which there would be the most significant departure from the A zoning district; however, it is also important to note that this IPUD is 344 acres, owned entirely by one (1) entity, and the developable area accounts for 110 acres or thirty-two percent(32%) of the site. Another significant difference between the IPUD and the base zoning districts is the maximum allowable building height. Under current entitlements, the maximum (zoned)building height is thirty-five (35) feet. However, the IPUD proposes a zoned height of fifty (50) feet and actual height of sixty-two (62) feet. In the cover letter that was given to staff in the initial submittal (see Attachment 2 —Application and Support Material), the applicant asserted, "Not unlike many recycling and reuse facilities in operation, in order to contain potential odors,the majority of the operation is provided inside an enclosed building. This requires increased vertical clearance for dumping,sorting and equipment associated with processing such as dryers." The applicant further stated, "The 35' height limitation would be preserved for areas nearest existing residential development to provide a `stepped' effect for building heights that will improve transitioning within the project." Staff was concerned with how the requested height would be viewed from the adjacent residential properties. The sight line exhibit (see Attachment 2 — Application and Support Material) illustrates the anticipated view from the residential properties to the west. The exhibit demonstrates the importance of the trees within the native vegetation buffer tract and how they serve to provide a visual barrier to the buildings in Tracts A and B. The drawing shows the buildings would be undetected from the residential areas, although staff notes that 100%opacity is unlikely. It should also be noted that the tallest building proposed in Tract B is depicted as fifty-five(55)feet in height(on the sight line drawing),whereas the IPUD Document proposes a sixty-two (62)-foot tall building. Notwithstanding, the drawing still demonstrates its intended purpose. The proposed building heights, setbacks,presence of the native vegetation buffer tract,and general location of the developable area help to buffer the IPUD from the adjacent low density residential areas to the east and to the west. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: This petitioner is requesting one(1)deviation,which is itemized in Exhibit E in the IPUD Document. The petitioner's justification and staff analysis/recommendation is as follows: Proposed Deviation #1 A deviation from LDC Section 6.6.02.A.2, which requires that a five (5)-foot wide sidewalk be provided on both sides of public and private rights-of-way or easements which are internal to the site, to instead provide a six(6)-foot wide sidewalk on one (1)side of the private right-of-way which is internal to the site. Petitioner's Rationale: "Due to the nature and remote location of this facility,pedestrian use is expected to be minimal to non-existent. Any sidewalk use would be for employees to walk from one site to an adjacent site during operational hours only and public use of the sidewalks will not be encouraged for safety and security reasons. The site will be secured during non-operational hours." Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Transportation Planning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 11 of 18 November 21,2016 waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation,the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08": 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water,and other utilities. The subject site directly abuts the Collier County Landfill. The uses proposed in the IPUD are the same as that which were approved in connection with Resolution 09-275. Water and wastewater facilities currently do not connect to the subject property; however, they will in the future once the extension to City Gate Boulevard North is complete. Drainage solutions would be evaluated in connection with SDP and construction permits. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,contracts, or other instruments,or for amendments in those proposed,particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals,objectives,and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum). 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The uses proposed in this IPUD are the same as those approved in Resolution 09-275 in 2009. The proposed Master Plan illustrates the presence of sizable preserve areas and landscape buffering located between the developable areas of the subject site and the adjacent low density residential parcels to the east and west. The Collier County Landfill abuts this project to the south. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Within PUD districts containing commercial,industrial,and mixed use including residential,at least thirty percent (30%) of the gross area shall be devoted to usable open space. The Master Plan PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 12 of 18 November 21,2016 indicates that 221 acres or 64.2%of the site would be open space. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project,as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order(SDP or platting),at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals,including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. The City Gate Boulevard North extension will be complete prior to the approval of any certificate of occupancy for any buildings on this site. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has(or will have)adequate supporting infrastructure, such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies, to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will continuously be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case,based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The IPUD is proposing one (1) deviation. The request is for a deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires a five (5)-foot wide sidewalk to be provided on either side of a public right-of-way or easement internal to the site,to instead provide a six (6)-foot wide sidewalk on one (1)side of the private right-of-way or easement internal to the site. Staff fully supports this deviation request as summarized in the Deviation Discussion portion of this staff report. Rezone Findints: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable": 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. 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. II PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 13 of 18 November 21,2016 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. There are no other IPUD projects located within the immediate vicinity of the subject property; however,the proposed IPUD directly relates to the Collier County Landfill property to the south. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The boundary of the IPUD follows the boundary of what was approved in the conditional use petition in 2009. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary,per se;but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The property is entitled to the uses specified in Resolution 09-275. With the recommended condition of approval to attenuate the possibility of unwanted noise from the outdoor areas, staff does not anticipate rezoning from A to the IPUD would adversely influence the living conditions in the neighborhood. When asked about the size and types of vehicles(e.g.,trucks)that are anticipated to access the site,the applicant responded with the following response: The vehicle types and sizes anticipated are unchanged since the anticipated land uses remain the same. With the County purchase of the 305 acre parcel south of the RRBP, a more direct route to CR 951 via City Gate Blvd North has now become available. The current route to and from the RRBP from CR 951 is reduced from over 3 miles to just over 1 mile and eliminates a route that runs in front of hotels and commercial convenience establishments where truck traffic is co-mingled with passenger vehicles. The applicant further responded as follows: The exact cargo being delivered to and from the RRBP cannot be determined at this time but is reflected in the permitted uses such as white goods, C&D, tires, yard waste, etc. Collier County has built a household hazardous waste facility at the Landfill, making a duplicate facility in this location unlikely. Any and all vehicles going to and from the facility must meet FDOT regulations for the safe handling and hauling of materials. Due to the distance to the nearest homes of the proposed access roads being greater than 300'and the design of the roadway itself, vibration will not be an issue. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development,or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. The project is subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in the IPUD Ordinance, which PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 14 of 18 November 21,2016 includes provisions to address public safety.Additionally staff has included developer commitments to specifically address additional operational concerns related to impacts resulting from the proposed development. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Stormwater Best Management Practices,flow paths,treatment,and storage from this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and County staff will evaluate all required stormwater documentation during the development review process. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated this amendment would reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or external to the subject property.Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning;however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Staff does not anticipate the proposed IPUD would be a deterrent to the improvement of surrounding land. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact,the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however,the applicant wants to have flexibility with respect to future site design and development standards, including proposed access to the site. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staffs opinion the proposed uses and associated development standards and developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 15 of 18 November 21,2016 ` I 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration,which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the IPUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal,state,and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance,as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02 regarding Adequate Public Facilities(APF),and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the IPUD Document. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC)REVIEW: This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on September 21, 2016 at the Collier County South Regional Library located at 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway in Naples, FL. The meeting commenced at 5:30 p.m. and ended shortly before 7:00 p.m. The NIM Summary is included in Attachment 2 — Application and Support Material. Tim Hancock of Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. gave a PowerPoint presentation, which included a comparison of the conceptual site plan approved in 2009 and the master plan proposed in this ordinance. Mr. Hancock was intentional about mentioning the possibility of having Brown Goods as a requested permitted use. Mr. Hancock mentioned that the number of access points would increase from PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 16 of 18 November 21,2016 three (3)to four(4). Mr. Hancock also answered questions from the audience, which included topics such as fencing, landscape buffers, setbacks, flooding near Garland Road, water well contamination, and noise. Much of the focus was the public's concern about the anticipated noise that may be generated from the site, particularly from chippers. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on October 18, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Application& Support Material 3) Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review 4) Legal Notifications 5) Emails/Letters from Public Ali PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 17 of 18 November 21,2016 PREPARED BY: I 1013h6 ERIC JOHNSON,AICP,CFM, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: 10/ 3 RAYMD V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZON I DIVISION /0. 1)-/ G MIKE BOSI, AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: ES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT spird � r tvz, i to DAVID . WILKISON DATE DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDZ-P1201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 18 of 18 BrownleeMichael From: Huber, Joe [huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 3:27 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: FW: Additional Documents Attachments: Fleming Total Message.docx; casedocopurchase.docx; Alternatives Analysis April 2016.pdf; ramsayhighlighted.pdf; FIG01.pdf; FIG02.pdf Categories: ATTENTION, PRINTED Dear Commissioner Fiala, I am sending some additional documents as a follow up to our meeting on Tuesday. . They include the following: 1. The entire email from Stephen Fleming of the Army Corps of Engineers. My request was dated November 29, 2016, his response occurred that day or shortly thereafter. 