The URL can be used to link to this page

Ex Parte - McDaniel 01/10/2017 Ex parte Items - Commissioner 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 X SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails �CaIIs Staff Report, met with Joe Huber, Walter Kulbacki, Patrick Dorbad + current and past president of Naples Heritage. Emails and correspondence from residents and Bob Mulhere, Hole Montes. 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 SEE FILE nMeetings NCorrespondence e-mails ECalls STAFF REPORT CONSENT AGENDA 1 6.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. NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ElMeetings ['Correspondence De-mails ❑Calls t` /1"- 16.A.9. .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. >Q NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE nMeetings ❑Correspondence De-mails ❑Calls 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. IX NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence De-mails ❑Calls MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING: Between The Collier County Board of County Commissioners and The Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, Dwight E. Brock This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into between the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (Board), acting in all of their capacities as a Board(s) and the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, Dwight E. Brock (Clerk). I.Purpose The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to outline an operational process for cooperation and consideration between the parties to avoid litigation and create an environment of collaboration between the Board and the Clerk. II. The Clerk Agrees: A. To work with the Board to resolve issues concerning Clerk processes to avoid litigation; B. To provide the Board information regarding processes, transactions and operations to streamline processes and facilitate County functions that are impacted by the operation of the Clerk; C. To work with the Board to resolve audit findings and/or potential audit findings to reduce the risk and/or likelihood of Audit comments in the Financial statements; D. To communicate to the Board issues and/or concerns impacting county government; and E. To not spend taxpayer funding for outside counsel regarding litigation between the Clerk and the Board. III. The Board Agrees: A. To work with the Clerk to resolve issues concerning County processes in order to avoid litigation; B. To provide the Clerk information regarding processes, transactions and operations to streamline processes and facilitate Clerk functions; C. To work with the Clerk to resolve audit findings and/or potential audit findings to reduce the risk and/or likelihood of Audit comments in the Financial statements;and D. To appoint a Commissioner to act as Liaison with the Clerk's Office. E. To not spend taxpayer funding for outside counsel regarding litigation between the Clerk and the Board. Duration of Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding shall begin when signed by both parties and is in effect for two years, and may be renewed thereafter by agreement of both parties. It is understood that this agreement may be amended only upon the written agreement of both parties. In agreement with the provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding, the parties affix their signatures in the spaces provided Donna Fiala,Chairperson Date Collier County Board of County Commissioners Dwight E. Brock Date Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller ATTEST: DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK By: Approved as to form and legality County Attorney Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting January 10,2017 Continue Item 16A1 to the February 14,2017 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to hold a public hearing to consider vacating an unimproved 30-foot wide public right- of-way described as"Avenue B"and a portion of an unimproved 30-foot wide public right-of-way described as"First Street,"according to the COL-LEE-CO TERRACE subdivision plat,as recorded in Plat Book 1,Page 32 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida.The subject property is located on the south side of U.S.41 between Frederick Street and Palm Street in Section 11,Township 50 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida. (Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Taylor's separate requests) 1/1012017 7:39 AM FilsonSue Subject: Patrict Dorbad, General Manager of Naples Heritage - OPEN FOR INFO Location: BCC Office Start: Thu 1/5/2017 2:00 PM End: Thu 1/5/2017 2:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: McDanielBill Patrick Naples Heritage Golf ex 1 FilsonSue From: Patrick Dorbad <gm@nhgcc.com> Sent: Wednesday,January 4, 2017 2:23 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: Patrick Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club Dear Ms. Filson, Thank you for taking my call this afternoon. We would like to meet with Commissioner McDaniel in regards to our project at Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club. We are on the agenda for this upcoming Tuesday.We would like to share some information with the Commissioner prior. I will be bringing our current President and past President. Best regards, Patrick J. Dorbad General Manager Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club 1 FilsonSue Subject: Joe Huber (412-680-0509) and Walter Kulbacki - Naples Heritage PUD Location: BCC Office Start: Thu 12/8/2016 3:30 PM End: Thu 12/8/2016 4:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: McDanielBill rDF PDF PDF PDF Heritage CentralMailRoo... Colonial Court FW: Naples Naples Heritage NAPLES Fleming PUD1205201611... from Naples Her...Heritage Docum... Plan Exhibit A... HERITAGE PUD... Message.docx C:I Close up of proposed entran... 1:1 PDF PDF Colonial Court NAPLES Naples Heritage from Naples Her... HERITAGE PUD... Plan Exhibit A,.. They are residents of Colonial Court and have concerns regarding the PUD. They will send information ahead of time. Also,this came before the BCC and was sent back to CCPC. It is on the 12/13/16 BCC meeting. Joe Huber wants to join the meeting via phone. 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 tomorrow. Thanking you for your support in this matter, Walter S. Kulbacki 7677 Colonial Court 1 Dear Commissioner McDaniel- 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 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 2 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. 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 3 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. I will follow up by phone to discuss the points raised herein. Thanks you for your consideration. 4 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 3:05 PM To: Huber, Joe Subject: RE: Follow Up Mr. Huber,thank you for your email and we wish you a very Merry Christmas as well. It was nice meeting with you. William L. McDaniel, Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 From: Huber,Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 2:15 PM To: McDanielBill<BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net>; FilsonSue <SueFilson@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Follow Up Dear Commissioner Mc Daniel, Thank you so much the time to allocated to us on what we consider a most important issue.The changes proposed will change the entire character of our neighborhood. We are hopeful that the points we share will lead to vote against approving this measure. If there is any other questions you have or information you need please do not hesitate to contact us. We will send you any additional information we may come to our attention prior to the meeting. Sue thank you for coordinating this meeting. Best wishes for a Merry Christmas! From:Walt [mailto:wkulbacki@msn.com] Sent:Thursday, December 08, 2016 9:21 PM To: McDanielBill; 'SueFilson@colliergov.net' Cc:Walt; Huber,Joe Subject: Follow Up Importance: High Commissioner McDaniel and Ms Filson — I just wanted to thank you both for scheduling our meeting today which Joe and I thought was very informative on how to proceed with the CCBC meeting in January. We appreciated your taking the time to meet and scheduling the session. We will continue to refine our information for the Board meeting and look forward to keeping in touch with you. Thanks, Walt Kulbacki and Joe Huber 1 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 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 12:32 PM To: 'Bill Mcdaniel' Subject: RE: FW:Joe Huber (412-680-0509) and Walter Kulbacki - Naples Heritage PUD