2. The Purchase agreement from Leon & Barbara Case dated November 1999.On the fifth page you will see at Addendum A 1 the additional $10,000 premium paid for the lot(highlighted).We purchased our lot shortly before Leon & Barbara Our agreement which is in Pennsylvania shows the same premium. 3. A copy of the Alternative Analysis which Naples Heritage submitted to Army Corps of Engineers(required) which is dated April of 2016.This is a month after the vote on the campus enhancement project which occurred in March 2016 4. An Evaluation of the Relocation of the Tennis Courts by d Mike Ramsey of Ramsey Inc which we asked him to conduct on our behalf.As you read through the report he indicated a number of flaws in their analysis. He concludes that Sit Ten(southeast of the Existing Parking lot) and site 13 west of the golf driving range are most practical location for the tennis courts. I have attached a legend to the report.Site 6 is the one proposed adjacent to Colonial Court. The reason I am sending the first two documents is I have been told that Naples Heritage representatives questioned the authenticity of the email from Stephen Fleming, and the fact that we paid extra for our property to live on Colonial Court. I plan on introducing the Ramsey Report at the hearing I am hopeful that the Board will allow it to be included in the record at that time.We ask for your support of our cause and ask that you vote no on this matter.Again.Thank you for your consideration. Original Message From: Fleming, Stephen J CIV (US) [mailto:Stephen.J.Fleming@usace.army.mil] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 9:11 AM To: Huber,Joe Cc: Huber, Marie L CIV USARMY CESAJ (US);Tewis, Robert M CIV USARMY CESAD (US) Subject: Permit Application SAJ-1988-00827 (IP-SJF) Mr. Huber, Pursuant to your inquiry as to the status of the above referenced application, the permit review is still ongoing. The applicant's alternative analysis has been reviewed and no decision has been made whether to issue or deny the subject action. Your comments were received by the Corps and were submitted directly to the applicant for review and response. At this time, the Corps is waiting for a response before moving forward with a decision. The answers to your questions below are as follows: 1. Did Naples Heritage ever apply to the Army Corps of Engineers to locate these tennis courts in another location within the PUD or other location? Answer: No. 2. As a matter of policy and practice would the Army Corps of Engineers oppose exchanging a tract of preserve land for acreage of similar type and character that would be designated in its place as preserve if such an exchange would be beneficial to the community and consistent with environmental objectives? Answer:The Corps would neither be for or against such action. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Stephen J. Fleming, P.E. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Fort Myers Regulatory Field Office 1520 Royal Palm Square Blvd, Ste. 310 Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Office: 239-334-1975 email: stephen.j.fleming@usace.army.mil Original Message From: Huber,Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 2:53 PM To: Fleming, Stephen J SAJ <Stephen.J.Fleming@usace.army.mil> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Permit Application SAJ-1988-00827 (IP-SJF) Dear Stephen, I have attempted to contact you by phone to get an update on the status of the above application.As you are aware one of the reasons for my opposition is that I believed there were other suitable location for these tennis courts. Recently I was able to obtain a report done by a consultant hired by Naples Heritage in which two other suitable sites within the PUD were available for these tennis courts. Not only would these be better suited for the tennis players, but they would not negatively impact the residents of Colonial Court. I have included a copy of the report for your consideration. Since I sent you my opposition, I have talked with all the residents of Colonial Court and they are also opposed to this application.They will be contacting you shortly to confirm their opposition. I have two questions I wanted to ask of you. Here they are. 1. Did Naples Heritage ever apply to the Army Corps of Engineers to locate these tennis courts in another location within the PUD or other location? 2. As a matter of policy and practice would the Army Corps of Engineers oppose exchanging a tract of preserve land for acreage of similar type and character that would be designated in its place as preserve if such an exchange would be beneficial to the community and consistent with environmental objectives? Please give me a call at your convenience. My office phone is 412-408-6135 or cell at 412-680- 0509.Thank you. ail US•Home00 ,_. SOUTH FLORIDA DIVISIONSALES AGREEMENT t.t- i Jns _+ (( jj77 � -� E9lectin OM at Agtcament The eesagmad, I.e.0 A l . —?o i 6 c en„ C--0„.S t✓ what S. I S y - 'El,3 fi Ma"BsYer"f i „„:lase L i i} l� �0'1. P+..)t S�t>,-, �9 9 5.0 anima — / / „,,tees to men,ens as.HOME CORPORATION itis°Se4m1 agree to sell span the roan end ccnditmos el Mt Agetannenl the lopavm,desatb20 real€4'apettyr Jab d-.T!d-ifia�;y Lot HMO_ Rad �A sae* rrruvFr a y ties s{a -Q pt_1 v az _ __ 2_r y c Santa�n Addeass 0)d If� 'sL2 4-L.{ C-\. City a'� 21ara Cotler av 2 0f t II—, r },� County_ Cay(-��C Madel Alt, ,IL-@semen cb �. Garage Orientation t+-- ��_ with at improvements which Mee hem=or wN be reastmxted as the lase by Seer 1witb seen entemmrents to be camtrxted xr3stamiayia=rearm with the pleas and epee:naafi.,int shy tore M IMrli may sat he Harem'to We add l00*01,tea Mad ant the impramatetta berg ooned eeEy nearer Is nn this Agtaemsm es 100,*Prepare.The said ren urea to Le Set's -.-t-`!_3..J.. home,with an derail of memol and mosettetnn to be comaree:s these c_ in the 11.S.t!mrr„meat hwms in rhe rem.swept nal me,shames as set act en AddamdamAto It Agreement.Pans eat spr et rhe ho:tm are mh;est to my atm.ammeinted by goznn necitstrepucliMs.j/�, es- t. PURCHASE PS€LE ANO PAYMENT. J 4.- t l(j j P0CHASE PRICE / 3/ V t . Mt East ptioo las pe price sheet dated H-l--i C $3 QC' t 1 r�9,0 OF Enema and adtaatcaets Malan tat Prz>armt ore stashed andetett tomean;ATC's')stasesAItareceAa04- M TOTAL PURCHASE PIECE F 1S'1,7(0 PAYMENTS e1 Earnest Macy 0eap.:,saseaea tris dote 2_in. -i 4 1 0 00 - te Additim aldgrent Mail=G-13 -5i I I t _ - to 3eriwceat Pttreheso Pries is 110.iee6f{Pa7ablOt leve:master to Mang aim:,or by mead 1 Me at w€a€ Yj - 2 FINANCING. el ALL CASH.Tisa it a as:salt:there is as 00saau,,00000E00w•. 0 WIRTSACE LOAN:. U pan at the gamJrasa an:a is to be paws Me Isms al praceeds of ea autinit0oat€o rmztg ger£reaw,Boyer sheb,at Bayes sexes¢,wake good ieitt eau to Mets„a=now Two cmnretmeni,and stud Cerate a gene lane madmen.fee sae inmenewest wit::nem,i botirtaso Dam at the effective date at rho€urchase Armee,OM date the lYrehese Aoraetaent is astaned by on eai2mued remessaMte a 00 Wit,and AO ma 0E3Salre2`.'.001 p*h£a FS sofas sate Man Sasara0F0nG. If Heyer 0000 10 utruirr lire kw masts sot.Bine may name and rescind the Pornhase Antenna:are Me ha Mine tea:eke 0€A depxsiilei matte-ea¢¢paries ieaased by Satter ter„suss,opthoox rummies or speoiel items,by nee,*Stites ie m#iag et each Cedars mitten thirty MI dans ei the event data et the Pesh0se Ames eat, it sack welest notice is not nays¢by sem wee the a0apmerniond testy 030)day paras.tendueayi tem to 0000*0 a mortgage sea carrnitmaet sha0 001 const.*.:ter emends tin cariC0141110 and re1s(an 00 the Mecham Agreement.no shag nal 00000E Bayeux 0Og0Gemte 00nomet000,rtaaaa0t049 and 00*thr pmchasa prior 1 DEPOSITS. 'HE BUYER OF A ONE'FAh:R_Y 0R TWO-FAAttee RESIDENTIAL SWELLING UNIT t1AS Tt00 010011 TO HAMS ALL DEPOSIT FIRMS(u:TO 11A➢f THE PURCHASE PBXS/0E.'L`3RED IN AH ESCROW AC„OU0T. THIS RIGHT MAY BE WANED Oi RIG.BY THE BUYER.in the enol Says dans mat waive sash tight to an mom moma%Rayer acknowledge 'Mt Mg aware account shag be with _ _ _ , Flora r'Esaaw A3dst',"n Mt UM arch*mit ed be Rammed by_too ptonse.o et Slone 001.0315,Fla STatotr&hi at el Ma time of dosing as moaned Es Sectiwr 000 03010,*0 seated interest ea the Masa shell PoHoog to Sonar sad spas.Oat be audited to NEW at*Meg„,,stout too Purchase PLC;and bit that Buyer lost pay,glow the execution 11 this Agreement,that pprtIon of SeBm'a mum`Baste hand 10000100 0ilecsh11*to Ratter',SepooO Boyar hues maim 8ssyers rigors ander Ude aNtmnl.+';.4utialei: f --Rays i=5!—�Ruyn _—.. tanMed formaaa:at thekateod tsT m 0001001 the Sel2„0.Perk,Sys. 1 1 LEON C OR BAREA'A CAS — 3 4308 Ons ceased by ewe,easy R, P O.8°X 621Weamum om Prod tEWISTON,MI 49700.0621 sin:ba as Sa3a's„€sale a .gg �� "f f i ndmnc6aage te be paid ht Htmmee s add _,.._,.,_,„„J I MMy dean the camesen a to inelir S 11 t� S fc9t¢Lp� t 3 $;�OfJF,00: 5, PROMOTIONAL OCS1 e w ase ether items axed Mr yam more T / _ '^'*-C� ���Q. c. COAD 010 Oti.'d it a yL. BANK' �� any s tended menti¢en t' ( prsseata rat a t :My„Can.My tstamaftd s - eat l r. r .. sad W�ngt nem„algin 090 "Insralmtte, aepanses or d tr ger•Mtx rib amus fta err the Effective Hale o tr .._—___ 000210* ......Q._.,, I et,enemas et tamer or Wier.tedea, . .ri ?20803261: 5814066 o' 4308 7.CLOSING_. 't tlomee ..,.-- -" _.. ... .,._- _ ..� tae the gate when the hares It IT Settee„*AM 200000900.010.11021100C DIM amtsucee at a owttrn..t.u...,...*r.,,..,.....-,.. ._..._. .. Rad by Sa0a. Seller shag hers 16e lana of moor deneene Boyar E*detach Cr shaming Samar 110 per day rot e00.11 day 01000 rho 411 01 ening 10011004 by Sew anti,end mckding,the dick of aeraaf cesian This sum zea n=_:ire rod ssyabl2 or O'esan 0 drumg is delayed 0*Bays past tin 000000 erlglooip se.Dar wing.0oya shag PM„no patent al Ma tots}:mama pica,Moon soap he Rayne/eat Ma Um the rata siaa as oecaplyd by Scher_ Lhasa stens ala intense to be Tepddated tanagas,and not a WNW,to rouobutse W M tin int naltaf 00 alta and damages it me;€leu au,to Batw`s h being e300j1'Unit,ta,sar,0_LAte it would he 000 0aeticat maseenely Mime to fix Seel Mete team a. Clain 311.0 Mkt pias et lie Selena fit'sea any:MMLe is i .1 B. CLOSING COSTS. Ar the time 0i einem&ape Sen pay tae bafa000 et the Per"ssa NM age ere nosing casth. The 3eenapar 0040 lamUi an omens pansy et tele 000000,00 hen a Mk mammy 01 its choline. Seat aril pot AU dramas nen:mid with Ma esteem el Mt 000:0*s palm at lila betamae,ludeey adttwut`erritatton way eels,,tees,as 0eel tat title RWaaQ 115Ft AµHt 2.1997 Bain f� • ;exalts as till,aeaaiatiun,and ansa.gslestoaea,except for the fest 738E of the awrnts policy of Gyle ie nreate,w ieh v+i3 he pail by the D eoiepar,wedded that Buyer plates the mortgage „t the awn with 11.5 time Matgaga Ceperatl,ner the pmthase price is paid a:call,and provided Mt tide inter/az is issad 4 mgt the dile ta0aay Gated in Pesegtaphl Med.The Developer wdi Maass to the Boyer aha boo b oe z share of the actaa teal peepers;+0,x10 fee the year ci clavag attot the Das hF la hast pea is issued,and an eftidant to that,lies,090 be issued to tae Far arm at the lire of daring.Rea estate taxes sued aaeesananta,both genera and weal,payable n the year wither width the Claming acus:sha8 be tweed between Rimer and Sear az of the date of clueing.Boyar shat pay far the daomrs4alf ss a oa the dad and the that at mooting the dew+. ^, T19LE.See mag convey thin on the Property by:penal warranty deed.,,hirer to tate:and assemso 10 through the year of bbrg:ce.._mded enmteeoe maidens.reslricliens and metiers appearing on the pas Pr ode..comma TO the debit-vision,easement.5A190reee and mineral reservations;and ming rasxias ts,peld5itwns and 00kw r0Geir000010 cf ge*emmen0eI embeahies.If doles,,n title art discamed,Wel shed hove deify 9091 days to cure mach defects,and the Maw shah he emended mad MIR.10 tum defects am he LOVA by else extended tithing date.Milani they elect to wait the unwell detects aid cmnpxet0 the mdse.widow any aftentment in the Peis ase Prate,et O1 the Payments than by Buys to Seder sal be miteni.100 Myth and this 4-edaxs+;shag terminate mid the panes that have no loeS00 tights.obligaticese alMet.it;f ondentao6 that Buyer 009,1000099000090090011 dwelforg,and that Sdc is eat acting as a coarsens 1m the Bayer in the Lae 0o0tt a et the dwelt:g sad that the%yet slag etgeioe Ven 099@0,;ate or interest w the derai,ng 01 the Properly escape the 008;sad ek980lon La mane the sorra in odtmtence w,l11 the terns e£this Anther:lath be analth0.1gaiarble 1900 to the Prapa1Y alba tamest raster is Sidra oet3 debvery of the deed. 10,POSSESSION.Possaale of the.Pigpen,/shall be deliv.ed le Buyer az of.n0 and ddw.p a:ria Medi 9ryat snag n m went take 950000 905 of the Meaty prim le the dosing and dagab y at to dm!. 11- 517E. Royer acknowledges teat the:m Dr be conveyed hien may dater in she and configuration from salve ritawings and iron the Ill en echleh Seller..tel ro r.£ue0ed,sod that the haw coemxted on the lot mar et may not he identical with the mode horse seamed.2,1bs shag»lama the hoar to eenfenn with the nethirments a£applieahlo gavmmB®la aat90,00,, the mcenamndatiaes as Sean's a .ten grade al the Int and the nai ds al Seta. Sethi the he entitled le em500001 the Wale in 'girt.'image'moron the amt the P1epe1ty is a cemm be,541c may lace the house an coats street. Sane sag remove sena 05009 from the lot as it say dam ambient end it sink not be o, oe ria fm soy damage to ne dooee;lina et aha 0emeining times during eke process of consitoe:ams. 12. 