Okay,See you just can't give me 4 days off. From: Bill Mcdaniel [mailto:mcdanielbilll©gmail,com] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 12:29 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: Re: FW: Joe Huber (412-680-0509) and Walter Kulbacki - Naples Heritage PUD I already have appointments on the 8th till noon. ..I can do the 9th William L. McDaniel Jr. 7000 Big Island Ranch Rd Napled Fl. 34120 Cell 239-253-1617 votebillmcdaniel.com lazysprings.com On Nov 28, 2016 10:10 AM, "FilsonSue" <SueFilson@colliergov.net> wrote: They are residents of Colonial Court and have concerns regarding the PUD. They will send information ahead of time. Also, this came before the BCC and was sent back to CCPC. It is on the 12/13/16 BCC meeting. I scheduled this meeting for you for December 8th at 10:00 a.m. Sue 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. Forwarded message g From: McDanielBill <BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net> To: Cc: > Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:05:18 -0500 Subject: Joe Huber(412-680-0509) and Walter Kulbacki -Naples Heritage PUD They are residents of Colonial Court and have concerns regarding the PUD. They will send information ahead of time. Also,this came before the BCC and was sent back to CCPC. It is on the 12/13/16 BCC meeting. 2 FilsonSue From: Huber,Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 3:48 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents You too. Original Message From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] Sent:Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:47 PM To: Huber,Joe Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents No problem, have a nice evening. Sue Original Message From: Huber,Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent:Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:46 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Sue, Was not sure the attachments made it through.Another person I sent them to did not get attachments.Thanks. Original Message From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] Sent:Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:45 PM To: Huber,Joe Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Yes and I sent you a confirmation. See below. Sue Original Message From: Huber,Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent:Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:42 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Sue, Did you get the other email with the attachments? Original Message From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] Sent:Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:15 PM 1 • To: Huber,Joe Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Thank you, I will provide this information to the commissioner. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 Original Message From: Huber,Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent:Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:10 PM To: FilsonSue Cc:Walt& Kathy Kulbacki (Wkulbacki@msn.com) Subject: FW: Naples Heritage Documents Dear Sue, I am sending you several additional documents that were not included in my original message to you in preparation for our meeting with Mr Kulbacki and myself on Thursday on Monday. The aerial view shows how the Colonial Court neighborhood is surrounded by preserve, conservation and wooded area. This makes our neighborhood unique.The overall Plan shows that no other recreational area are located within the single family residential neighborhood. Finally the document from Gina Green shows the alternative location for the tennis courts identified in their alternative site analysis that is located near the clubhouse and the existing tennis courts. I know I have sent a lot of material hopefully they are helpful.Thanks . Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 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 Dear Commissioner McDaniel- 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 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 3 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. 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 4 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 10:10 AM To: 'Bill Mcdaniel' Subject: FW:Joe Huber(412-680-0509) and Walter Kulbacki - Naples Heritage PUD Attachments: Joe Huber(412-680-0509) and Walter Kulbacki - Naples Heritage PUD They are residents of Colonial Court and have concerns regarding the PUD. They will send information ahead of time. Also,this came before the BCC and was sent back to CCPC. It is on the 12/13/16 BCC meeting. I scheduled this meeting for you for December 8th at 10:00 a.m. Sue 1 FilsonSue From: Leon Case <leoncase36@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 4:39 PM To: McDanielBill Subject: 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 Subject: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Date: January 3, 2017 at 4:26:24 PM EST Dear Commissioner McDaniel, We are residents residing at 7685 Colonial Court Lot#3. We totally support the opposition to the tennis court location. We fully agree with Joe Huber's statements in the attached letter. We believe there are much better choices available for this project near the Clubhouse and other amenities, It makes no sense to locate it on a small residential court with six houses. We are also concerned with safety issues that may arise. There will be 6 tennis courts and parking for 20 cars. People may find a need to park on our short, narrow street with no sidewalks. One car would barely have room to get by and it would be difficult for us to exit our drive-way. It would be difficult for service trucks to get down our street. Our main concern, though, is blocking emergency vehicles such as police, fire trucks and 911 responders! Residents have always used our street for walks and riding bikes as it is not busy and very safe. We foresee an accident waiting to happen! Sincerely, Leon and Barbara Case Dear Commissioner McDaniel, 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 1 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 2 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 . 3 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 4 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 developme nt proposed in relation to physical characteris tics of the land , surroundin g areas, traffic and 5 access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Inc onsistent with current use 2. The internal and external compatibili ty of the proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improveme nts, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requireme nts. Incom patible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriat e considering the existing land use pattern? In appropriat e 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result 6 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 neighborho od?Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatib le with the surroundin g land uses....Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? L ikely 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 neighborho od...?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 8 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. 9 FilsonSue From: Richard Rogan <rmrogan40@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 3:33 PM To: Donna Fiala; SolisAndrew; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: HM File No.: 2015.055 Attachments: NHGCC Perspective on Tennis Center pdf.pdf; ATT00001.htm Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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 1/, e-- e--Caber County j-10-17 STAFF REPORT 5 Ffcrt TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2016 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 November 4, 2016 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 il o =� \<\11 ___,____JA • =i 21 Ii -joa_Tow4r.� .... ■._ 0 ......4... ‘.: 111111IIIIIIr/" 4,0 „ ,„,uuiummlU ■ f a. f QM:Ammiii. —1111111111ki , it. AI -II IN- Aim E i1111I►�� 1 luuulnll/l`lil� uil�►•�r 41,7 a s� o " * gi ��iii i !z_z', 411111+111111111\\``� `'i J �%VI �111r/111111111111111111 rlyf ( „ ,fir\li 1” ' .\Oi�1U►� �pr iii, o t� �huu►r►► iPrnuuug1111 ,� ,\�UIIry 11� tir 1 . illitit......._. . ...... ... . r_........N., .... ��uunup moi � ' �I /f �I _ 0 ___ ,.,QIL': I� ` F. N .•,,.�L,,,,,//';/,,,,x,1111111,,, � .. ..,....,,,7„„,,,,,„„,..,,„ � ==� /I//11111111111:= ` � - 4 _ti _ ' .gyp °i `�i .: nWuum\ �p111111111� �iq/,� __ ',�`,,\"```� „g1'.s 1IIIIIIIII6:! ON0.,„„ OOpr►4Ir __ �.`o►u0`��o` �gun��n�uml►• �� 1112...... ._1418.68H1a►�yn►�►►► ir��n nnn 1 lg./MO `Iunn nuuuuiu►� ��►�._ 1 _ RH �\mmulllllllpuw:rimllr� 11111111111111111% I I I I v 1:��•�n1O1n-1^� Iii IIIIII x311/4 Pre 46 II in lU•INI1111uNIN1j,iNIXII 111111111I11111111P I g ` IIII I E I ■:• I" -Millis war-al_ ti21 t =-,_I=F. IIIIIIII N db'r; ��nlinu0,� r 3OS O110N 0 N D a I LI 0 I— \ I ` 3 av 0- E N ! grz zN o U a a miW�F i x §� g 3 1 a^ 2i J6 O a_i Sv _SENrg ' 04 '_ s Iss as 1R 02:M3111087,1311100Q T- oavn3inoe a3m03 ss o y 11 La III os. 5. AVM3LWJ 15Y3 'cmiv �v �m { o go Ey L� o g 7 N H " N00a11310aVS G n 1 ?RO < > �5 N < / k IC YJ <8 Ea § <=V U go7z0 ,11.9 5 E_/ , m of L J - s go ° (D-10 92 ho . 'Iliili w yI IQQ V' a < y 3MY1/YEWS < _W m 3 v I a N 4 EF, bh 1 a0 z NDLLV1NVld 31:1 o F ,! as 5' So rm �s oavn3�noa yyyyNNpp �I"i ythei B r. VNVEINVS V1NVS aaVnaino: Vavaays ,,,Vl S W y p W O w ❑ Ig / I p8m Z Y3 ,- 'al•- Fb oxo �" rc j 3< j'/ �i 3U m om gym,., < R m ,4 m5� <4m m L ` ,2 5 < =U 3 N W VI pp '6' < Q 0S tlii a ¢ L c ❑ '<6r I I_ aVoa Nav6 IaNnoa ❑ Ell g ,,, p SO OIf�N3 IN11 /�1,faiC 1 >-i 1 i 1 W' `Jtl3eN311INM 31Naa NxoiD .J- rc I V/ S T LU I.58,BLUER tl I NAPLES HERITAGE �' -j- /��// GCC PHASE TWO-A, • TRACT DC4-RIGHT-OF-WAY \ / PB 28,PGS 11-13 RESERVATION NAPLES HERITAGE OCK 'B' GCC PHASE 1,PB 26,PGS 71-80 P ASE TWO-A , I t\• ` • LOT 39,BLOCK 8 I I I • • NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TI II I III I PB 28,PGS 11-13 11-13 • I N. IIIII' :'EX.LAKE '\ \ i TRACT GC48,NAPLES HERITAGE I I GCC TRACTS B&C5 REPLAT,PB 27,PGS 9B-100 `�\ `� \ ,I __ I III I NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TWO-A, TRACE CS-CORRYARON AREA I i PB 28,PGS 11-13 TRACT C5-C1159WAMK ILEA /� XAPUS HATA(F GCC 71tAC15 B li WPU3 BRACE GCC RCM B d :ref?IERAL PB 71,RS 96-100 I C5 KRAL PB D,PCS 99-190 �� _________—__ • • II LOT 5,BLOCK F, 1 ( NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TWD-A, IPB 28,PGS 11-13 I b LO NATURAL AR - . III &I I\ 0 LOT 4,BLOCK F, J NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TWO-A, `"i Z PB 28,PGS 11-13 I! 1 11 ( 1 a 1111 oR, Iil I gE4W9 _ PAR .G ARFA _ I _ I, LOT 3,BLOCK F I � A..-___ NAPLES HERITAGE • GCC PHASE TWO-A, 'I 11=I-�� PB 28,PGS 11-13 • . b.b filliplipti, �itilliailIs.frilIl! I I !II �` 200 -I I u�II ( L3 .. IN !+ter' r 1::I�,* 1 N LOT 1,BLOCK F I I n NAPLES HERITAGE . - ZA GCC PHASE TWO-A.11-13 ''Nf I . ilit PB 28,PGS11-13 TEN i(3. I,, . fl1�,I� ,� ib. 8 .' I \ 6„,,, u �I I� 111I • • * • • • • • . * • • * • •••• •• • • • .• • • • • • • • • • ITRACT 05-CONSERVATION AREA ` ` ` ` • ` ` ` " ` ` `•`. i NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE 1, ' •• . • • . • . • • PB 26,PGS 71-80 • • • • • • • ••••••• * • ••••• I ••••••• ' • • • . • • • •'•`•••••• • • • • • • • " '•••• . • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • I — • • • ..PRCPCISF•D.CLNJ•SF„R14Aj1C1J AREA*• • • • • • • • *. • • • • • • . • • •• • u • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • m'd 8 gTRACT RW4-RIGHT-OF-WAY ` • ` ` ` • ` • • ` • ` ` • • • ` ` " RESERVATION NAPLES HERITAGE GCC ` .1, • • ` • • • • ` • • • • • ` •z PHASE 1,PB 26,PGS 71-80 • +. • • • • .• • • • • • • • • • .--',4 •• • • • • • . • • • 40."' • •` • • • • • 5892745.W 326.82'(U. . . . • •' • . . • • N59.23 06. 326.337, . • . . • . • EXHIBIT "A-1 " NAPLES HERITAGE TENNIS CENTER CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN NO SCALE 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. il ��ppqq NAPLES� ;'� ., E ` f iiiiik � 4t��o � :.r""'� "� f( _ .. HER-1 GE 't a' S II!! 4 Ke 1 1- PIAsbo 1 r. • ,' 1 3.ma y • ' i f-as' ' - -`.--"" ,r J r` Subject Property _ "a�orii:i it a �e t s .. OY, F. jk' ..._. a .. { , Q SHADOW ' ' . ( --4. WOOD 0. I. ,w i — 11, toi'str. z' 7 s «. ., W h-71:;-.4..!4i4 t.a k ed R-.—�__.._....rs 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 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 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. 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 deter pined 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: 4 EV /„-------- /0/Z 7-4. ERIC JOHNSON, AICP, CFM,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: - i 4 ( ,, -. z /v RAY .JM P V. ELLOWS,ZON'NUNIATlAGER DATE ZONIN DIVISION 30 '= (Q -2 t MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: (----- f+'i-ra-164.. ' ,. 9 _. z , // — / --/ JA ES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1 1 A,. . , --- , N [i 73 /i 6 VID S. WILKISON DATE DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 12 of 12 FilsonSue From: greatsmiles4you@aol.com Sent: Thursday,January 5, 2017 1:35 PM To: McDanielBill Subject: Proposed tennis courts at Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club- VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016 001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/41 Dear Commissioner McDaniel, We are residents at 7681 Colonial Ct., Lot#4, in Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club. We are one of six families who reside on that street. You have received explanations of our concerns, including pictures and proposed plans for the tennis courts from Mr. Joe Huber and others, so no need to include them in this e-mail. As expressed by others, we reside on a small cul-de-sac with a very narrow road. Very private. This was the reason we all purchased these properties and paid more for this luxury. The last thing we want is to have that disturbed, for we enjoy our privacy and the safety that a closed road is safe for our children, and especially our grandchildren, to play, ride bikes etc..without the concern of traffic and intrusions. The proposed entrance to courts is directly across from my driveway. A definite safety issue for my family backing out of driveway and those entering the courts. We are also concerned, due to the limited parking, that when large tournaments are played, cars will be parked on street. A DEFINITE safety issue due to blocked view when leaving driveway. Also, due to lack of sidewalks, residents and tennis players MUST walk on the street. An accident waiting to happen!! Let us emphasize, we are NOT against the "campus expansion". On the contrary, we are 100% for it. Our only concern is the site for the tennis courts, as expressed above, and along with my fellow neighbor's concerns. Due to much research from Joe Huber and Walt Kulbacki, it has been discovered that there are at least two other areas where these courts could be built. Due diligence, in exploring these other areas, was not done by the planning committee, due to our research, contrary to what NHGCC told us. We understand that this is a contentious issue between Colonial Ct. residences and NHCGG. We are only 6 among 799 "doors". However, we are the ONLY ones affected by this development. All we ask is that NHGCC evaluate the other areas fully, before making a final decision, and leave Colonial Ct. as is, so we can continue to enjoy it as we have for a long time. These other areas will be presented at the the meeting on January 10, 2017. Thank you for reading/listening to our concerns, and we ask you to vote favorably on this issue. Sincerely, Thomas & Lois Leonard 1 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 f 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 t p 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 facilitymust 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 C ! `zee L Available for No. It is highly unlikely that the current owners `<a 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 golf course, • • -44 Compatibility. lake, and wetland impacts. 3 E — — I �...„..1 E3 a UrNhoO° Lu J11mi — .•. a g iiw ad w OR V "` 41 E; O � i. °iV c ,.`.14`‘'N d WUCO y C CU ti°w ` zaao Wcifi`c. 0 C3 0 IPIARijil;Ir * , ri) w • co 1p LL atcbA4 1C • .40 y03 g M op }� t!,,, III: 04.3 30. q as 4 40 F Z j I 7 it iiiiik i y I P co I ,r c 8 - # ..-4 ---- k .ic--, -•2"2 0 ') ,, Lc,j) , y CO E 4= cti Va: Q- tau .0 `4 N M 3 FF +!mr, ` ,.%' p y p¢i "Ii C� } �y `', a '.li) lam tea'-''''" ks 7 S C �� a -O (Dp = 1 4- illiiii.,,.=, , , - .., 1. 0 c2—,p N w e sk e 1. ' "�... aim a � , 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 :.... is t ( .& _; ..., F,' €... -`- E`'`° Available for No. It is highly unlikely that the current owners Acquisition? would consider sale of a •ortion of their project. 