31141STITOT3ONS.Set.10;09 trace the right,at'Os diszr.ba and withal ante tow approve/by Oaye.to Mabee materials-thanaMthent oath it the cmssatcten el lite home, .ecladIsg variations n coley,hind,grade and&nuns.other-4a such sobatituriens ate al mpdaa1e00 amity and rapt warn rake aims themes to the layout and dironsi.0 as the 9oec watt as net sastanlizdy Often the latae eT the haus. 13. CASUALTY SEFORE 9193HIG_it the Prepay is damnable tie salhst 1,009*.y Wm Closing end rash of reetoretima does out exteed 3%of die P.rbaa Price sad repass vn4i not deb,Cleseos,Stlie*slag repa'9 the daimon one Cama dine precea pmsaaet 1e the Imo,91 this Agro.:&t.t the beat al rmtaation alma 3%of Mr Psetho,e Pore nr the rapes 9,0:110 delay rlositet,Buyer thee have the amide tai at ministate this Agmamant and receives reit ns the aaytme£s gab.,by Myth Is Sews,et wrier stmt both 011£0,shat be 004,009 imam ea oagatioe,mar this Ay ere rel ei SI have Se0er:,par Ilia damage.lain as reasededypnso0911 awl the dosing ami!be Maeda until suet;9901 sr zaa9'ag is emagdx00.Notwithstanding tee laa,e000,10 the P;ZoEty*t destroyed Cr the 01,00 001,001eeEiao,swede 505,err to P0000eee Por,Ike veliee el certe*oo 00.1 BF 3Y sae,solo,Reo00reee. la.PBE.CL9S3N0 1010bn-19G.Upon sabraaW oerpk0ea of the a have eo011.B.Y.sa*0 have the oypmtuaity c aas9od a lomat pteer:tatiae of ane pi-aloha with Se'4s'e representative l,wIfth env Mem/dein work di defects dead he itemized aro caned by Buyer.11 Thea is enable in pathway inspect the dwane,Btga MO designee a Pmaatd to Waal the dwelling ds behalf,it hay.or Buyer's designee does 1020'tamed the divan Wier to x00099.Boys shad have waived Boyers right to shed inspettes. iltemellet.open erceamfe0 a9 the deed 090**yet.hay.,hell b9 d,ee001 to have Mesa Rept ttmn aa50ty for any looeegd0 war,no xiabfe deteris net,05000 ca09 mat The entr0`tao of 00£1 iris wia be oma leted gene to daring wars agreed upon otherwise by Saes mrd Buyer, Setter MG pare the epti00 to recuse to rase 9 Boar has all 00,00004 Seta','P0*Easer's 90911ibate"retilipag mire mato cornyahne of all enra;emanl5. 15 HOMEOWNER'S WARRANTY.Buys understands and agrees that Sebe is nak0g only those impress althea 001010nlies sap renin in the bsmeowner's warmly in the lam available 41 btajectiono lutes sales of Me ono which Shag be delivered in B:tyaat cbditg.Tt431aPPSSe Hum thatatter ARO ntbabl05MOOED 50S9l19Cond.:4111N&f0RUSNE WARRANTY nth mantis Tut aE Ma np,mua1E at s3001e Na!,,X037 yMh A*NTansl woearoo S APS Ateusho a tw000gtf IAw d.FEp0ATtme at cetcte oFall.Oanna:unite sgh lO WAMAtbOlES,sen*lS e0 ha'AA.Mittman gut od1 man 00.0080,00,et mamma 00 000000 0e50090.ham1AmiVT1,Seramtl0Y Ara 030£35,amen eKe NMI MU0393 90 30,90060 W}Yr0 MOLDER. EXCEPT AS 010901SS13 905CLOSEO BY ANY PIHI01C REPORT FURNISHED 0111E11.5EttER HAS MADE MO IOROLO&K&OR ENV-WON/RENTAL 10235 OR SURVEYS OF NE PROPERTY AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATION m?89111190117 CONCEB11NG GEOLOGICAL 110 ENVl09NM.fNTAt 451.1009 5111100 AS SINK HOLES 012 RADON HAS AND SPECIFICALLY EXG111915 RUSH 59100000AL AND EN0gi9NMENTAL MATTERS FROM ANP 1ARRA011199111400 MIMEER TORS AGREEMENT. RAO50 Ger RADON 1S A NATURALLY BCC0RRRIG RA§f9ACThVE GAS THAT,MIEN Ti HAS AC10UAIH.ATED W A 019120190 19 Sa19ICIEN1 DUANT0T1ES,MAY PRESENT HEALTH 01595 79 PERSONS WHM ARE.059939D TO 19 OVER TIME. LEVELS OF 9591ATIO MAT EXCEED FEDERAL AAM STATE GOIDE0RYES HAYS BEEN FOUND IN BOX.DINGS RY 100.9109, ADR11090119 INFORMATION BARD/NE 055004 AND RADON TESTING MAT RE 032 AR9ED FROM Valhi COQ POOUS HEALTH MT. Hoyer et,noralelg.and understands the loh.voing with rasa to era lamenwne,'s 110110091 1*1 The patron nt rsrdrersg sod dtnoege for the Property 09 en approved glade Dad draw pattern,.Any change in the Tana.drainage a'1 onstap3fnn at aaaelatn0 it9in 4 feet at cotes-en wets at Iona atiwtaudd void the w.reetI.Lt Ruys changes the grade or dr0eageastaba4Aed by Sae.as ay coastractiaa.e4ditan;at deletions lasses the established grade nailer drainageprenOna le be modified,then Met shag fan re9aved of are Gabd'ny tar damage-1.h any,caused by ash changes. pit Stilt:takes ea waeomn0 sur 0^04 sentatfantegMdml dating 0Cils,eoserited sats,dom ai ranks SI sobamtace xnndbem;. SeHm's we.r.rty does pat Mbyte Meths 0013,919 by rmsaf wem and rear.insebuaseiesr hmated&/names at defects,On elements.nafuta?disa0ers m faulty ewirheneaca apman'rw nt Mare use. a1 Oede a arnsmstaaa shad Siler he liable In,cansagnontialm incidental damages. 15.9005171.7 01 10P(ER.h Is aamatlt'mdetsteadhoewotu the parties hereto that the Ogre at sf Ham to Mewed had Map.ay is the me imdaaea4Nli lot Samar ee0Na1 @Deimos alts ,.t. .and to Wald tan theme ate the marker.if Boyer fails so pniorm m requited by this Ayaraet,II ag payments made by Roves drag he forfeited as liquidated damages acrd oar as a 9000*4 to taint..Teller ver au;sponse:,:arts and maga it 0000.aw,It being agreed that Lt say dace 10 armada nptacticat or Mom*,dilfeat to fir Saud 0001151 damages, w?tetuupne the obligation:and hebdoies of both bathes.der twt apeman sba0 imam:rd m'f Saes,at Sellers opeim.mosy pursue sa.;fi petho mace of this Agreement Vender fa:egaph 9 bar,w. 17, DEFAULT DY 501891.If Sege shad dila:*in the pmterance of dole A9rement 1m say reason other than Saes obitga£ua to male marketable tide,Oayol Sall he wtiaad,as hs 009,0000 attaovhes,?a to a tdFam£at all eeymocas b,orbsdiug admex 0000th charyesf that by dryer to fir,ah w0'rdn_watt 01ze obligations and Sabihties al bath porde,mad.this Ag emom even talesman.iurehy 05111:votedlOeOo craves and ne0ngnidres»@move-legs;end mutable tomb.he may have end.epollosthelaed a ell Bryn.et Dumb np11m may mom therilic eo mitre ice st 1091 5000010:1 II acemderarxith pmeoeeph lb. 1S 50009RATi9N 90 505911190.The parties to this Agraemmt speciln:egy ease tier this menet=Melees interstate Lee$ere and that any dispute Whether contract,warranty,tee, sta1nlorb err athervnse),erzirPtmg,hul nal 4.100 10,tel wW and 50 doee*,arieS.throttles or dams wising tented 50 mtat.t on,this Animal.the pmpnty,or any dea9ags bataca0 the Boyer and Sada ladth the essepse:n ei'camel pram.'es ahead by the Maossor0dassWatrmty"Fed.ep Trade Coaesam Act,s,5 DSC-12350 m seq.,and the tk5olatb0s fnnmdgated 00000rokdl fat any 5050000theg t.boyote nr visas m,,eoo by eau,0i any apresec£ationgemarime 0r waamzias alleged s0 nam been made by Seiler at Saga's tmtesentadvc and id any personal it/pry or prop.r1 letup 0gege4 10 have 5020 sosrained be Buyer res Ehe pr04Nty Pt in the asbdividen,drag fast he Matta to noe5aline an0.it net serried Ming amldimior.,shag lhoeetter 3s avhirdtted to balding aft/id/gran as prawded by the Federal Methadon Act m 01.5.9.Ell el seal 00,if iaen6'.ahIe.by dram mete Ot0ture.and not by.in 0 wale of law. AA dedabn availing the ertitrobray 01 any dispute shag be decided by the Mitre.The arbitrator shad have the right le award neasanabie etrmn0Ys'1¢00 and tenths.,atckdfng Bate Mara i7 100900lan.arbia3Llay.I00I ni ern appe00. The mAte0i0n shag be cetdoe0ed atom the 4maraa1,At0in'sli;Annie/fen 174111 in es:ardanse with the AAA',.Canxnerciai Or Conslmetide latter,Mmhaa.Rhos.as 99000rata.It the drama it nal buoy raslyed by madiatioe,the dispum shad be Matted to haling mtdnatian before.the AAA in accordance with the Camato'nl or Canstractian industry arhitntean Rode,,as 09pmpr all and Wawa.pan the award mama by the arbitrator can be entered a arta enforced by any term Warn rlrisdrctinn 0004100 Ratter.I IS addasl0admel Greed by the bargee dbg£:e tilt event the i£uewew.'e Warranty provided by Saes does not month for binding abiriatfm a claim ataw or tamed by.the want ly w3 he admnisfeood omitted in the*manly brier to barna.,In binding arhihatano, tlraar admen.provided by law sr Ohs ftnmmGwee's Warwnty,the cod of inerthoion and sbiashM shah be bog,away by 5e3er and Buy. Sayer and Sas+900010000 09100 that n0twitt00000*e$anything to the cmettnly,the eights and Maar/ens set tool in this pategaph slag snore VRI tbs.bang 0f ase Pmdase 0i tat 030010.35;121 the;mamba o1 this Agteermi<by Mau party,or f31 the daub ai this Ay,emit by mime 0001.Ta waiOsO 0t a-wtahthry al any porlfan of this pazayaph,has 001 OM the va059019t atfameah001 o£aha £1S1'.lap10 2,1041 Buyer pace 2 renxs00e minions of this paragraph.Buyer and Se.fwd tr ale;7f that are innate isetaiving Sollars*wars officers,tangieyxas end agents dodo ho reseMad as set(arch rami aro not h,a/intern of law;f20 that Seiler,rag have the option M ascntde its snbc.atrar..ars and loggers as Dens n the mediation and arbitration;and Of that the mediation and arbitration we.be Taritod t0 the Dtputesinvolaing the parties specified hesete,inche.E.m0,wareal80aspa.5 and iowaoo. I 100. CREDIT REPORT.Bide aathoriele any table,to Denton to Se.dee Womnatdar wt...omy bac apphca':an,verifications of denote,Mame and employment,and reedit report: 7 credit related da0000100080000&over. Bu ya 80e000rea Seder to Wde a[twit!mail Imo a rensi00/award 0g0ncy to 6e used in cosmoct0a with fits transaction Where.,Gnyer has appti.;Dar the ealani00 at eredx. The case ai said mart is to to paid Pi&star.Siege mdaonaes S.1.fwwad copies of a0 or any pod.m of the main mega;without interpretation to oat fander 18(vu in co aunwith this naovonose. 24 TIME OF ESSENCE up..othmrisxpw,h ed hi this Agreermot,PPP is et the emote 000000,ane i1 any payment m xa0ffiin0`n^aa€loom made,tendered or pol erred 4y a.m.. er Bitty,ad grin prmieted,!hm Inter nweet;eet,et the pgden el the pat,wka defeat!,may be temiWed by asch party, Tien isat the else.walls?Pat pEriarnalate nada/ the terns at dud Agreement is eoesoded and goal tattle Sar reel arty trims t..10..,00,:is a brash et the Agrmm end oed grounds tor 7,001 01 specific pelethrenre and the to .ei:depeets Paid by Huy.under this Agreement. 2E.DANGEROUS COIODI OON CONSTRUCTION WORN. 1st Guyer cadeodevie and aryes that the Property in'000100000000001000000110011000100004o and the impfroomeats,e5uipme.and Menho0 ihera0a 000130000 0 0 dapper 10=ban vel...sats0e 0.Pial 000.80000 shat mn00.0=,...0100 fi0paty miss M dosing end dans101 of 113d83i00t0 03 pleai6000 t0t3 Aguatedt 001535 awtherke43Rd a`Slaemm'on&bT$61-011 • rep0000000ti00 An pamphpaup&aaamaapatlitae 0,y by Ranier Paat dIPISPiala a ireacb Of this A4,m000a by Rigor.at Sin's Nen..110m0000,any entry by Royer 0101010 the Pmpaa3 Orta/ tr.cfaakla rra4 be done at Buyers Dura risk and in sv,0181000 web as p teat state anginal safety lam awl mrprloyvna.9nym ohi000,aaotes nM 000000 M asnaard.:,ao At afar.. dmestM3,eaddaycr.ogees:.s,baa00;acta<030e 000$000 Iran 000 arm IC chearte 0sses at dam.mitred or tomme0 by Reefs,Buyer's!emir...S.g00ate.ee a etneet in 000irec::0ma of arty WO o00000101000,0000000080000100100;Fria she Property. • 161 Brim agree[phot 0.0.00 and Greer of da wading`00'_3,indenEws,without§nitefien,are sdrn0rnranter;is to be dove 000000vaq by Seta.and 8uper 00.es so0 00 isms 00100nmk0h600 tc 0,0 rwar.krarp(00000 0r otherwise Maio 0x10000000 n Me a8]rM0 of iapmvernau an the 0w0r00.8uyo sone met de air hove any work deny on the 8Spe[y.ea, may Rayer;fere arta ea...emus.Prier in classing and trans.et tibia 00 Guyer. lei 00y000,00000 00.0 any dam eV mentavereee,:1300000 and dam'oris:d mde:this Paragraph 21 spare be rem 1000 01,00gn hiednee aibksa000 is auamaoca with Paragraph lb of rain A0 cert 22, 30500031000E Of ARENDT.Teo Solas Roproeeotadve in 000000000 0100 Itis nom..es an asysinvee1000,y000000000. Mete.no agansy retali0sahfp0 aro intended to be named in elI he eteettd,010200 Weld Sous Pay os9aaldie ar,0 Rem et any...ohm.m ewe chat to 0/00,701010 an hdu0 of baryon.00,0 er..o mel-A.71g00 re0eimsl00 are mtadad to he aearod _,wll be/.naiad beton.Safe and sty teal Mate broken of zgmf that is mrpioyed m hest!ai Bayer ii 0113 Oaosaatian.See the Agency Ditchaxa Norm far ofomatiao contemkie the 1 des. tmn et tens,agency deaUonshinse0d the*Ma and 0ffiga0000000 agent=_. 23. HOMEOWNERS'05SOCEAT0081.Rayer has umisaed eel has read a dory of the Discfosme Satmrary 000800ed by Chapter 00028.s:arda 200000.0.tete Dew..of dovmaais. �. 80000000000.and Residc0iaos the Rylaws and thaAron.at arc 00,0tion.10000000,yah '-amp son 00000 00 suppteeea0s to diem haat.000,a infieehfe s0 the oohnedien with.. the -7 . (-!v Dnp a0t 00,000104 ore4 00 the 0000asongs asrneiatnw Mesh h-a ewers and•espaoldiil0ia0 with respect to Mcmbdvid00.Buy.a...teen dacunve.epi agrees to ha booed by tura ''''.7" r;, µ00,d000. 1 . . II i fa'. Buyer s rol pay 00 enmity a cap0.0 cma0o,0o00 n:a eta W. dos.man»}:0101.... H fl-t __ _._____�_An'n"t>:__._.._ 0anenene;0000, N if-1, amara_ 3oh,00o foam): d -PJ.-7 Amend 1 E_Neo.CaRm atmn S.a, 4 -,C± -t S`I, i t.:-.. �Aaawt: 1-ST _'� 0101, t DS-Home Gory iw._2 ''r r �s_.. 3- h4 "" '. .Ammo ..5 90 - c`70 6)Onyx wilt jay units;a read.Of, n ma0ate0 tram the date at Liaohg to doe hagar®1f0f the Ira 000ntptine oto d f t�rfe4awgg assacisdwns' ! 3.3 0'0 Marten,Samel...___fhl ei,e kt'C 0 k 4 t-r- CIL L.xr�.LL...„C_.VHJ r... t'�f�'if !per v. , _. ma .fnam+x .Cri me,_ i--14 7 f lttl Ammtat_d 21 6 -._ i�o� 7n- J0du0a inn k � ! [ Ps COAnae000 `t ` a t'?U ,ase;aney{,mK � ..._�'r�L1s�_ta�uu __��__(�..�7s..., �tSi"WS....ern_ Anntmt: (•,i _. leer`��f+`g __� andoneuwninmrm .t_.E.2_*-Eee4a..a �__S.dAhn . I„4j k _01,_01 Aeon. 'j#J ig `-tt' s, ''„_..�. ,f Camsu1,t4,axd,00,1 an aandArr Ent.r[gatting the 00000000 0 tam panni,l.e.mWdhi3,masterly or amlio0. 111111 1 203 500, 810000'S REPRESENTATIONS.Se.shag not be bonne by mit stdifSde00 et representation oaten speciftell0 tet forth in this Agtacment. ROYER ACGNOWLEDt6S THAT NO REPRESENTATIONS PAYE REED MADE Be Sb1108.ifs AGENTS OR E0,410000FS TO 0NOt0Cf RUM TO ENTER ONTO ThIS AGREEMENT,OTHER THAN AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH HEREIN. Na representati.re made by S&P,with respect to e'iewa fsan aha pronwty EP dweifi.00rutnieied. 