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, Compatibility? lake, or wetland impacts (within existing 47 44' fi 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 portion of their •roject. Purchase and No. The cost of the land, if available, would be pA Construction Costs? excessive) hi•h. No. Access to the site would require existing Compatibility? development and wetland impacts (within existing conservation easement). ;; .. No 5 r s 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 Acquisition? consider sale of a •ortion of their mitigation area. Purchase and No. The cost of the land, if available, would be Construction Costs? excessive) high. No. Access to the site would require existing Compatibility?? develo ment and wetland impacts (within existing conservation easement). ; ham 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 . Available for Yes. Naples Heritage could potentially purchase a Acquisition? portion of this gropert . 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). . 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 Practicability ti. { Available for Yes. Naples Heritage was able to purchase the Acquisition? property for a reasonable cost. Yes. The cost of the land was reasonable and the Purchase and 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 Practicability Available for Yes. Naples Heritage could potentially purchase Acquisition? one or more of these •roperties. No. The cost of the access road/utilities and Purchase and reconfiguration of lakes and golf holes would be Construction Costs? excessive) hi.h. g° No. Access to the site would require impacts to a E Compatibility? stormwater lake, a golf course hole, and potentially existin• sin•le famil homes. $�a 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 Practicabilit t 3 Available for Yes. Naples Heritage could potentially purchase a • Ac•uisition? sortion of this •ro•ert . No. The cost of the access road/utilities and Purchase and Construction Costs? reconfiguration of a lake and home would be excessivel hi•h. Compatibility? No. Access to the site would require impacts to a stormwater lake and an existin• sin•le famil home. NoSite 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 a x, Available for No. It is highly unlikely that the current owners Acquisition? would consider sale of a •ortion of their •ro'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 existing lake Compatibility? and wetland impacts (within existing conservation easement . r7-7: 7:7774477 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 Practicabili Available for Acquisition? Yes. The applicant owns the property. Purchase and Yes. The cost of expanding the parking lot to the Construction Costs? west is reasonable. Compatibility? Yes. The wetland function would need to be re•laced 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 Practicabilit E . Aryl_ ; 1447441444:72114 g °„i .. ..,.. ,.,. N,n� "„ Ef � .:�..� ,,� alr .a'u�_f An ` Available for ® nj Acquisition? Yes. The applicant owns the property. ;.. . . 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� a � impact the golf Compatibility? course and water management system that could not be re•laced elsewhere. No Site 12. Parkinq 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 Practicabilit Available for Yes. The applicant owns the property. Ac•uisition? Purchase and No. The cost of building a multi-story parking Construction Costs? •ara•e would be excessivel hi.h. 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 durin• construction. 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 f • Table 13. Site 13 Practicabilit r. Available for Yes. The applicant owns the property. Ace 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. 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 Available for Yes. The applicant owns the property. Acquisition? Purchase and No. The cost of relocating the swimming pool to a Construction Costs? nearby area would be excessively high. Compatibility? No. The residents will not support the removal of the current pool 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 Practicabili Available for Yes. Thea applicant owns the property. Q eu�# Ace uisition? pp p p Y Purchase and No. The cost of relocating the maintenance facility Construction Costs? to a nearb area would be excessive) his h. Compatibility? No. The relocated courts would impact the golf course and the buffer alone 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 Available for Yes. The applicant owns the property. Acquisition? Purchase and No. The cost of relocating the swimming pool to a Construction Costs? nearby area would be excessive) hi.h. ` 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 elliottii), dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) are also present. 13 SEC7701# 9 rownMIP: 50 s Naples Heritage Tennis Facility RANGE: 26 E 11 0 100 200 SCALE 041:♦ ♦.Ow4 ►1 �♦ /� '/ j////y Wetland Fill(1.52 ac.) z i , . 8 1 /'/ ♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i U- s r, ppp♦ppw‘4444,41.4�w� Secondary Wetland Impacts (0.55 ac.) f to e f "I',/eII Impacts to Existing Upland Preserve ,SSSS jjjjj, Area (0.25 ac.) ' k n `tea ._...__, 619 WET-1S / —� 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 PERMIT USE ONLY aerial photography and ground truthing in July 2.015. 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 f Figure 2 Site 6 LEPDA Analysis W. DEXTER ES N NC IsNTrIRONJ(IsWTAL e@ e1L9RINE' CONSULTING k _ Site Plan FORT MIYERS 239-334-3680 14 i TOWNSHIP:3 5D s Naples Heritage Tennis Facility RANGE 26 E (il'' W W W W W ..__-.w..... }' 0 100 200 W W * W * * " : ,_,� SCALE FEET W W W W W " W W W * ��I W W /4; ,' W W W W W W �W W W W W/� W � te,. Existing Tnnis Courts WWW �•' Existing WPPo osnegd ''� : Parkin w fri W W +,0,77. , '+»n _ — _ , , _ _ W W W W W W W W W -4"�u .'' W W W W W �` W W 4' W 'P W W W W W W W W - W W W W W W W W .. 4. W W * W '4' W W W .�::_ ...,..... 4 .... W W W 4, W Existing Preserve W W W jjAWetland Fill (1.25 ac.) Notes: PERMIT USE ONLY 1. Property boundary and surveyed wetland line provided by NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. March i4. 2016 10:10:33 a.m. 2. Site plan provided by Gina R. Green, P.A. Drawing: NHGIFlGURES2-7.DWG 171)?AfrIS)STC:11.1. BENDERFigure 3. Proposed Site 10 Plan TES, INC. ((i(IsNTAL ct �(ARINE' CONSULTING r- — _ FORT JIYERS 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 9ECT10V1k 3 1 rowAlar: so s Naples Heritage Tennis Facility t I RANGE: 26 E W W W * W W W * W W * W W W W W W W W W W W W W 0.:O f'AI/'i�IIII, I W W ,r/I�, 1/,,,//�� 0 100 200 1I/0d101�I//'�04I��I0 x`151 T�Ai OA rol# _�� SCALE FEET 10 /�1 .-4,-: ,,141 ..,01#11Iy/1 1//L%�/� 1141P6141:4 -1 4 Proposed Tennis Courts -. •� t, . .Io. rr�1 7r W . W W W r - * W * W W W W V. ',Proposed :F W W W� king ' W W F W W W W Eiiistip9 W * Perking' * J w W W W W _ W W Existing Preserve W W /// Wetland Fill (3.02 ac.) W W y�vie W W {` , o.. W W W W W W W W W 4' W Notes: PERAfIT USE ONLY 1. Property boundary and surveyed wet/and line provided by NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. March t4, 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. �'NT?RONJl1 iVAa2 c@' Il4RIA/X CONSULTING FORT AIY�'RS 239-334-3680 17 Table 17. Environmental Factor Matrix 2.07 1.25 3.02 0.89 1.13 2.72 No known No known No known listed species listed species listed species on-site on-site on-site 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 TOWNSHIP9 50 s Naples HeritageTennis Facility RANGE: 26 E 0 100 200 SCALE FEET „:74,,,..,_ ,,,#: 44,470-1E,4: •OOOi i-•.• 41 ,/,.. ' ` � j////� Wetland Fill(3.00 ac.) I}ET jN -_..$ '0` •0000000.4 SecondaryWetland Impacts(0.44 :........ p ac.) �1 &�i�i�i�i�i�i*A ►® IIIIIII Impacts to Existing Upland Preserve ,jjj�jj, Area(0.25 ac.) 67 WET 1S : `.; _ ,6'19',:... ., 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 Ju/y 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: NHG1FIGURES2-7.DWG I ( W. DEXTER BENDER Figure 5 Proposed Site Plan 1 ASSO CIA TES, INC. 4( -L L'NFIRONMENTAL et d(ARIN.A' CONSULT/NG 4_ __ _ FORT MYL'RS 239-334-3680 19 E 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\Alternative Analysis.Docx 20 SECTIOM 9 .. rows - • 50 s Naples Heritage Tennis Facility FANG • 26 E cl' 0 100 200 SCALE FEET I 625E2 A ..•: C SECTI01# 9 TOWNSHP 50 s Nap/es Heritage Tennis Facility R4NGE: 26 E 0 100 200 SCALE 1!.•.••• 625E2 .•.........�►� 1 0 -...• ......4 ••• ,. g: ; •fj///// Wetland Fill (1.52 ac.) ,, l'A 1 O�.O;O.;.;.;.; Secondary Wetland Impacts(0.55 ac.) 1, IIIIIII Impacts to Existing Upland Preserve A 4i�i�i�iN area (0.25 ac.) a 4 Upland Buffer(0.10 ac.) ................................... ................................... WET-1S 619 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 ASSOCIATES, L4RZN ONSUori„, _ FORT MYE'RS 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 I 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 t s us•Mome' } SALES AGREEMENT • SOUTH FLORIDA DIVISION aeemauele C— + ) C.-4....S � ,, Effective Dote of A eaennd The underaitred. Le-0A s0.�,,lit--/ +ca.16(0.p- I�A� ....S /.