25. MISCfLtANEDUS. - fa': the invalidity of any provide.et;his Ameet,0it shag est affect the oddity of aalorceabooy et mg other40000000 sat 10000 Amm- I fel The partied in ens Agreement m 5000 agree Mot it arae he bindngnp v,Sham end..al dm!i.e..bees,0000/0000,adnd00nra000o.WKes00rs and assigns;provided, hewasas.that Wee shah have no right in nod.foie Agreement vrthak the prier wtadon rennet of Sed.. s The tams Dad copditn00 at dhis'Amisema t endo sumo the dosing et the Psoper y lammed..end the denary of the dame tetThe Panics is this 3gtaat100 fo.0000 unify that this Agreement contains the sates aglow.;ben:een the ponies hereto one may not be modified wept by 0 mitten egrv:meat.The patios agree they shag ant be bound try any 0.110,000100,00,3000,000iats,00000atiea a'itates00ta00000.nra0 00 0,0,000,nal,00001re herein.TIME art 00 c0110i1,ai a0riadta100119s agreements¢ober then,hors contained haver. PP_,0000 whale federate.appkes,Dia Agreement dial uro,000od and nlospre,ed ai srsmdancew0h the laws of the nate whore the Prapmtp to Meeted. hi Natieas r.Tvka!en he given ra Saran by tins Aptenvent Matt be iv wdrsig dad effective as of The date an which sech nmfce u Centered to Seger at Ds peinclpal plana at buns= Nntmes rmmr+to he Caen to Ruya by this 00,000em aftoO On he in mite.and d iecdve att...1&Domed ie Rave ar whar.mated m Ram's ed..es set forth.4000. ' 103 When so spoke.,wads in tae=mallet'0A inelude f mnao,tants m the neut.she0 aabide the masculine and ts,riraia,ami wells to;he 000Naim shot hnheda the pimal. 0,!..!..,..,9 oppfkaiie para peescribed oe ntmu,by any mend.of the Agreement,the bay of the act m oven,from whip:the designated pep d of,aa haspe,to ran gate not he 0,00008.The fast day at the ovine se computed:hap be i 10o1,d,e000.s it is a Sataday,Sunday or!agar gaddey,a which event the petted eons MIR the met ai the nest day 100, is net it Ssdarday,Candoy ar ingot!06010,. 100 SEt10RG BROCER.Based salary an Rear.teprestntaf m shat the hrnle awned 1r0aw eras the 0 00mng cause a1 Buyers decision to purchase the Property ham SOHO as crackled m this Agra..it Bine t0'0,008 d in the Stem at eMtida,cam Sadat shad dap a,tmze's comrres0i.0 0Adch conarissimi wed be earned and PO 0001 Wean 10000g.01 any eth0 rut 000000 0,0kvr at 000 estate 040:00 ciaion day our o 00100 00 tern conoeo0en with It.naaaEa0Ov,the patty who brought such broke Of new'ono the Rama00»n snap he oady!expansible for day and 00 0000 dsiw:,ood she....ann...00100a she ohm party ha..therefrom. at 0e open /fAhli 1-0Name of Goa;ant�,. _._......-01_01., Address _ _ __ Phow c Seder's hiker et ngea, 0 Buyers tea.a 00mt Fadmee Tae t0 No.ASo8N Sem..Nu., Fen.200000nd..: C Corporation _10 Parta,stdp 0 P0040101000010000 United testy Caattsay •I R r p • USH Opti!2,is. etlet�+ h • Page 3 kwa Y • 27- FONDS.AR;ends&veined with Sales pursuant to this Agreement shag he pays/Ate Setter in B.S.Daus and is cash,chat,ca5E4d bedew wire irsnsim- --� 28. In the nre,5l Segs does net emanate"cmsdwctbn within RC days from the data el this Agreement.Saar may temiarns this Agreement and BseesM wuX he Iafmsdad ag down peyr .t mews,without feather liability so Safes. 2S.Oath ATMOR-AS RE4DIRFO N7 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISERIN REHLAAT#NAS,TME INSULATION THAT IS OR NEL BE INSTALLED IN THE NOME IS AS FOLLOWS AND WILL.ACCORDING TO TEL MANUFACTURER,TILLS THE RNAL0ES STATEN. iacatirn Taj R --- 011187 Wax LL{Z t4 mt< rfT, ( • h t T0son lass refs known as ohms woa0 les need is Hesleline in the herrn you so pwchas»g.The B.S.Dellarifsent of Health and HmOS Seeker rS5ES";has Sated f6motsss as a master. 'which may is IseayssEF!asssspeted to he a cmuaogen.`This'listing identifies sahlanees smell d fa twther study hastened shale potential carcinogenic risk hat's not en evaessnens Sy HMS that there is n easel x±neactioo barmen Menton and human coca.The Reim dom not estehads than 1berMass presents A ask re persons in!hob day Eves 30. ENEAST.EFFICIENCY RATING BISCIDSORE Florida ase gives Uta Dwyer the rust Is nava the enetgy.slfin trey ratsg deteminse for as Steele Rayer wish to have the.oma Med,Buyer mat avengers have the nom-y-e4caenyrating daeminasson pwIssssd as ROSt5O5PSnsa.Buyshmley states that Buyer lh:,.=aired a 0051 edit zmagy.aMkiacs sasip insurssstins brus;here prepared by the Dssastment tl Community Attain. 35, This Agreement emits 51 4 pages and she following Addadswidth are aneehzt hereto ars mats n put of this Agreement E:uaa-Addends At throng-he ,£-(.- errNetts of Census-Rights-Addrn odeD Real carate Saes Modem-Addendum B It Bayer Discmmss Adde;.oren E Agency Ma esuse._04555515555, a"--- Deka to Bate-Addends/TIE 32. DEFER TO PSOICHADLIEFFECTIVE DATE.This Agrazsneat it as 51155 by Buyer to purchase i:,aaosdenca with she tams sad eneditam Provided hesaa,s.c lined not he hisdbg upon Sties rent;seers new as a Division Meer 01 Sege has elevated this Ago:meet The dere oh such escapterme is the elective Cele at Ohs sescmr555. COMMUNITY OP3ELOPFS£Elz DISTRICT IMPOSES TAXES m1 ASSESSMEeITS,OR DOTE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS. SPX 1 :ARPECI A ON HIS PROPERTY THRONG A SPELIi3.TAXING DISTRICT, THESE EASES AND ASSESSMENTS PSI TN CONSTAOCTItlR,OPERATION,AM MAINTENANCE COSTS'3E CERTAIN 758515 FACILITIES OF THE DISTRICT AND ARE SET ANNUALLY EY THE SXVERNRSi NASD OF TILE MSTAICT.'NESE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS ERE RI ADIHTIXO TO 0011111 ANSI Ali OTHER TAXES ARO ASSESSMENTS PROVIDER FOR SY RAW. �}� OFFER EXECUTES IN MALTESE COPIES BY RUM ON i L "cX s . 79 S l I ACRND 4L'DCMTRT OF THE RECEIPT XE PAYMENTS sat j f °,—`- Lpith s AzzaRTEAT,T,AR3310alatipntpn +sack. Bar:. Sates Representative Bayer ACCEPTANCE EXECUTED ill MOLTONE COPSES 31 SELLER ACKNOWLEDGMENT AT BROKER THAT DECKER WAS THE P5505 NI0 SOURCE OF SALE. ;7.5. MOLE CO r h li BIMy DAision G;ke¢ 1 f Sem Stoker i l} j Effective Om hf-hiseseriecit' ty451 April 2.5455 Page I AnnEWIfUM At (EXTRAS) c I ibv envision:pi a AddeeGwee butte esarpourediem the Sr.ApCmeet deed I I-A 2 'Q l _ between IIS HOME CORPORATION L.a S as Deter for M Wowing des:Tod as Sella and li,.....C o i C_ m' �G-t b r� property: tat WV _3 Mote t= Sectio ffreaOnCi lRT3(3a1.14l ly,tt.r L..—1-1-,...,X.1, sabdidrh,: Addicts 17 n`5'J (r l_a,..u..Q c i City Net P f._¢,` Owe Meta Lo 3 51/1 L o Base Price 04, cl _•- O`( q9 D 3 ....Al Lot/Floor Premium /0, 000 A-2 Ci'0,9-Q. wl NcCi ,`L. 5c_4_-.�.�. C_ ,.?re_' (aX.L2,` /32.. - - .. ♦ I3Di-1 a_2 - 1. ,Ci___. L C Y-�e-i e - ( J aA_o'^"-, 13-.Q 4-.. 31 f o' Al(�. / _ S30_ �J • sig_ N,._...'„ 4.OD ` - 1 A- Tf.tiQ-JL 1F T;L 3 JAS(-2- I ©_1,7 .� YJ'IL) F.--4, IL-w. f h�Lv_ a 7 yASI \A,,Q I- Z� .,Z, 0 O './ C !--.(-)3`6,j/,-.., ,,,t - ca,C t - qea'4--- L4 l D '- CK- ✓ 615 ta e G.:,-.L.... I.N.3.— -i s Le r-k4.4-.t.., s 1...x,.,2-t 20M, 6 00=-r/ t L: -11,..,.. (,,/r.._.a.hi_.—Si .SBrJ-"'""✓ !')-.(1 l-O“-.-T- L., C;-1 -VOse flet( 1AWt.Lk sa'I 4 i-ii,‘\/ 3 D A.i g s 7 a---ic{�.(_!C-L GI/COLO A Terrtlyte .g o o T ✓ ,-,__.,9__..C_--'0c,,.._ AAA:cr .h Lr: F d ,0611.11----) a_ 915) =,---- — iii .. i..� tJ .�bfl ✓ 1 . - I _ t,,.k .L r s c- ----G — 3053 - f)-G`--ik,"'-- a aea-, ^cceS5r•-)-` I-erin1I1. l/f I. -f3- '�5r .`. ^`�� -- — x.354,4 f = This Addendm'n ie an off E.by Buyer end efmR mot be bee&ff!won Setter wild web tene ee e Division The a of Seger has seemed this Addendum in the space provided Sees Bpn �� f r �._rnen'.--,,,-c2-,_ ...._._ ! "` Beyer �enmtiva y/? Be: �i ` alt i'," L_ E �s�(—� Boyu�> wn„ion .:4 ,i`?9 i Sole 1. ✓ I - Dee I USCI ADO o,low NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB TENNIS FACILITY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Sections 10 and 11, Township 51 South, Range 26 East Collier County, Florida April 2016 Prepared for Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club 8150 Heritage Club Way Naples, FL 34112 Prepared by W. Dexter Bender & Associates, Inc. 4470 Camino Real Way, Suite 101 Fort Myers, FL 33966 (239) 334-3680 I. Introduction The Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club (Naples Heritage) community is built on 558± acres in East Naples with entrances on Davis Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. The 558± acres include 799 residential units as well as an 18-hole golf course, a clubhouse, four swimming pools, six tennis courts, a bocce ball court, and a fitness center. Approximately 250 acres of native preserves make Naples Heritage one of the lowest density developments of its type in Collier County. This document contains the alternatives analysis required in 40 C.F.R. Section 230.10 ("Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines"). The Applicant has provided this alternatives analysis based on the Basic and Overall Project Purposes established by the Corps in their April 8, 2016 Public Notice. This provides the basis for the conclusion that, according to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, no practicable alternative exists to the Project site which would satisfy the overall project purpose that has less adverse environmental impact and was available and capable of being acquired and developed, taking into consideration costs, existing technology, and logistics. II. Alternatives Analysis Requirement The Section 404(b)(1)Guidelines require the Applicant to conduct an alternatives analysis for the proposed discharge to "waters of the United States". According to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, a discharge of dredged or fill material will be allowed if there is no "practicable alternative"to the proposed discharge. 40 C.F.R. §230.10(a). A"practicable alternative" is defined as an alternative site that is available and capable of being developed "after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes." 40 C.F.R. Section 230.10(a)(2). Accordingly, the applicant is only required to evaluate alternatives that are reasonable in terms of the overall scope and costs of the proposed project. RGL 93-02 § 3(b). According to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, an alternative is not practicable if it is "... unreasonably expensive to the applicant, ...". 45 F.R. 85336, 85343. Ill. Basic Project Purpose The Applicant's Basic Project Purpose pursuant to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines is to construct a recreational tennis facility. Because the Project Purpose is non-water dependent, a more detailed Overall Project Purpose is provided below. IV. Overall Project Purpose The Applicant's Overall Project Purpose is to construct a recreational tennis facility with associated parking areas, landscaping and a stormwater system, to increase parking for the clubhouse within a private golf and country club community in Collier County. The geographical extent of the Applicant's Overall Project Purpose is based on the location of the Applicant's existing clubhouse. 1 V. Project Need When the community was planned in 1996, the Collier County Land Development Code dictated that only 185 parking spaces were required at the clubhouse. Since then, the demographics of the residents has changed increasing the activity and usage of the club's facilities. The current parking space is inadequate for year round residents. The problems caused by the lack of parking are magnified during "season" and when Naples Heritage hosts events open to its members and their guests. The lack of parking near the clubhouse often leads to overflow parking along nearby roadways and other areas. This creates an unsafe condition for residents and complicates access for emergency vehicles. Therefore, in order to provide for public safety and welfare there is a need for the current parking facilities to be expanded to approximately 300 spaces for use by residents, guests, and staff. VI. Alternative Project Sites Analysis The following summarizes the process undertaken by the Applicant to identify alternative sites in the area which would be both available and capable of being used as additional parking area consistent with the Overall Project Purpose and to evaluate whether any of the sites constitute a practicable alternative as defined in 40 C.F.R. Section 230.10(a). Screening Process The Applicant has used a screening process to focus the evaluation of potentially practicable alternatives sites. A single screening factor was identified. Potential sites that did not pass this factor are clearly unreasonable and were eliminated from further consideration. This factors is: Located within or contiguous with the existing project boundaries In order for a site to be of potential use for additional clubhouse parking the site must either be located within the 558± acre project or contiguous with the project boundary. In order for an area to serve as additional parking for the clubhouse the parking lot must be located reasonably close to the existing clubhouse facility. Potential sites located at a distance from the clubhouse that would therefore require a shuttle between the parking lot and the clubhouse would not be used by Naples Heritage residents, guests, or staff. Practicability Analysis Nine parcels immediately adjacent to Naples Heritage and seven locations within Naples Heritage that met the screening factor was further evaluated for practicability in terms of availability, cost, and logistics. These criteria are discussed below. Availability Available for Acquisition In order for a property to be acquired for a project that would satisfy the Overall Project Purpose, the land must have been reasonably available 2 from a willing seller. Cost Estimated Cost The cost of constructing the additional parking must be reasonable and affordable for the residents within the community. Logistics Compatibility The parking facility must be compatible with the remaining portions of the Naples Heritage. This includes consideration of whether the current functions of a proposed site (such as an existing lake, conservation area, or golf course hole) could be re-established elsewhere on-site. A potential site that would eliminate a vital current function that could not be replaced elsewhere is not practicable. A discussion of the practicability of the nine sites located immediately adjacent to the Naples Heritage project boundary is provided below. Site 1. Cedar Hammock Golf& Country Club The lands within this property that are immediately northeast of Naples Heritage are either developed golf course holes, residential development, or dedicated conservation areas (Figure 1). None of these areas are available for purchase. If these lands were available, the cost of the land would be excessive. The use of a site within the developed portion of Cedar Hammock Golf & Country Club would negatively impact either the overall golf course or stormwater management system. The use of an undeveloped portion of Cedar Hammock Golf & Country Club would negatively impact wetlands within conservation easements. In addition, access from Naples Heritage to these lands would impact golf holes or wetlands that are already encumbered by a conservation easement within Naples Heritage. Based on the criteria above a site within Cedar Hammock Golf & Country Club is not a practicable site (Table 1). Table 1. Site 1 Practicability Available for No. It is highly unlikely that the current owners ka Tettit ;it; Acquisition? would consider sale of a portion of their project. Paw Purchase and No. The cost of the land, if available, would be Construction Costs? excessively high. No. Access to the site would require golf course, trh-7 '7-z7-54-1),4 Compatibility? lake, and wetland impacts. No 3 . i I � i � 0 600 1,200 a iFiq g ' . I "�`'" - - - SCALE t 0 v I _ 1 x (--Ni .�,.�,,..� • 0 Existing Preserve Areas .1, ItP, _ ". _ Proposed Mitigation Area x' � -Exi ting CI bhou a Fa 0 Non Practicable Sites(typ.) "0II; ti ) , ,. - r "" . 10- Practicable Sites(typ.) 1 m Notes: 1. Property and preserve boundaries for Naples Heritage Tennis Facility provided by McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. 2. All other boundaries are approximate and obtained from the wcrch a.ans 7.COM 0,.,. SFWMD GIS website or digitized from aerial photography. PERMIT USE ONLY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ormw,r,«cnc I en W. DEXTER BENDER f Figure t.Potential Practicable Sites Locations Naples Heritage Tennis Facility 8c ASSOCIATES, INC. l�l\� ENYIRONMANTAL R eaRbvs CONSULT/NC • FORT MYERS 229-SS4-9690 4 Site 2. Naples National Golf Club The lands within this property that are immediately east of Naples Heritage are either developed golf course holes or dedicated conservation areas (Figure 1). None of these areas are available for purchase. If these lands were available, the cost of the land would be excessive. The use of a site within the developed portion of Naples National Golf Club would negatively impact either the overall golf course or stormwater management system. The use of an undeveloped portion of Naples National Golf Club would negatively impact wetlands within conservation easements. In addition, access from Naples Heritage to these lands would impact golf holes, existing residential development, or wetlands that are already encumbered by a conservation easement within Naples Heritage. Based on the criteria above a site within Naples National Golf Club is not a practicable site (Table 2). Table 2. Site 2 Practicabilit Available for No. It is highly unlikely that the current owners Ac•uisition? would consider sale of a sortion of their pro'ect. Purchase and No. The cost of the land, if available, would be Construction Costs? excessivel hi•h. No. Access to the site would require golf course, " m Compatibility? lake, or wetland impacts (within existing conservation easements . No Site 3. Naples Club Estates The lands within this property that are immediately southeast of Naples Heritage are dedicated conservation areas (Figure 1). None of these areas are available for purchase. If these lands were available, the cost of the land would be excessive. The use of the undeveloped portion of Naples Club Estates would negatively wetlands within conservation easements. In addition, access from Naples Heritage to these lands would impact existing residential development or wetlands that are already encumbered by a conservation easement within Naples Heritage. Based on the criteria above a site within Naples Club Estates is not a practicable site (Table 3). Table 3. Site 3 Practicabili Available for No. It is highly unlikely that the current owners -_ Acquisition? would consider sale of a •ortion of their pro'ect. Purchase and No. The cost of the land, if available, would be Construction Costs? excessive) hi•h. No. Access to the site would require existing Compatibility? development and wetland impacts (within existing conservation easement). 114,41t'• s No 5 Site 4. Serenity Park This property located southeast of Naples Heritage is part of Collier County's Serenity Park which is a wetland mitigation area for a County surface water conveyance project known as LASIP (Figure 1). The property is within a dedicated conservation area. None of this area is available for purchase from Collier County. If these lands were available, the cost of the land would be excessive. The use of a portion of Serenity Park would negatively wetlands within conservation easements. In addition, access from Naples Heritage to these lands would impact existing residential development or wetlands that are already encumbered by a conservation easement within Naples Heritage. Based on the criteria above a site within Serenity Park is not a practicable site (Table 4). Table 4. Site 4 Practicabilit Available for No. It is highly unlikely that the County would ffi Acquisition? consider sale of a portion of their mitigation area. Purchase and No. The cost of the land, if available, would be Construction Costs? excessively high. No. Access to the site would require existing Compatibility? development and wetland impacts (within existing conservation easement). • No Site 5. Shadow Wood PUD This property located south of Naples Heritage is the undeveloped Shadow Wood PUD (Figure 1). The property is currently undeveloped but is separated from Naples Heritage's south property line by a large drainage ditch. This ditch is part of the County's LASIP system and will be widened this year. These lands could potentially be purchased but a price acceptable to the sellers is not known. A bridge over the LASIP canal would be required at significant additional expense. Access from Naples Heritage to these lands would impact existing residential development or wetlands that are already encumbered by a conservation easement within Naples Heritage. Based on the criteria above a site within Shadow Wood PUD is not a practicable site (Table 5). Table 5. Site 5 Practicabilit If Available for Yes. Naples Heritage could potentially purchase a Ac•uisition? •ortion of this prose . Purchase and No. The cost of the land, if available, and a bridge Construction Costs? over the canal would be excessive) his h. No. Access to the site would require existing Compatibility? development and wetland impacts (within existing conservation easement . , ta.. No 6 Site 6. Vacant Land Owned by Naples Heritage This parcel lies adjacent to the Naples Heritage PUD boundary (Figure 1). This site was purchased by Naples Heritage at a reasonable cost. Due to this property's proximity to the Naples Heritage boundary, existing roads and utilities are present immediately adjacent to the property thereby reducing development costs. While the property is located too far from the clubhouse to serve as a parking lot, the site is well situated for relocating the existing tennis courts from the clubhouse area thereby freeing up space for additional parking at that location. Based on the criteria above a site within Shadow Wood PUD is a practicable site (Table 6). Table 6. Site 6 Practicabilit Available for Yes. Naples Heritage was able to purchase the Acquisition? property for a reasonable cost. Purchase and Yes. The cost of the land was reasonable and the adjacent road/utilities reduces future development Construction Costs? costs. Yes. The tennis facility located at the clubhouse Compatibility? can be relocated to this parcel allowing additional parking at the clubhouse. ; '" Yes Site 7. Vacant Land Owned by Private Land Owners There are six parcels under separate ownerships that lie along the southwest and west property lines of Naples Heritage (Figure 1). Several have been developed while others are vacant. These lands could potentially be purchased but a price acceptable to the sellers is not known. These parcels have access from Sandy Lane and Polly Avenue but are not adjacent to any roads within Naples Heritage. Obtaining access to these parcels from Naples Heritage would require extending a road and utilities through existing development features resulting in substantial expense. In addition, the access road would impact a stormwater lake, a golf course hole, and potentially existing single family homes. Based on the criteria above a site within one or more of these parcels is not a practicable site (Table 7). Table 7. Site 7 Practicabili ''' Available for Yes. Naples Heritage could potentially purchase rn yea Ac•uisition? one or more of these properties. egr Purchase and No. The cost of the access road/utilities and Construction Costs? reconfiguration of lakes and golf holes would be excessive) hi•h. No. Access to the site would require impacts to a - _ Compatibility? stormwater lake, a golf course hole, and potentially 9To existin• sin•le famil homes. Baa m No 7 Site 8. Taormina PUD The Taormina PUD is located west of Naples Heritage (Figure 1). The site is currently undeveloped. A portion of the land could potentially be purchased but a price acceptable to the sellers is not known. The parcel has access from Sandy Lane but is not adjacent to any roads within Naples Heritage. Obtaining access to this parcel from Naples Heritage would require extending a road and utilities through existing development features resulting in substantial expense. In addition, the access road would impact a stormwater lake and potentially existing single family homes. Based on the criteria above a site within the Taormina PUD is not a practicable site (Table 8). Table 8. Site 8 Practicabili :trtm44:411:1144'222717 W*.Available for Yes. Naples Heritage could potentially purchase a Acquisition? portion of this property. Purchase and No. The cost of the access road/utilities and - _ reconfiguration of a lake and home would be Construction Costs? excessively high. Compatibility? No. Access to the site would require impacts to a stormwater lake and an existing single family home. Site 9. Firano at Naples Firano at Naples is an existing residential development located west of Naples Heritage (Figure 1). None of these area is available for purchase. If land was available, the cost of that land would be excessive. In addition, the access road would impact a stormwater lake and wetlands that are already encumbered by a conservation easement within Naples Heritage. Based on the criteria above a site within Firano at Naples is not a practicable site (Table 9). Table 9. Site 9 Practicabilit Available for No. It is highly unlikely that the current owners Acquisition? would consider sale of a portion of their project. Purchase and No. The cost of the land, if available, would be Construction Costs? excessively high. No. Access to the site would require existing lake = Compatibility? and wetland impacts (within existing conservation easement). y. No A discussion of the practicability of the seven sites located within the Naples Heritage project boundary is provided below. 