-- �t I O whose address is \, V. ?Ht y— tp L.(e,l(S t w. er'4 'I 9 1�.� Pkoe S I/ — f • s"�D� Rk lime) agrees to purchase,and US.HOME CORPORATON Ilk Tede1 ogre,Ie set upon the settee end eeedBl?lsof tee Agteee.nt,the takwing described real prepety;dpb d--x-400. Y,) (:+e—n- lot SUMO^ ,.�p (` / Block C' SaciioMraetkifm�.yQ/Z['s s(Pg t.,..Q,nf ("l 4�C e`I^"'�,e.. SamdiL;sion Address_?(c,es s CHTLED'L.Let Q G'i, city {a State Florida zip 3 tf(t 2_.,. C lL c 1 Y 7 County Cn L Model 4�G't,wG.-,.IL--Elevation �,} C3�. Garage Orientation Ag with at irtyto'aements which have beat in will be constructed on the lend by Seger;with such improvements to be ecesteucted su stantiatly ie sin beds ee with the plans and cp%iticarions tat the hone Wilifil May out he identical re the modal home},the etch and the imovnrxnts being collectively retorted to in this Rgreermet cs the"Property'. The mid residence to he Sekr's tt�s II` home,with eg details of Medal and constrection to he comparable De beet used in the SS.Here nodal homes in the region,accept lot sum dreryes as set out on AddendtunA to this A9raantent.Plans end specs of this home are mbjcct to any change neessvlated by gavanraenlet reguWtans. 1. PURCHASE PRICE ANO PAYMENT. jri PURCHASE PRICE ++„rr,,�// (�p _ I:4 ices price Sas poi mice used doled I-j_ . =3 O�x 1 pG� Rb'Ernes end edprstments bectcding Lot Pieeicel,per attached addenda to cattiest f ATC c 1 minters Ateteeceb Ad4- S Sym tet TOTAL PURCHASE Petty t 3.S9(F) __ PAYMENTS .z-r fill Earnest money deposit teemed itch date 'Z-2'• I; S Ct 0 0 fell Additions deposit'Mse(_Z`13'9g I x 11 Ti 2alaece of Pmcfi,e force i US.irndcl paYahle by IP"trans'.idle 5 ageet,a by resited check,Use at cioimg P • e A d i •---' 2 FINANCING. Di ALL CASH This is a cern sale:there is no fwandrierentetyency. Di MORTGAGE LOAN. if pan at the purchase time a be be paid in the!am of proceeds elso iastHansml Mot nmigace loos,Boyd'slag,et Bipeds ripens¢make good[with Mod it obtain e mortgage roan cormitccel,and¢Ase make a gond faith appUcatinr,tor said condiment wine aero l3i busiias.s days et the effective date of the Pmohase Agreement the date the Purchase Agreement is executed by an authorised representatree et Seiei,sad shay eta reassedk ddgmce to MD.sad lean ceccedeeeet. If Buys tabs to obtee the loan cemricveeet,Buyer may cancel and rescind the Purchase Agreement mrd Mat be entitled lo a reread at Ag dmneitlsl goddess expenses imamed by Seller for extras,,prions epgtadts er speciet items,by nndteing Seger in Ming of such failure within tfiety 130i days el the effective date of the Puncaoe A5ceetemt. A onsh written fleece is not received by Seem wit,* the atetemehteeed thirty 1301 day period,Purchase's Were to ebbed a mortgage loan coeateuceet shat net constitute gtaurds for cancellation and remission of 1k Purchase Agreement.and shall not cower Bugle's abbgatinnto eeswteereto tit tran:oction and pay the purchase pose. e.DEPOSITS. THE BUYER UFA ONE•FAMILY OR TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNI?HAS TIRE RIGHT TD HAVE AU.DEPOSIT FUNDS.UP TC 10%OE THE PURCHASE PletCEl OEPOSITI.D IN AN,ESCROW ACCOUNT. THIS RIGHT MAY BE WAIVED IN R"ING.BY THE BUYER.fn the event Buys does not min such right to an escrow account,Buyer acknowledges:GI that the esteem eeeetwl shah be:with _ _ Ronde(*Escrow hied L @i that such deposit shed be governed by the provisions at Section 501.3375,fHad&Statute.Isle at at the tore of rbsatg as weeded in Section 501.1375.M accrued interest of the deposit shed Ming to Solid amlsite¢net be credited to Buyer or MEM egemsl the Poecbase Price:and aril that&!pet Rho,pay,rear the madding of this Agreement,that portion of Snot's!resew surety hoed pretaum adorable to Beyer`s deposit. ll'll Boyer hereby Mee:9ayer's tights mem this paragraph.Initialed:,X! Royer /j3j„_. r/=Buyer 0. BUYER SELECTtctNS '-" ---- --._ .___ _ S e mandad _ Items and et Slit acauoo d '-`--. �4 4wiUdFl the Sc'ectim P nil Seger /may LEON C.OR BARBA•A CAS Mgr t Qh 4 3 O$ (_ acts caused (`i P.O.BOX 921 by Boyers My. Boyarens Petioli !'"4NSTON,Mt 49755.SWAt //_2 2_99 wig be at S M aedo j ry ixluai smenge to be paid by Buye_.add ..„,„,_ __ IAM delay she completer vi Ina hares i .___ j 9141.44.- . .11-sit�^ S H ` a 0 000,v©.: 5. PROMOTIONAL 9f SI u J perry other Dm used ter Ms point 3 • . [.Le �-"+.( St y,,• • S. COMPLETION.U is a 5 RANK=o presenteitele any Maddest completion: u es .. _ . ,and Wel not rely Mon,enY estimated c w9Mkun.°T. pt ,{//'� ll ditibna3tci[; Hem expanse Erdemag,who I /y //� r„ g p a* a!1ZIsranges form the or[dativema Data a I +, - _ L _ + sell, Gino”as at lobo or rtaiariat,+ode, ' I.072000326i: 581406G/5r 430$ 7.CLOStNC.The dosing ' _....__ ....__.., _.__ dmthe date _. ..—. what the home @.in Seder's opinion.comm.as Demme op the issnnuca g:a,.a.......y:.ww-,. u..,,,........-..-. r.., __...___.. '°"` tied by War, Seem deed have the cation of either Metering Uvye:in default or charging buyer 115 per day tar each day attar the date et create specified by Seger eec and Moiling,fit dale of mud casing. This sen shah be due and payable Sr tceahg. ll dosing is delayed by Bove part the moth atigetcMY set for cdsbg,Buyer shag pay one percent of the list pxchase price,whish ahai be payable at the time the,teasiat is accepted by SM. These stens ace intended to be tteuidateddetteync,and nota penally,to reienttrse Site for Mealtimes.rests and damages it may inert die to Sures deloY,tt hang ere d3het suckhes It would be impractical or eaten*diihcuts to Es Teltes's actual damages, Gating elect take Meer at the Wei,trete Sure,: _ sin t eaoyeny which is 3 G'P+"J......_._Yf_..., t---n.._ B CLOSING COSTS, At the time of dosing,Belle shell pay the balance et the Puuhese Prise and at dosing casts. The Developer writ Impish an owner's palmy St tide insurance Isom a MN cmigatty of he choosing. Bayer MI pay ae charges corrected with the Mame of the owner's poise of title Meurance.including without h itosties any Maine tees.M Her fm title Boxes - -USN AOM 2,1997 Bova l'D thl 1 • searches or side examination.end intanpblex tares.except for the Peal 5300 of the owlets poky of title insurance,which will be paid by the Developer,provided that Buyer places the mortgage so the home with U.S.Hone Mortgage Corporatiaenr the purchase price is paid at tash;end provided that title insurance is issued through the title eeirpnny listed in Paragraph)slava.The Developer well reimhmee to she h get the Qevelopei s share of the areal real properly taxes tot the year tai*shoo otter the tax MB lax that yeas is issued,and an affidavit sa that ailed will be issued to the Purchaser al she lime of Uosatg.Real estate taxes and assesvments,OMh general and special,payahMin the year within which the Closing octets shag be prorated between. Buyer and Seller yr ui the dare of clamed.Buyer shell pay for the documentary slaayts art the deed and the cost of tecurdstg the dead. g.TITLE.Seger shall convey tick to the Property by special warranty deed.aslrjee to tares and assessments Ommth the year of closing:retarded covenants,conditions,restrictions and matters appeaaa;y on the plat at otherwise common re the Subdirivan,easements,limitations and Ono]reservaliens;end miring restrictions,prohibitions and ether remllteniele of gnvermmrtei anthonties.it defect:in title are discovered,Setter Met have thinly 13fq days to cure mtli defects,and the Moshe shall be extended accordingly.If the detects are net cured by the extended closing date,bi Buyer may elect le waive the uncured defects and carotene the paenast without any ad'pstmenl in the Purchase Price.or tut the Payments made by Buyer to Seger shad be reloaded to Buyer and this Agreement shag temdnate and the parties shell have no honer rights or abfigeiianshernxeer.It is understood that Buyer is purchasing a completed doffing,and that Seam is net acting as a contractor for the Buyer in the construction el the dwelled,and that Lha Buyer shag acquire no tight,title of interest in the dwelling oc the wagon)except the tight end ohhgatien te purchase the some in aocodmtee with the terms of this greara tt upon its completion.Equitable title to the Property shall remain vested in Seller until delivery of the deed. 10 POSSESSION,possession el the property shalt het delivered to beret at closing and delivery al the deed.Buyer shag in no event take possesshm of the Property prior to the closing and &div ry et the deed. IL. SITE. Buyer acknowledges the the let to be conveyed hetero way tiller an clan ant cent'rguration lean sakes dtamiege and item the lot nn which Seller's model is situated,and that the home cotsttvcted nn the tat may or may not be identical with the Made base selected.Seller shall dtoete thy home to conform with rhe requirements of applicable gavemmrntal eattdities. the reammaendotions of Seder's engine..the grade of the lot and the opinion of Senor. Seger Oahe entitled to constnrci the home in a welter image end in the,event the Property is n comer tot,Seder may race the house on either strew. Setter shall remove such trees tram the ler as it may deem necessary and it shag not be responsible fat any damage to or destruction of the retraining Mee riming rho process of tanstaetien. 