8 Site 10. West of Existing Parking Lot This option expands a new parking area into the existing conservation area which lies to the west of the existing clubhouse parking area (Figure 1). This area is under the ownership of Naples Heritage. There are no land acquisition costs for this option. The costs of expanding the parking lot would be minimal because there is no need to extend utilities or an access road. The expanded parking area would be compatible with the existing clubhouse facility. However, this area is mitigation (within a conservation easement) for previously authorized wetland impacts and therefore the loss of that mitigation would need be to compensated for at another location. Based on the criteria above expanding the parking lot to the west is a practicable site (Table 10). Table 10. Site 10 Practicabilit - g Y Na' _. §{ SY =® -1,rf;-"nlatlIS : Available for Yes. The applicant owns the property. Acquisition? Purchase and Yes. The cost of expanding the parking lot to the Construction Costs? west is reasonable. Yes. The wetland function would need to be Compatibility? replaced elsewhere. _ _.. � _ Yes Site 11. Southeast of Existing Parking Lot This option expands a new parking area into existing developed areas located southeast of the existing parking lot(Figure 1). This area is under the ownership of Naples Heritage. There are no land acquisition costs for this option. However, the use of this area would impact portions of a stormwater lake, a golf hole, and a putting green that would require significant expense to relocate. In order to expand the existing parking area to this area a portion of golf hole 10 would need to be converted to parking. The tees for this hole cannot be moved to the east (to allow for the parking) without substantially reducing the length of that hole and thereby impacting the overall course. Signature golf courses are required to have a minimum total yardage that is distributed between a certain number of par three, four, and five golf holes. Filling a portion of the stormwater lake is problematic because the area is needed to meet the State's water quality/quantity standards. This would reduce the water management system runoff storage and water quality volume. The proposed site would also require that an important part of the golf course, the practice putting green, be removed. Based on the criteria above expanding the parking lot to the east is not a practicable site (Table 11). Table 11. Site 11 Practicability tE Available for Yes. The applicant owns the property. Acquisition? Purchase and No. The cost of reconfiguring the golf course, " Construction Costs? stormwater lake, and putting green would be excessively high. 9 No. The impacts would significantly impact the golf Compatibility? course and water management system that could not be re•laced elsewhere. No Site 12. Parking Garage This option is to construct a multi-story parking garage within the footprint of the existing at grade parking lot at the clubhouse (Figure 1). This area is under the ownership of Naples Heritage. There are no land acquisition costs for this option. A multi-story parking garage built over the existing parking lot would require 360±square feet for each parking space to provide for ramps, stairwells, and elevators. The cost is estimated to be approximately $4.5 million to build (i.e. $15,000 per parking space) and would require additional yearly costs to operate and maintain. It would be out of scale with all other buildings in the community where both residential and amenity structures are intentionally low profile to emphasize the natural surroundings. The clubhouse would be shut down during the parking garage construction and the normal operation of the golf course would be disrupted for an extended period of time. Based on the criteria above building a parking garage is not a practicable site (Table 12). Table 12. Site 12 Practicabili -41 Available for Yes. The applicant owns the property. Acquisition? Purchase and No. The cost of building a multi-story parking Construction Costs? garage would be excessively high. No. The garage would not be compatible with Compatibility? architectural theme of the overall development and would impact use of the clubhouse and golf course during construction. = r _ No Site 13. East of Naples Heritage Drive This option expands a new parking area into the existing tennis court complex of the clubhouse parcel. In order to achieve this option, a new tennis complex would need to be constructed elsewhere on the site. Under this option the tennis courts would be relocated to wetlands within a dedicated conservation easement located east of Naples Heritage Drive and west of the driving range (Figure 1). Both areas are under the ownership of Naples Heritage and there are no land acquisition costs for this option. The expanded tennis courts would be compatible with the existing driving range. However, this area is mitigation (within a conservation easement)for previously authorized wetland impacts and therefore the loss of that mitigation would need be to compensated for at another location. Based on the criteria above expanding the parking by moving the tennis court to this location is a practicable site (Table 13). 10 Table 13. Site 13 Practicability tta* F g& ` L1 <.. � - Available for Yes. The applicant owns the property. Ac•uisition? Purchase and Yes. The cost of relocating the tennis courts is Construction Costs? reasonable. Compatibility? Yes. The wetland function would need to be replaced elsewhere. n 4 r Yes Site 14. Prestwick Pool This option expands parking into the existing tennis court complex of the clubhouse parcel and relocates the tennis to the existing Prestwick pool and tennis court (Figure 1). Both areas are under the ownership of Naples Heritage and there are no land acquisition costs for this option. The current pool and tennis court serve primarily the residents of the adjacent Southern Links and Prestwick neighborhoods of Naples Heritage. Removing these facilities to relocate the clubhouse tennis courts would be opposed by those residents and would therefore not be supported by the general Naples Heritage membership. Based on the criteria above expanding the parking by moving the tennis court to this location is not a practicable site (Table 14). Table 14. Site 14 Practicabilit R Available for Yes. The applicant owns the property. Acquisition? Purchase and No. The cost of relocating the swimming pool to a Construction Costs? nearb area would beexcessive) hi.h. Compatibility? No. The residents will not support the removal of 41- the current •ool and tennis court at this location. • No Site 15. Maintenance Facility This option expands parking into the existing tennis court complex of the clubhouse parcel and relocates the tennis to existing golf course maintenance facility(Figure 1). Both areas are under the ownership of Naples Heritage and there are no land acquisition costs for this option. However, the cost to relocate the golf course maintenance facility to another on-site location (if available) would be prohibitive. Vehicular access to this site would require a road to be constructed parallel to Collier Boulevard. This would either impact the mature landscaping that provides a visual buffer of Collier Boulevard or the green of golf hole 13. Based on the criteria above expanding the parking by moving the tennis court to this location is not a practicable site (Table 15). 11 Table 15. Site 15 Practicability nst' Available for Yes. The applicant owns the property. ske Acquisition? Purchase and No. The cost of relocating the maintenance facility Construction Costs? to a nearby area would be excessively high. Compatibility? No. The relocated courts would impact the golf course and the buffer along Collier Boulevard. No Site 16. Southern Links Pool Area This option expands parking into the existing tennis court complex of the clubhouse parcel and relocates the tennis court to existing Southern Links pool and pickle ball courts (Figure 1). Both areas are under the ownership of Naples Heritage and there are no land acquisition costs for this option. The current pool serves primarily the residents of the adjacent Arbor Lakes neighborhood of Naples Heritage. The pickle ball courts are the only such courts within Naples Heritage. Removing these facilities to relocate the clubhouse tennis courts would be opposed by those residents and would therefore not be supported by the general Naples Heritage membership. Based on the criteria above expanding the parking by moving the tennis court to this location is not a practicable site (Table 16). Table 16. Site 16 Practicabilit ray Available for Ac•uisition? Yes. The applicant owns the property. Purchase and No. The cost of relocating the swimmi . No. The residents will not support the removal of Compatibility? the current pool and pickle ball courts at this location. No Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative Analysis Parcels that were determined to be practicable were further evaluated to determine which alternate site was LEPDA in terms of loss of wetland function and impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered species. These criteria are discussed below. Loss of Wetland Function The extent of WOTUS was estimated for each potential practicable alternative site based on a review of publicly available information such as soils maps and photo interpretation of recent color aerial photography. A "desk top" functional assessment of each WOTUS type was conducted using the UMAM to estimate its ecological value. The UMAM scores were 12 then applied to a conceptual site plan to estimate the functional loss associated with a reasonable site specific plan. For the purposes of this analysis a reasonable site plan is defined as a project design that creates either 110± parking spaces or six tennis courts with associated parking in which wetland impact reduction results in the development footprint focused primarily in uplands and the unavoidable impacts are focused in lower functional value WOTUS to the extent practicable. Impacts to Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species Sites were evaluated for presence of habitat for federally listed species based on a review of publicly available information such as Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) listed species GIS database and site inspections. The impacts to federally listed species by a reasonable site specific conceptual plan was then qualitatively evaluated. The practicability analysis identified three properties (Sites 6, 10, and 13) that could feasibly achieve the overall project purpose considering availability, logistics, and cost. These three sites were further evaluated to determine which alternate site was the LEPDA using the two criteria described above. In order to compare the three sites objectively a site plan was prepared for each site. UMAM was used to estimate the functional loss associated with the proposed wetland impacts. The site plans and UMAM calculations for each site are presented in Appendix A. Each site is described below. Site 6. Vacant Land Owned by Naples Heritage This parcel is 5.21± acres in size. It consists of 1.77± acres of uplands and 3.44± acres of wetlands. Both the uplands and wetlands have varying densities of exotics (Figure 2). The Protected Species Assessment submitted as part of the permit application provides a detailed description of the habitats on-site. The development program for this property consists of relocating tennis courts and associated parking spaces from the clubhouse area to the northern portion of the site. A stormwater treatment area is also proposed in this area. The proposed site plan would impact 2.07± acres of wetlands resulting in a functional loss of 0.89± UMAM credits. The property is located within a wood stork (Myrcteria americana) core foraging area. It is anticipated that the wetland mitigation program would provide sufficient forage fish biomass to off-set impacts to wood stork foraging. The property is also within the red- cockaded woodpecker(Picoides borealis) (RCW) consultation area and Florida bonneted bat(Eumpos floridanus) consultation area. No potential nesting or roost cavities for these species have been observed within or adjacent to the proposed development footprint. Therefore, the project's site plan is not likely to adversely affect federally listed species. Site 10. West of Existing Parking Lot This area, located immediately west of the existing clubhouse parking lot, is a bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)dominated wetland (Figure 3). Scattered slash pine (Pinus elliotti�), dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) are also present. 13 SECTIOf# 9 TOWNS-►rk 5o s Naples Heritage Tennis Facility RANGE: 26 E 0 100 200 SCALE �1r l x•4.4.4• '"4.-:•:. ••••••' ' /444.4.4 625E2 •••••••••.:,:4 704.01.1'1,*tS:8:44 ;••i p or •44..,••4•• ► • �� A Wetland Fill(1.52 ac.) "f,1 . .,i 4.7 fill '•••••••••4•••4•' SecondaryWetland Impacts(0.55 ac.)►// � ••�•4•�•444•S44•d P. ► IIIIIII Impacts to Existing Upland Preserve r 4****� Area (0.25 ac.) r 619 WET-1S L i /1 FLUCCS Description 619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 625E2 Hydric Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics(26-50%) Notes: 1. Property boundary and surveyed wetland line provided by McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. 2. Site plan provided by Gina R. Green, P.A. 3. Mapping based on photointerpretation of 2015 PERAfIT USE ONLY aerial photography and ground truthing in July 2015. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 4. Delineation of jurisdictional wetlands has been field March 14, 2016 10:10:33 a.m. reviewed/approved by the SFWMD and COE. Drawing: NHG1FlGURES2-7.DWG Figure 2 Site 6 LEPDA Analysis W DEXTERSIES N NC k ENVIRONMENTAL JLWRINE CONSULTING Site Plan FORT M12'RS 239-334-9680 14 710/# rows s so s Naples Heritage Tenni- .At Facility RANGE 26E W W W W W �-*..�.. 0 100 200 W W T W EWWW WW 4' A0. 11 WW W W ';� WW WW W W �4. W W ' .-.... SCALE FEET W . W W/0'1* 44 � Courts W �- W T • e nn�*Ast --,..- 4, W xstg E W WW : arkin �W d� Pr"Wpose �Pro 7$7 W parking ��WW +`VSQVW WWW � rOW W - ;W EtN�W WW W , GGWWW W YW W ** WWW * .'. W W W W `{ W W W W ' W W W W ., W W W W W W * W W '. + W W W W '4 W W W W W Preserve W W w /// Wetland Fill (1.25 ac.) Notes: PL'RAfIT USE ONLY 1. Property boundary and surveyed wetland line provided by NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. March 14, 2016 10:10:33 a.m. 2. Site p/an provided by Gina R. Green, P.A. Drawing: NHGIFlWRES2-7.DV� I W. DEXTER BENDER Figure 3. Proposed Site 10 Plan ASSOCIATES, INC. k1virrRONR(AwTALeArARIAC°ASWZriv- 42' PORT YYERS 239-334-3680 15 Swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum) is the dominant ground cover. Exotics have been removed from this area as part of the overall mitigation program for Naples Heritage. The development program for this area consists of expanding the existing parking lot approximately 80 feet to the west into the preserve to create additional parking spaces. The proposed site plan would impact 1.25±acres of wetlands resulting in a functional loss of 1.13± UMAM credits. This area is located within a wood stork core foraging area. It is anticipated that the wetland mitigation program would provide sufficient forage fish biomass to off-set impacts to wood stork foraging. The property is also with the RCW consultation area and Florida bonneted bat consultation area. No potential nesting or roost cavities for these species have been observed within or adjacent to the proposed development footprint. Therefore, the project's site plan is not likely to adversely affect federally listed species. Site 13. East of Naples Heritage Drive This area, located between Naples Heritage Drive and the driving range, is a slash pine dominated wetland (Figure 4). Scattered bald cypress, dahoon holly, cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and wax myrtle are also present. Wetland and transitional grasses and sedges are the dominant ground cover. Exotics have been removed from this area as part of the overall mitigation program for Naples Heritage. The development program for this area consists of relocating tennis courts and associated parking spaces from the clubhouse area to 3.02± acres of wetlands resulting in a functional loss of 2.72± UMAM credits. The property is located within a wood stork core foraging area. It is anticipated that the wetland mitigation program would provide sufficient forage fish biomass to off-set impacts to wood stork foraging. The property is also with the RCW consultation area and Florida bonneted bat consultation area. No potential nesting or roost cavities for these species have been observed within or adjacent to the proposed development footprint. Therefore, the project's site plan is not likely to adversely affect federally listed species. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in any discharge of dredged or fill material to WOTUS to accommodate the development of a project that would satisfy the Overall Project Purpose. The No Action Alternative would also not resolve the current lack of parking for the clubhouse or address the public safety concerns associated with the current overflow parking situation. The Overall Project Purpose, as defined by the Corps, is to expand the parking facilities at the existing clubhouse at Naples Heritage. There are no sites which are completely uplands (e.g., no WOTUS)that are available that would serve the project purpose. The no action alternative would not meet the applicant's Basic or Overall Project Purpose. Based on the analysis above, Site 6 Vacant Land Owned by Naples Heritage is the LEPDA (Table 17). 16 77010 TwN s 50 s Naples Heritage Tennis Facility RANGE 26 Ejitf ---, /W W W W W W W W W W W W ! W W W .4. W W W W W W , W i,or.400:.,/oIi:/o/ 0 100 200 W ,0'i/oi••TA,i4°ilk sr �t 1��/��ih!•��� SCALE FEET r`ir-Tom__,-- r,11I&/it'l14 l%'10I , Proposed Tennis Courts *!-�• •%•, .41 W n ^_ W W WW W •.. W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W �► Proposed W W * W Wim' Parking W W W W r..._ ..� W >. W W' W 't W W° * W _ W E CistIng W * Parkiing.. W •L y1 - W W W W W ., - W W Existing Preserve W Wg AWetland Fill (3.02 ac.) W W iVR ACk W W W a 1. W W W W W. W W W W W W W W W W W W W Notes: PL'RAITT USE ONLY 1. Property boundary and surveyed wetland line provided by NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. March 14, 2016 10:10:33 a.m. 2. Site plan provided by Gina R. Green, P.A. Drawing: NHGIFlGURES2-7.DWG W. DEXTER BENDER Figure 4 Proposed Site 13 Plan ASSOCIATES, INC. < ENFIRONMANTAL et JlARINE CONSULTING ��_ FORT MYERS 239-884-3680 17 Table 17. Environmental Factor Matrix — w 2.07 1.25 3.02 .,=`. 0.89 1.13 2.72 = =? �72.; ; � � No known No known No known 0 = ; w . i - ..'-',--,--"*---'-'7.:-.4-141:,4;;-'1. 0 ',4:-= listed species listed species listed species " on-site on-site on-site F ti4'14 . Yes No No The analysis above documents that the only practicable site that meets the Overall Project Purpose is the proposed project location (Site 6). This is driven by geographic location of the clubhouse parking need and the built-out/existing preserve status of the vast majority of the lands adjacent to or within Naples Heritage. VII. Minimization Analysis The Corps requires that the applicant document alternatives to minimize impacts to WOTUS on the LEPDA site. According to the December 24, 1980 Preamble to the Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material, 45 Federal Register 85336, applicants need to conduct both an analysis of alternative off-site locations (e.g., "external alternatives"), as provide above, and an analysis of "internal" alternatives. See 45 Federal Register 85339. The September 18, 1979 Preamble to the proposed rules establishing the Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material, 44 Federal Register 54222, provides that the alternatives that should be considered include both "external" and "internal" alternatives. The September 18, 1979 Preamble provides: Consideration of "internal" alternatives needs little justification beyond the application of common sense. If the applicant has within his immediate capability an alteration in the project which will lessen the environmental impact, yet remain practicable, he should certainly implement it. Moreover, it is entirely possible that such an evaluation might even result in a lower cost project when such a broader evaluation is carried out. In preparation of the permit application, the Applicant had undertaken a review of several site plan alternatives to develop Site 6. A summary of these alternatives, each of which lessen the environmental impact while remaining practicable (as used under the Section 404 Program), are summarized below. Site Plan 1. The initial plan by the Applicant was to maximize the use of the 5.21± acre parcel. This consisted of six tennis courts, six pickle ball courts, parking, and a water management area (Figure 5). All 1.77± acres of uplands and 3.44± acres of wetlands were impacted under this site development concept. 18 SECT1of# 9 TOWlS— 50 8 Naples Heritage Tennis Facility ilb RANGE: 26 E 0 100 200 SCALE FEET ' 0 ••••••••••-•i •.••.••.••.•,.••.•;1® �••.•.•.>.•.••• ••••,••••••••••••••::::►, ••.•.<. ' �" a0 ����� Wetland Fill (3.00 ac.) ,N N ,,. �, z-•"" 0 .;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;. t®1 4;.; ,•••.;.;.; Secondary Wetland Impacts(0.44 ac.) ►® 9F1F#1I Impacts to Existing Upland Preserve AVM Area (0.25 ac.) of _WET 1S i d. ®1 FLUCCS Description 619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 625E2 Hydric Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics(26-50%) Notes: 1. Property boundary and surveyed wetland line provided by McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. 2. Site plan provided by Gina R. Green, P.A. 3. Mapping based on photointerpretation of 2015 PERAfIT USE ONLY aerial photography and ground truthing in July 2015. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 4. Delineation of jurisdictional wetlands has been field March 14, 2016 10:10:33 a.m. reviewed/approved by the SFWMD and COE. Drawing: NHGIFlGURES2-7.DWG W. DEXTER BENDER Figure 5 Proposed Site Plan 1 ASSOCIATES, INC. l�LRINA' dNl�IRONJlENTAL MACONSULTING 4 FORT JlY-RS 289-334-5680 - 19 Site Plan 2. The second plan reduced the size of the development by eliminating the six pickle ball courts and reducing the parking spaces by 16 (eight for cars and eight for golf carts) (Figure 6). This revised site plan reduced wetland impacts by 1.27±acres to a total of 2.17± acres. Site Plan 3. The final site plan further reduced the size of the development by re-orienting the tennis courts, eliminating an additional 15 car and seven golf cart parking spaces, and shifting the entire development foot print to the northern end of the parcel (Figure 7). This revised site plan reduced wetland impacts from the original site plan by 1.37± acres (a 40± percent reduction) to a total of 2.07± acres. VIII. Summary The Applicant was not able to identify a site within or contiguous with Naples Heritage that consisted entirely of uplands which would satisfy the Overall Project Purpose. The screening process identified 16 potentially practicable sites. These 16 sites were further evaluated for practicability based on a consideration of availability, logistics, and costs in light of Overall Project Purpose in accordance with the COE Guidance. A majority of these sites were not practicable because they were either not available at a reasonable cost or the use of the site by Naples Heritage would not be compatible with existing uses. The three practicable sites (Site 6, Site 10, and Site 13) were further analyzed in terms of loss of wetland function and impacts to federally listed species. Site 6 (Vacant Land Owned by Naples Heritage) was determined to be the LEPDA based on less wetland functional loss (0.89 UMAM credits for Site 6 vs. 1.13 UMAM credits for Site 10 and 3.02 UMAM credits for Site 13). None of the sites would impact federally listed species. The Applicant has also analyzed three alternative development plans for Site 6 in order to reduce WOTUS impacts while still meeting the Overall Project Purpose. This series of site plans reduced wetland impacts through a combination of reducing the development components (pickle ball courts and parking spaces) and relocating development features (i.e. moving the impact foot print to the northern portion of the parcel). Therefore, the Applicant maintains that no other practicable off-site or on-site alternatives are available and capable of being developed "after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of Overall Project Purpose" with less adverse impact to the aquatic ecosystem. Y:NHG-1\Alternatives Analysis\Altemative Analysis.Docx 20 SECTION TOW 9 50 s Naples Heritage Tennis Facility RAN 26 E 0 100 200 SCALE FEET 625E2 .- ;•�❖.;0 I - •�• •••.••••fr. re*••••4 p, . <4 ,el.rr.1 ti. - oi A Wetland Fill(1.84 ac.) ' �c/ ►�r 0 0/ ❖.❖.❖....0 SecondaryWetland Impacts (0.33 ►® ......... P ac.) A IIIIIII Impacts to Existing Upland Preserve � � 4****V - # A,0,10A Area (0.25 ac.) s'1 1 .: Upland Buffer(0.06 ac.) WET-1$ I I ///g / ..,.f t FLUCCS Description 619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 625E2 Hydric Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (26-50%) Notes: 1. Property boundary and surveyed wetland line provided by McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. 2. Site plan provided by Gina R. Green, P.A. 3. Mapping based on photointerpretation of 2015 PERA1IT USE ONLY aerial photography and ground truthing in July 2015. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 4. Delineation of jurisdictional wetlands has been field March 14, 2016 10:10:33 a.m. reviewed/approved by the SFWMD and COE. Drawing: NHG1F1GURES2-7.DWG W. DEXTER BENDER Figure 6. Proposed Site Plan 2 Bc ASSO CIA TES, INC. k..A'NVIRONM NTAL ct MARINA' CONSULTING ! FORT MYL'RS 239-334-8680 �r 21 a SEC7701# 9 row 5o s Naples Heritage Tennis Facility RANGE 26 E 0 100 200 1 SCALE AS*• 625E2 O.;••O,•••4Pi ...r."40-;;;;" � j/// Wetland Fill (1.52 ac.) OF !� ,o .,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•; Secondary Wetland Impacts (0.55 ac.) o p IIII/II Impacts to Existing Upland Preserve 4***i*,0 Area (0.25 ac.) .................................... Upland Buffer(0.10 ac.) WET-1S —,- 619 1 FLUCCS Description 619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 625E2 Hydric Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics(26-50%) Notes: 1. Property boundary and surveyed wetland line provided by McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. 2. Site plan provided by Gina R. Green, P.A. 3. Mapping based on photointerpretation of 2015 PERMIT USE ONLY aerial photography and ground truthing in July 2015. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 4. Delineation of jurisdictional wetlands has been field March 14, 2016 10:10:33 a.m. reviewed/approved by the SFWMD and COE. Drawing: NHG1F1GURES2-7.DWG W. DEXTER BENDER Figure 7 Proposed Site Plan & ASS O CIA TES, INC. k ` AWVIRONNA'NTAL cE MARINA' CONSULTING �A FORT MYERS 239-334-3680 ��"'� 22 Appendix A Site Plans and UMAM Analysis 23 Naples Heritage Tennis Facility Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method Matrix (March 18, 2016) Site 6 Wetland Impacts UMAM Scores Location Water Community Polygon # FLUCCS w/o with w/o with w/o with Delta Acres FL WET-1N 619 4 0 5 0 2 0 -0.37 1.12 -0.41 625E3 4 0 5 0 6 0 -0.50 0.95 -0.48 Total 2.07 -0.89 Site 10 Wetland Impacts UMAM Scores Location Water Community Polygon # FLUCCS w/o with w/o with w/o with Delta Acres FL WET-2 621 8 0 9 0 10 0 -0.90 1.25 -1.13 Total 1.25 -1.13 Site 13 Wetland Impacts UMAM Scores Location Water Community Polygon# FLUCCS w/o with w/o with w/o with Delta Acres FL WET-3 624 8 0 9 0 10 0 -0.90 3.02 -2.72 Total 3.02 -2.72 24 Ecological,Environmental,Agricultural Land Management,Permitting,Septic Evaluations ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Ramse Inc. CWB,CFEA,REPA,BURNING CWB -Certified Wildlife Biologist E-mail: Ramsey.Inc@embarqmail.com CFEA-Certified Florida Environmental Assessor Office: 239.564.1660, REPA-Registered Environmental Property Assessor 2631 4th St.NW,Naples,FL 34120 OSHA 5—Hazardous Materials Incident Commander FDACS—Natural Areas Certified Commercial Pesticide Applicator FFS - Certified Prescribed Burn Manager 03 January 2017 Mr. Joe Huber PROJECT: EVALUATION OF RELOCATION OPTIONS FOR TENNIS 7693 Colonial Ct. COURTS &PARKING TO FOLIO 00407440001,5 AC,WEST OF Naples,FL 34112 COLONIAL COURT,NAPLES HERITAGE ; Street Address: west of Colonial Ct.NE ;Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club Inc.City: Golden Gate Est.,Naples ; State: FL; County: Collier; Sec 09 Twn 50 Rge 26;Road Frontage: 255 feet; Acres: 5.0 Mr. Huber, This letter is in response to your request for a review of the Tennis Court Relocation Project as proposed by Naples Heritage Golf And Country Club Inc. (NHGCC)on the property described above. Specifically,the NHGCC as administrators of the home owners (HOA)is proposing to move 4 tennis courts,restroom facilities,parking, lighting, utilities and necessary storm water management improvements to the 5 acre parcel on the farthest southwest location within Naples Heritage subdivision.This relocation is at the end of Colonial Court approximately 1.64 miles from the existing clubhouse location(Figure 1). The number of tennis courts will increase from 4 to 6. LOCATION. NHGCC is approximately 558 acres, 799 residential units as well as an 18-hole golf course, a clubhouse,four swimming pools, six tennis courts, a bocce ball court, and a fitness center. It is located south of Davis Blvd approximately 1.7 miles west of Collier Blvd. At this time the 6 tennis courts are located at the Country Club location at the center of the Naples Heritage subdivision sharing the utilities of the Country Club facility (electric,water, waste water,parking,etc. ). PERMITTING. I have reviewed the current Collier County PUD,The South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD)and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)permits covering NHGCC. The 5 acre parcel adjacent to Colonial Court is not a part of the current Collier County PUD , SFWMD and USACOE Permits. All Permits will have to be modified to include the new parcel into the existing permits and water management plans. Costs is estimated at$30,000.00. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT. NHGCC is also a part of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project or LAISP. This a stormwater drainage project that is attempting to improve the drainage and management of stormwater in an 11,135 acre sub basin area of Collier County. This area begins at the intersection of Davis Blvd at Collier Blvd proceeds southwest generally down County Barn Road and culminates at the Lely Canal and Lely Manor Main Discharge structures northeast of Rookery Bay Preserve. NHGCC drains all of its storm water discharge into this system. More specifically the Colonial Court area drains into the Lely Manor Basin and discharges through the Lely Manor Canal Main Discharge. Moving the tennis courts to the Colonial Court area will increase the discharge from Naples Heritage into the Lely Manor Basin due to the increase in impervious surfaces. It will most likely discharge directly into the proposed Shadow Wood PUD area that is directly south. Mr. Joe Huber 7693 Colonial Ct,Naples,FL Evaluation Tennis Court Relocation 03 January 2017 Page 2 ALTERNATIVE SITES. NHGCC has elected to review alternative sites as a response to the US Army Corps of Engineers inflexible wetland mitigation processes. In the Alternatives Report,the NHGCC developed commentary on 16 alternate site locations-9 were offsite or adjacent to the legal permitted boundaries of the NHGCC subdivision and 7 were internal. All Adjacent/Offsite site locations selected except two(Site 6 and 7),clearly do not present practicable cost components because they are already permitted and/or developed which tremendously increases the acquisition cost. Site 7 was described as 6 parcels under separate ownership that also have separate road access. The report clearly states that the acquisition price component was not known,nor sought. Nor did NHGCC proceed to acquire a legitimate cost estimate to acquire and construct the proposed tennis courts for feasibility evaluation. Site 6 is the 5 acre parcel west of Colonial Court that is being considered for tennis courts relocation. It is currently owned by NHGCC. The acquisition cost is known. It was purchased in the past to prevent any development adjacent to the current NHGCC subdivision. NHGCC has chosen only this parcel to do a full construction cost estimate. There were six Internal sites selected for evaluation. All of these are owned by NHGCC and have no cost acquisition component. All except sites 10 and 13 have facilities or have been permitted and developed with facilities. Sites 10 and 13 have no acquisition costs and would be considered to have a high practicability. However there was no reasonable cost estimate for permitting and construction done to allow comparison with permitting and construction with offsite location 6. In regards to existing conservation areas and permitting agencies they will always listen to any proposal regarding wetlands and protected species. If the applicant has a desired development project and it may involve impacts to a currently protect area,the permitting agencies will listen and consider any legitimate proposal. In this analysis not all proposals were considered or submitted. In particular the construction cost for building 6 tennis courts only at Site 10 and utilizing Site 6 for offsite/ replacement mitigation was not considered. This proposal may be cheaper and have more qualitative benefits,but was not explored. Nor was it considered for Site 13. WETLANDS/PROTECTED SPECIES. I visited all the sites listed in the Alternatives Analysis considered practicable-Sites 6, 10, 13. Habitat mapping and descriptions of the areas are accurate. Site 6 has a very poor habitat quality and not much use by wildlife. No protected species were observed utilizing the area. The area is infested with the exotic nuisance plant Melaleuca almost at the 80% level. It has the potential to become a quality wetland area with a viable upland island habitat component if treated and planted. Slash Pine plantings could be very valuable to protected species in this area. Sites 10 and 13 have been treated for exotic nuisance plants and have a quality habitat appearance of a Cypress Pine wetland association. No Protected Species were observed using the 2 areas. General wildlife utilization was also low to none. No wading birds were observed.This is typical in a wetland situations that is close to a human activity location and dries out every winter. It does appear that Site 6 could be treated and managed to come up to the same habitat and wildlife utilization conditions as Sites 10 and 13 or better. This option and costs was not considered in the Alternatives analysis. Mr. Joe Huber 7693 Colonial Ct,Naples,FL Evaluation Tennis Court Relocation 03 January 2017 Page 3 TRANSPORTATION,TRAFFIC,NOISE,ACTIVITY CENTER. The current location of the Tennis Courts at the Country Club location appears to be optimal.The design of the subdivision has 2 main road paths with all of the residences that go east and south of the Guard Gate with the community activity center (Country Club)being at the intersection. It is in a location that is close to the entrance and there is not a lot of residences around. This design allows for a special events to be held with large increases in traffic to enter the area but not bother the existing residences. The proposal to move the tennis courts and parking area to Site 6 on Colonial Court will shift all of the traffic for this activity to specifically utilize Naples Heritage Drive from the Guard House to the end of Colonial Court. It will specifically increase the traffic pattern in front of 96 homes on the portion of that road. Traffic during special events especially if on weekends or holidays could be more disruptive. CONCLUSIONS. LOCATION,TRANSPORTATION,ACTIVITY CENTER. Moving the tennis courts to Site 6 directly effects 96 resident's of the community. In addition,it will increase road maintenance along the route and increased risks for golf cart crossings. Parking during special events will also be a problem on Colonial Court especially if Emergency Vehicle access is needed. Utilizing Sites 10 and 13 for the Tennis Courts will keep traffic in the same pattern the residents enjoy now and will not directly affect the existing 96 homes. PERMITTING. The cost of permitting would be cheaper if Sites 10 and 13 were utilized. It would be possible to do a modification to the existing permits rather than opening up an increasing the acreage and surface water management system. The 5 acres could west of Colonial Court could be utilized for mitigation if treated for exotics and the habitat improved with imposing a water management system on it. STORMWATER. If the 5 acres west of Colonial was used for mitigation and Sites 10 and/or 13 were used for the Tennis Courts relocation less stormwater volume would be generated into the Lely Manor Basin canal for discharge. It would also be of better water quality since it would have to travel farther in the preserved natural vegetation of Naples Heritage's CDD's before reaching a canal. ALTERNATIVE SITES ANALYSIS. This analysis is lacking in full cost disclosures. First, a better Site option could have been determined if more data about the 6 private parcels in Site 7 were collected. These parcels could be used for the relocation of the Tennis Courts or for mitigation. Second,Permitting Agencies will consider and evaluate any and all reasonable mitigation proposals. It did not look at utilizing Site 6 as a mitigation option for relocating the tennis courts to Sites 10 and/or 13. It also did not look at the differences in the cost of permitting,construction and mitigation between Sites 6, 10& 13. Without cost data it appears construction at Site 6 is the most expensive-Site 13 next and Site 10 cheapest. Site 10 looks to be the cheapest because it can continue to utilize the electrical,parking lot and restroom facilities of the Country Club. Utilization of Site 10 appears to be most feasible and it would produce less storm water discharge. WETLANDS/PROTECTED SPECIES. A survey of the 3 practicable areas Sites 6, 10& 13 indicates that Site 6 has the most potential to create a habitat combination that would be utilized more by wildlife and protected species if utilized for restoration/mitigation. Typically wildlife prefers a combination of habitat types and minimal human activity. Sites 10 and 13 appeared to have minimal wildlife/protected species utilization. Improvement of the habitat on Site 6 could improve cumulative utilization over the entire community. Mr. Joe Huber • 7693 Colonial Ct,Naples,FL Evaluation Tennis Court Relocation 03 January 2017 Page 4 OVERALL,based on the data available the most practicable solution would be to construct the 6 tennis courts at Site 10(west of the existing parking lot) and utilize Site 6 for mitigation. This would: • Reduce Permitting Costs • Minimize construction costs by utilization of the existing Country Club parking lot,utilities (water, waste water,electricity),restrooms, and other facilities; • Reduce the area of impervious surfaces minimizing the amount of stormwater volume discharged into the Lely Manor Basin; • Maximize the water quality of the stormwater discharged by increasing filtration area; • Maintain the Country Club as the high traffic activity center of the subdivision; • Create better and more acreage of wildlife/Protected species habitat. Please call if you have any questions. Best regards Michael R.Ramsey President PROJECT LOCATION MAP • `4a or .TE SI3 4 —2/ A 011/:// „i 7 N• 6,i ' 1 G / c %� � ' �1At , /�r it Er— ! it ,,,-- 7, ♦ ♦ o coti i c. C, . . m : � VI 0A14) sil via NI 0 0 es 11 ilk i•la is � flPt - I_ • I1fF a e o O V PROJECT: NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB TENNIS COURT RELOCATION,PID 00407440001 Figure 1 . Project Location Map. RAMSEY INC. Environmental Consulting PROJECT NAPLES HERITAGE: south of Davis Blvd at Colonial Ct, Collier Co; 2631 4th St.NW Naples, FL Sec 09; Twn 50; Rge 26; totaling 5.0 acres Naples FL,34120 PID 00407440001 239.564.1660 Ramsey.Ine@embarqmail.com ,d y6 Yz R 'b a Interior Basff___,,,,,,,..„ , ,,, _ ,._, ins .....,,k,,-.11,-. , 4S A f -meq_ t CI Lely Canal Basin r a ~ L • -'s ,,,,,,f,-,--,,,,,:,,„ _......suelibt i ` A�. (-) is t t E • z 9 � • ` '-'''---i..;;;,. �' Lely Manor Basin N -. (:;>-' „ , ♦ ,.--,..42,-..,..10,4). .4, t_.,,,,t s rr. S 1 JI r 1 . Widen & Deepen Existing & Construct New Conveyances - - - ' i ' / ' Improvements 856 x ...L.- -- E ;:.-'''''''': . - __. _:.,, _,,, ,.. .':":'t''''-7,-.A::'.':ft_j'_a''''.'i'j-:",_'t*4,-"T':''\-1.17'.\v4,',:', V 1..., t.. ice,—- '-{7:1‘&7::'''.... /?::",g"-i71/4..":',:;-:,.:,,,,f,: ; s' r x ;, i s ""'- ."mo"' uN.p .7.7.': 7''''.'''':M1''i'21:;L'I';'ii:::;!.i'Cl:44;''''':i:';'''*3 I :'''''''''' ' ' ' ' ''' '. ...' '.' .'. '''' ''''°','''''' 1" f- -: :-....Ft,"; ..,,. ..Tii. :-:,1.-!'la't.:::'''1.-;,:t,';‘\:;71-'::i'll-:4:-i-40''' i `' 4 € r i # ...-- ,.(- . ... : :ft4' + s ak tut, y" ... a u a 7-;4121 9"?S'f 77"3 ism .f..:... . ay ■ s t •. y } . + .: IA ■ t ,� e 4' . : ,«� • F "°rte*'_'" k"!'^A p �iR �; yea 0 # ' • • u:wt Z .i k"�_4'`Y y'. ♦ . ''':1 Al ..•,...24,.---"II$Irr,%:':tfr;i, IOW','Ar' t W F .F 41 � S PROJECT LOCATION MAP • a 4 h � g 0: J Qa .TE S13 01 rr. Alal\ 11111111\ Q1DIaniamir tiiiiiiiiii_ -� iimproixist 2 --III; I • IIIIIID IP �i//////// 1.45110.iiiii%i". limo A fig •. 0 1, o 10 0IA 0 la Ng 03 iiii:' ) 0. C, a Ng 73 m so um a til mi op • r 'I' K •'� .dt hos P. kW J a E e J O v PROJECT: NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB TENNIS COURT RELOCATION,PID 00407440001 Figure 1 . Project Location Map. RAMSEY INC. Environmental Consulting PROJECT NAPLES HERITAGE: south of Davis Blvd at Colonial Ct, Collier Co; 2631 4th St.NW Naples, FL Sec 09; Twn 50; Rge 26; totaling 5.0 acres Naples FL,34120 PID 00407440001 239.564.1660 Ramsey.Inc@embarqmail.com PROJECT LOCATION MAP • 46 # re`TE • • 4% o'a S13 _2 c lic:i Q11q�II)1 S i i � ill f". 4411=* - owl% - : II g ria i _ __ • n ••0 o 0' EFFECTED HOMESCO /if - Z D. m RI i XI Z INI IN MI MI 110 CD 0 IIII NI alr Z .ma 0 S70 so si , 1 �I.',ii• . POL yiej im F 1• v J Q Z POLLY D C < o 1V m PROJECT: NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB TENNIS COURT RELOCATION,PID 00407440001 Figure 1 . Project Location Map. RAMSEY INC. Environmental Consulting PROJECT NAPLES HERITAGE: south of Davis Blvd at Colonial Ct, Collier Co: 2631 4th St.Nw Naples, FL Sec 09; Twn 50; Rge 26; totaling 5.0 acres Naples FL,34120 PID 00407440001 239.564.1660 Ramsey.Inc@embarqmail.com