12, SUBSTITUTIONS.Sae(shag lave the right,at its discretion and withaut notice to at append by Buyer,to substitute materials and equipment used in the constructional the hone. including variations in color,bread,grade ants Gnomons,provided such substitutions are ni equivalent imam and value and to maks Pine!chatsgee to the layout and dimensions el the bore which Sr net substantially elect rhe valve at the home. I3. CASUALTY'BEFORE CLOSING.tt the Property is damaged by Ma of mhet...emetic before Closing and cost of restoration does not exceed 35 err the Purchase Price and repairs will ail delay Closing.Seller shall repair the damage and.'.tong shed proceed modes to the terms of this Agreement.it the cost of restoration exceeds 34 al the Purchase Rice m tire mobs would delay posing,Beyer Wad hove the o?rien to:Fi terminate this Agreement and receive a relied el the peyteems mode ay Buyer to Sege,'m which evens bath parties shag he nieamd hem aS obdgationsunder this Agreement.or fel have;',seer repair lire damage as once as reasonabiypnzdbie.and the closing shag he extended until such repair as rebuild*is cemidert Nniwi:hstanding the(atoning,if ahs Property io destroyed or ria cosi of restoration exceeds 50,1 of the Purchase Price,the option of remedies shag be et Stgei s sole discretion. in. PRE-CLOSING INSPECTION,Upmt substantial completion el the Mimevatnonfa,Buyer shag have the opparonityle attend a formal presentational the penises with Sodler's reptesmeative in which any incomplete work or dsteets.shall he neared env dgned by Boyer.li Buyer is unable to personally inspect the dwelling,Runes sial designate a perusals!to impact Lha dwelutg is behalf,U Buyer or Buyer's designee does not inspect the dwelling Oct to closing,Buyer shad have waived Buyer's right to rich inspection. Thereafter,upon acceptance el the Seed by Buyer.Buyer rho!!he deemed hr have releaser Seger tans gahfiiy tar any incomplete wok or viable defects not specifically noted.The cntsectien at a4 items wig he completed prier to Owing unless agreed open otherwise by Seller mut Rover. Seger shad hart the option to(Muse to thee iI Bayer has not'executed Seder's PLHChasatx Certificate'ceibtyng sattxtautetr esnhfetion of all.improvements. 15. HOMEOWNER'S WARRANTY.Buyer undoheeds and epees that Seiler is making arty these amass NOLO warranties set leash in the homeowner's warranty in the tem evadable for etsnectian in Seller's sales office and which shag be delivered to Buyer at closing.Tot axerFSE t'mints waRRA ST AND R0MmIE5?Mood at Stittetnldntutt nit detmstvE WARRANTY AND eneetmts It of Me.^E kaARAaoy it Salter Aim.ended eNFtE AeortONAt wawsNtrs AR Mari.el(sroc000e tow tui REGUtntinr,ARE IH Rett OF Art OTHER RUAAete115 OR PARHA aMMS,EXPRESS ern Win.e♦CIRIIUC cot tout MASTED TO w temtureS OF wrenie Sar,attscreNIABNre.HAeRAaetx?'.SIItooasrFT use riNER,001 4A seem reSLFAlMEs tar SHEER tsar WANED eo Omit EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY DISCLOSED IN ANY PUBLIC REPORT FURNISHER BUYER,Sunny HAS MADE NO GEOLOGICAL.AR ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS OR SURVEYS OF THE PROPERTY AND?RAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY CONCERNING GEOLOGICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS SUCH AS SINK HOLES DR RADON GAS ANO SPECIFtCAII? EXCLUDES SL'Cli GEOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS FROM ANY WARRANTIES GIVEN WIDER THIS AGREEMENT. RADON GAS;RADON IS A NATURAttY OCCURRING RAORIACTIt4 GAS TEAT,WHEN IT HAS ACCUMUTATEO IN A BUILDING IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES,MAY PRESENT HEALTH RISES TO PERSONS WOO ARE EXPOSES TO lb,OVER TIME. LEVELS OF RADIATION THAT EXCEED F£OFRA1 AND STATE GUIDELINES NAVE BEEN FOUND IN BUILDINGS IN FIO41105. AOP.lTIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING RADON AND RADON TESTING MAY BE OBTAINED FROM YOUR COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT. Vogt scknnwlelgwand unaerdends the Wowing with respect to rue hommwter'swertenty. IP The pateem as grading and drainage for the Property u an approved grade and drab.pattern,.Any change in the 1padag,drainage ee landscaping or vegetation within 4 feet xxt.lo• waits ut faaeidatian could veil the warranty.11 Bayer changes the grade or drainage estabhsted by Sedn,or by centro tion,additionser deletions causes the established grade end!or drainage pettsoee to he madilied,Men Seller shell be tehieved of any bablllry lot damages,it any,caused 5y pooh changes. MI Sear mikes eta warranty or rewesentatien regarding shifting soils,unsettled sols,unusual tucks or subsntlae.e tendietens. (.i Sutler's warranty Goes not include detects caused by normal wean and meat t.twheaetrloef nv atecial radar.,or defects,the elerrRrHe,natural dneeeleei et talky maiiteenonea, aperntinn tar abusive use. ill Under on circumstances otter!beret he liable for ran sequentie!nr incidental damages. la.DEFAULT BY RUYEn.R is awtuee oadestaedbetween the eagles herein that the agreement el Bow to purchase Property is the sale indocamenr Int SON,Id osnaetetl tmprovenenrs thereon and to hold the Property elf the market. If Buyer lags Is oleo es requited by this Agreement,til all payments made by%nye shall he forfeited as liquidated damages end not ex B penalty a rrimhmse Seller ter all expenses.casts and damages or may Wcor_it hang agreed that in such case h would be!quadrat a esrwewly ilettictdt to fit Settee eclaai damages. whereupon the ahbgetisns airs tohdttes of both parties under this Aoeeetnen;men terminate;or Il SelM,at Seder's option,may pursue epeabc performance of this Agreement under Paragraph 'E hose, 17. DEFAULT RV SELtER.II Sellar shall default in the perlmmarae of the Agittnent fol say reason whet than Seller's cbhigaton to provide marketable title,Buyer shad be entitled,as its exclusive remedies.G7 ret a Odd el all payments tesetuding zwninisrairre chatgnsi made by buyer to Seller,in which event the abirgationx and Debilities al hath parties'inam rho Agreement shnti ttmaime whneby Buyer spttihnatly emote tae relinquishes'whatever legal and equitable redies Ire may have under epphcahit law:ur GI Buyet.at Buyer's opiien,nuy ptnsua apm:iF¢ pettamraoce 11 this Antuentnts in ecrmdance wah paragraph It 1e.ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES.The parties le his Agreement specilmaOy agree her this transaction ervoNes interstate wmterce and that any dispute(whether contract,warranty,tan, statutory or othdwisat including,bei not hailed m,;al soy and all cnptlavwsies,disputes to clams aridhg ttwdet,nr teemed to.this;agreement.the property.or any dealings between The Bow neat Sole Iwith the exception or'consumer pesducts'as tktnrd Iv the MagnesareldowWananty'Federal Trade Coearisdun Act.15 USX.42305 et seq..and the regulations ptaealgated lhwmedert NE any conttoveray,mxpnio at clad:arising by virtue el any reptesentasians,prdrises or warranties alleged to have been made by Sebe or SeIe'e representative;and Irl any personal h.q.,or property damage mkned re hare been omitted by Buyer on the praperty at It the wtbdmden,coca rest he soh»tted to mediation and.H nal settled miring mediation,shall shereeter be submitted cc binding etbnrahon as provided by the Federal Arbitration tot.B tr.o t,441 el lewd ot,it inappbcable.br Seeder state asoma,del net fry m in a court of law. AR decisions reynmrng the erhitrabifity 01 any timate shah be decided by the erbirnceei The arbioator shall have the right to award rexmnabk atlntneys'lis and expenses.including these htwtreed in mediation.arbitration,meal to nn appeal. The reediesipe shell be°embitted before the Ammazo Atbiratinc Antdatian(-AAA')in accordance with the AAA's Communist or Canseuchsn industry Mediation Rules,as epatnsrima.It the dispute is nos fully resolved by mediation,the disputa shall he whnelded to binding arbetalion beide the AAA in accordance wish the Camnercial m Construction Industry Athitmtion Rums,as appropriate,and odgmwnt awl Use award tendered by Me adoitratat can be entered is and enforced by any emtrt having Arisdietion Ove the matter, It is understood end ager.ui by the narties her in the tier the Homeowner's Warranty provided by Sear does not provide rat hiding arbitration.a dein ando or coveted by.the warranty writ be adtrdnisleted aproviitp4 in the warranty prior to admission to binding athivatioa. Unless arhetwim provided by-taw er the Hmneewnet s Warranty,the coat of mediation and athitration den be horn egnaly by Seam and Buy..Buyer and Seller specifically agree That notwithstanding unythieg le the contrary,the tights and ehhgan'ns set forth in this patagraph shell survive 111 the doing at the purchase el the propria:121 the terminates at this Agreemesit by ether Gamy,tar 13!the default al this Agreement by dims patty The waver err inmbdlty of any parkin vi the paragraph shed not attest the soidsty or eniarceabdtsy at Lha Hoyer— .._' bril Agri:F,1497 Pave 2 • semaming portiena at tide paragraph.Buyer and Saber further agree If that any dispuleimalr'st9 Sellars S ectars,officers,employees and agents shall he resolved as set forth herein and net LI a court of law:121 that Seger shah have the option to inotude its subcontractors and suppliers as parties m the mediation and arbitration.and nal that the mediation and arbitration wit be 'united to the disputes involving the parties specified herein,including Pty warranty company and insurer. TR. CREDIT REPORT.Buyer authorises any latter to&scion to Seger the inhumation contained in any loan appfnedan,reritieation:of deposit.income and emtoymemt,and credo reports Of ntm credit tenured docwnsalinn on Buyer. Buyer authcrzes Sailor la order a credit reportconsumera consumer superthin agmq to be used in Nmattl®n with this transaction whereby Boyar has applied for the ertenhan at credit. The coat of said report is se he paid ay dryer. Bugs authorizes Saler to toward copies of all or any portion at the said report without mterpretatioo to any tender or team aoeneetmnwHh this tranSaotmn. 20. TIME DP ESSENCE.Unless otherwise;goreded in this Agreement,time rs of the esteem hereat,milli any payment or condition/we.is not made,tendered or pts tanned by either Seller or Boyne at herein fmavtded,then this Agreement.at the option at the party who is not is detach.may he tmoaeeted by each party.'Time is.of thy essence'mans that perteumetoe under the terms at this Agreement is essential and that failureto meet any trio contained herein h a breach of the Agreement and grounds tot a suit ot specific perbrrrence and the toss of aft deposits paid by Boyer under this Agreement. ft. DANGEROUS CONDITION:CONSTRUCTION WORK. hat Reyes understands and agrees that the Property is a construction site sad that the Properly and the in srovmnnts,equipment and supplies thereon constitute a danger to those who may meter on the Property.Suver shat not enter unto the PeapMy!prior to:losing and transfer of pvssessien as presided n Obit Agfeemrtr.mks!aafhddlr'I and atcdppaniedby Seder`,,. repreaemmraa.Any uneuthotited,dnacnorrpaniedenity toy Buyer shah caastilme a hteaNt of this Agreement by Btgas,at Seller's election.However,any catty by Reyes onto Lha Property print re cbnen span be done at Buyrf S cove tiok and to cotspgance with act federal,stein nod tota!safety two and[mediator's Buser Mises.releases end sprees to indemnity Seltm,its atticars, directors,enydeyees,agents.subcontractors and suppliers trout any and at claims,tosses..'damage set feted or incurred by Buyer,Rrtyer"s(army members at guests,as a direct or indirect maul! of arty sash anauthoticed,unectanpantedentty onto the Property. Sri Bayot agrees that soperws;n and dhectien at the working forces,inuNdng,without ia'tntian,cit subenntractors,is to be done exclusively by Solar,and Buyer agrees not to issue any instructions to the cathing twee or otherwise hinder Conmuttian or installation al inproremenes on the Proem's. Buyer shah not do el hats any work dune an Otto Ptnpnrty,oar may Boyer shwa am possessions thereon,Our to closing red transfer al title to buyer, MI Boyer amen thet any and on eanuoversies,disputes and claims as!sirg node!this Paragraph Si shat be resolved Omagh binding arbitration in accardaoco with Paragraph IP of this Agrewcrnt. 22. DISCLOSURE Of AGENCY.The Sales Representative in connection with this itaosactian is en employed of Setter Theelore,to agency relationships aro!ntanded to he weaned of wiii he created between Sebes Sates Representative and Royer tat aril real estate broker ra agent that is aaromved on helmet of fume Fertile/hue subagency retarionshgssere intended to be heated or wit be created between Seder and any teal estate evokers or agent that is employed n0 eche at Ruyet in this transaction.See the Agency Olsrinsm¢loom too iniormatiun consenting the description nt terms,agency relationships end the dntiea and nbhgatt005 of agents. 23. HOMEOWNERS'ASSOCIATION.Buyer hes been furnished and has teed a copy of the Disclosure Summary inquired by Chapter 58926.Flaridn Statutes,rho Decimation of Covenants, Cnmintons.and Restrictions,the Bylaws and the Articles of Inca:potation together with_try amendments or implements'a these instruments,eppitsebie ss the subdivision within which he -_ tr Property is ionated and to the homeowners'association which has powers and respnne"Ddihas With respect to the subdivision.Buys aacepis those Jacnmbsi5 tad agrees to he Mend by to ell ' ;. t', prsosians, ut Euyes tot!pay al cinvtw a capita!ctmrramtian t5 the following, Master loam.; ,t 1t Annum: l enntnpahlano r'j_J t - Amount: tiehreila(name .. _ Amount: Commonly i met __Amount [rL= -L_r `' 1s • '75� u U.S.R E a: 1 ry t ..P r ^t.4-C wI''t.>+ __Amman c� .- tl.z.theme Corpn ton_ t,\& _ T t _.A-i ct �+.s L- �`-'-`"-�_ Armor r_ ,$ [;' /. 70C L• ih', Buyer will pay at cigimg a proration at sire seamfenance Ire from the date of closing to the begneetgof the nal association h�rg Pars t oRowmg eameratmns: a L' S C.la-!� Amgant f , mw ! �l l ��c O l a � d 17 t t ,ger �-an' o c1 In met__ y- E2. AAnnnn nt' �j eerer , 76 A d1l a 1 _ 1tit 4-‘1 Community Monett .pet n lmmnol n 1 �ya c Amami: 0QCs` e Consult the association tldsi+ments regarding the assessment biting period,i.e.monthly,quarterly or annually. -� v° 24. SELLER'S REPRESENTATIONS.Seger shall not he bound by any statement on representation unless specificaty set forth in this Agreement. BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT NO REPRESENTATIONS HAsE BEEN MADE dO SELLER,orb AGENTS OE EMYIOlEES TO INDUCE BUYER TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT,OTHER THAN AS EXPRESSLY SET PERTH HEREIN. Ne representation is trade by Softer with respect to views tram etre property or dwelfmg corstmcled, RR. MISCELLANEOUS. a!The invalidity 0!any pmvisians of loin Agreement shall not attest the validity at erlaceabilty al any other provisions tai forth herein_ rot The partied to this Agteemans sourly agree that it shag he bind!rgopon therm end each of time...Me hers,executors,adniha!rater5,50ceeasaas and as4ns:MOW/04, nnwerte!,that Buyer shall hare no tight to assign.hie Agreement without the prior ocreaeo consent a!Settat. tl The terms and remelt/onset this Agreement shell survive the obos+g of the Property hereunder end the de:lvary of the need. idl bre parties is this agrearnenr hereby certify that this Agreement contains the entire agteement berwww the parties hemin and may not be owditted except by a mhten agreement.The pasties agree they shat not he bound by any terns,coo&rases.atateneners,watrantias air tepresentatiaas,oral or written,mat contained heron;here ore no eotatera! understandingso agreements sober them those comamed rrerein hi Except where federal tow apples.this Agiasrwnt thea he cronfoued ami'mtegeeiad in accordance with the taws of the state whete the Property is located. It)Notices requited to he shun;o Seer by this Agreenuar shanks to writing and effective ns of the date on which such notice.0 dee-eared to Seller of its principal place of buf:resS. Notices ragrared 4a he given to Buyer by this Agreement shat alio he an ending and oftecfiyo other when delivered to Buys en when tutted to Burn's address as set forth above. tui When so applicable,words en the masculine abet include tearable,words in the oeutes shag include Ire mascokta and tettitrine,and morns m the singular shaft include the plural. Me In corroming applicable them p-.coiled or showed by any pr ace al the Agreement the day of the ace nr event from which the designated period of hire begins to:en snag net ha inrbfded-Tito last day at the period sr somouzed shall hr Included.unless I is a Saturday.Sunday or legal h hday,In which moms the paned roes until the le=d of abs test day tar Is 0001 a liarsads,Swday or legal holiday- PE. SEOItNS oROKER.Rased solely on Buyer's representedan Thal the lusher named below wan the prncumro cause of Dover's decision t¢purchase the Property from Seller as provided in this Agreement,it Broke'is isensed in the State of Florida,then Soler 5030 pay a Sneer',commission which comarission wig he Famed and paid wry 0100 closing. If any other real estate txoker of roe1 eto!e ageer c!a:nm any amour' or tee o e¢msenlon werh ebu0 11043acti0n,the party who brought such broker Or agent iron the transaction shag he solely responsible for any aad an such netted and shall indemnity wad hold sodsye the other parry hamlets therefrom_ Broker m agent__._.._. cf jr Hare el Company Address - Phone cr Salter'sbroke"o'noes: 0 Ouyede wake+or agent federal Tax IR No.tanciar Security No.: fun leaserhnrion: L,Corporation '•'Parenarstep ter Pespriatarship "Lotted tiaboty Cormarg y UGH April2.ego; Bpaw'u t Brgwa Y ('�J Page 3 • 27. FUNDS.AS funds deposited with Sega possum to this Agreement shell be payabletn Seller in U.S.Dollars and in cash check.certified tundra wire transfer. 28. In the eaves Sales does not comseace consuuctiOn within 9O days tram the date at this Agrement.Sulky may terminate this Agreement and BOyeelat wk be sehnded all dawn payment ninnies.without further f htlhy m Seger. 29.INSULATION.AS REQUIRED SF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION REGULATIONS,THE WS/UTERI)THAT IS OR WILL 8E INSTALLED IN THE HOME SS AS FELLOWS AND WILL ACC8851115 TO THE MANUFACTURER.YIELD THE UVALUES STATED: Locetinn Tv-oe jJ / Tide s h R 4ahre .etetx Wags h l L� GLd uW,ll!y< Y `t• • Other Wogs -- != M•en.4, (j srT 3. _ ( • . I Ceding: 1 A, iTh_—_ FnAerglass idea known.as Bless wool}is used hot insulation in the tame you are purchasing_The U.S.Depettment of Health and Haman Send=1h1E1S1 has listed fiberglass as a substance "which may he reasonably anticipated to he a carcinogen.'This living identifies ssdssteoees sainted tar further study because of their potential carcinogenic risk but is nal ah aetatnacent by NHS that shwa it a causal connection between Allergies:and human cancer.The Essig dues not establish that tameless presents a die to persons in their dally hues 30. ENERGY.EFFICIENCY RATING DISCLOSURE.Florida law gives the Buyer the right to have the ennergyattkimryy rating detensinad fur a Should Buyer Malt to have the hone Wed,hunt rust emerge to hare the energyaifrciency raving desominationpaieemed ea 9uyer'sasyanse.Sum hereby 5tat63 that Buyatlhe Ihas nett r deed u copy of the epergy-alficienee reline IDIOM-Witt]Mechem traveled by the Department of Community Affair, 17.This Agreement consists or-pages and the fallowing Addenda which ere attached Menta and mode a pent of this Agreement: r! Erten-Addenda A':through: � Notice of Cunxmr.Rights-Addendum() / Real Estate Safes Disclosure-Addendum R �/�- Buyer Discounts-Addendum 11 Agency Disclosne-Addendum a Notice to Buyer.Addendum F 32. OFFER TO PURCHASEIEFFECTFVE DATE.This Agreement is an offer by Buyer to purchase in accedence with the terms and cnditmns provided herein,and shed not he binding upon Seller until such tint as a Divi*mn Office;of Set.-hes esecutee this Agreement.The date el such acceptancais the Effective Data at this Agreernaat. LILat e•`�q_. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IMPOSES TAXES OX ASSESSMENTS.OR 80TH TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS, ON HIST PROPERTY THROUGH A SPECIE&TAXING DISTRICT. THESE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS PAY THE CONSTRUCTION,OPERATION,AND MAINTENANCE COSTS DF CERTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES OF THE DISTRICT AND ARE SET ANNUALLY BY THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE Oi5TRIDT.THESE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS ARE ill ADDITION TO COUNTY AND ALL ETHER TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS PROVIDED FOR 8T LAW. INFER EXECUTED IN MULTIPLE COPIES BY BUYEP.ON 39`} ACKNBWLEDGMENT OF THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENTS set !fotEh r paragraph.__ t to calectron if2�5•i check. 8 f Safes Representative ROTE ACCEPTANCE EXECUTED IN MULTIPLE COPIES BY SELLER ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY BROKER THAT BROKER WAS THE PROCURING SOURCE OF SALE. :fS HOME Cs S 'A-is N I Syr Division Ott:. . I I r SNgng Broker t / c I / Effective Date•f Amer-m • • SAW Apra 2,5.991 • Page 4 ADDENDUM Ai (EXTRAS) The previsions et thin Madmen hereby mcorporatediu the (�Sats Aereeaamt dated I t-a 2 ,4 at between U.S.HOME CiaPORAigN as Seiner and L.c.O t' C O' L Cx c r 4. a-S as Boyer for the foaming dwerlied property: I,— � / lot Mak) 3 BUct f SectionRncUFdriC-, Si eo v .ef H.c/s t,_��l Y,, Subdivision 16�5 C><,L ( 1 1 Stan Emrich zip 3 ct a Ad4eu r�i C-t CB! /`{t�®1�-La—. Base Price 04 a,,,,cj�p.a7,.-y t� ` 30`fr q 9 / A-1 Lot/F!oor Premium / 0fl0. _ is)D---1-1/A'2 (56,Q.,(56,Q., :.,/ �`{... C_A...e...� _C-u CoX 2..2..-l3 2.4!i". ._ , e.,,,2Q (}`r/' Aq 3 WtL. A 5 _ P cites lf-- 53 0 `-- A-6 6l- 3 0 Cjy".s t.,..(.,--c-,-, '7 Et `e-- AL)—a-C Lo 0,- ., C_,--,,A)-- -- 13(f0 Lf i, i N- -s Tt,Q..rQ F (i L e 3., ,Ael `L / 0 2 t1 ti 1" 4-P3 F4--4 R. ( t L, .e--` 7 vLh i 1.- tt-O - Cs.� f�3`f _5 c,,.t< C-cb i ti.., 49fl" +{-m21D """ i A!Z C a„ iac 1,:,,,-,: C4tat _1(0r0954,.---- 1 A-11 Lt 3.1A. 6'!0 "L A-i a i t -(-4-aa..— . q ).2 0 -.-- 615 I,,A .- 61ser g, .9_.)2 T i Le wt.0 5 t,,..wt.t,=-1 gat. dee '2=-6.-v 1 ):-.4,1(, bx,i,: 7--„,t_ Lo j c.a.b t Ae- 580}"-' 4-t1 - C',7u..� angt t Cv t Von CNAHAbSvt � tQWl7 N1- � iOD Alg s i CcMc.cC /e t,_}. vera b 4400 ✓ - (Z. � ;.✓ n-,q' Lc Own_ +�c�� ((Ln. 1-�/n� � rel»,, yy� p�j� .�- L� ..__ ,\ l s 5,,,C i FM `', r L,.11 ri C/" b€1A-IYlyts 14,11,,110,1160 a.. )_ 17,.. c .. s 0--.0 - 3psr0 'DOD A_o7" !D©U 1}}ctesra.Q (t p (� 1r(� (7-c„t'.1 U 1-,.. a k ocv.y r C c_, s.5 I.b.-t 1 8,,O ts) Liu) 2 1 ICI-- 1-To ; ccL r :litisAdtbkndien is an otter by Buyer and shall cm be banana Upon Seiler cob)such time as a Division Officer of Seder has executed this Addendum in the space provided below. n rev \;)-,-&--- 1....c..4� Sales Bafhesemadn Beyer n /} US. OME Ft T I i ,Di: , A,1 , 4:^r-- l// ./ Divi' Peer &ryer Bete - Bate Usti Aptt12.1997 I PROJECT LOCATION MAP `I llo vi: 4 .0 IP 0 •TE S13 1:s • 41111 Q11// I � ? 1111110 I �/ pa////////. g vie tr" li/ .. A f" liag, -.--..-- ler,-. .%we A Et Xi o ice' a a a. I C) I. co ...) al • - Ir. so i 2111 Olt IIII MB 011,IIII III it ii,„---ii . . . . . . . ... 1 j//.,,, �, . El I U I ' ISI 7 a E o J o o 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 239.564.1660 RID 00407440001 Ramsey.Ine@embarqmail.com I a t - j is l' '.!'. of 11" . .4.-1,1. .,....-f f';, ' r f4 _ t `V «; ,_"...,,,,,, 4.,, .Q Aa . : : i -...,„.144.,,,,,,\ 0 : ate i i • r . ,�.. a4 ....... -A ..„s„,, - :-w , 1 0 + 14«..-�--T—� k fie."t AI : -,... t /'1,� we �.' rt r .- . •, *` .... ' . „ ..- �,1_ t ^°' w _ 8 AINf103 °p 4'. r a 'r f ' `�, � � �.�r. -:,.1,-.7—::'` ai '� ,�:� • a...” 1. f 7 4 _i it VJ. �- mer Yt e+• .0, , '` '` ■� n'I , •y : fi r` *. 1, ,,,..... . , '' i�1 M ,,!:s71,\.,.....*. '" M1`"' #3 M= 4..:t' W 0:1 . , . ..„. ,... 1 aftio .-:-t" .—* '- yq i€ � 4. 44 , - .,. .--yt...-lt- ..,,,t,' , . . \,,.. ..-.. 10)' fk.- ,....1.— 4' 1,,...,,,,, ...-- , sty 14 4 J ._,....�..., _.T....�#„..^��,4?P,. ��.i��...$�� C'' �'7;,�'�,3J.wa .�. t: �� —, NI n w (n . '� ' w. cn Vr } ham" C !AliZ 1' :1.4:?' ',',.1.t/e, c_ (1,i*.:„..,11\''.,,..• .. >1 ) 4,2 ei. . • . .. , . , , , ,, _. , , . (D . ......s .,„..„, ,. . . , , , c„....., (.1,,tif, . . .. > ,, ,,_,,,,,,-„i,,,.. ....,..._ .„--., . ,....:- ,_ ,,,,,„.,.. . ,,,,,,..1/4 ...„ , ,, ,... , • . � _,., _ 3rd -,..,-..-.-4; .. r r{ ._ � 4q� +LyY�^^ 4 . h d �"t F ; ; try■ "',.. ,. fit* s- ¢ � _.. 4- t `fig _', : _. s n , V = , £ i � " "1 ��r' s y 4 y.. 'moi .4,,,,,,,„, ^MY L fJ _ r_ { .),,,,-,,,t,..._-_,-*, ' ' '.. 1 r - .,...,,,,-r.- '. ‘,',,.,'ZFI..'4.; ,-• , -'!.i.."7- -'4. ..-'Cr114- '44''s-e' ' ' e% ..it,,R,1 ,,-:•.-C;---* „ fttil , . ,44.!,--',- ;A."; .1 , "�"*t ;m,9 '+n"'3s4`«..:+Fx.vx�"{ w,•. ▪,,,`,3� ktiy^. yyLLyy`` . %4# �`'. � TM ! :.1'' .....-'" t`...r 4.; 3. ..,,a Nti , : ". - ',44t,..ri. -., ..-;,-.---,!.7..,...- J.....4 . IF II - ' - , . ..,, ,,.. ...,..!,__,,,,,,..., .... . ,, .i ,i,''t 0:9 ,...-:.„',,,.;':▪'is :'-_,::•:?0, � ! &' ■ ?'-a, '"x `+'..'. u), c # (y, • Wk ." - C. ' _m ,ice , x-€ '., '„ riN E • _...„,,,...:-‘7,,r,--4„. y M* tW �' * ti, 3L x .. ... L1. ._ .3 iii+ i «, f Y M ri ' ' l''E : ' .•r--- • • ,.„,...:r... # .: b �^i 'r y� a ` i `. tirw . - 4 , ..,4„.4..--;,7t.' 8 . _ � s FilsonSue From: Comerer, Kevin <Comerer.Kevin@flsenate.gov> Sent: Monday,January 9, 2017 9:41 AM To: FilsonSue Subject: RE: Commissioner McDaniel Sue, It my understanding that Commissioner McDaniel may be visiting Tallahassee around mid-March. If that is correct I would be happy to coordinate some meeting requests with the Commissioner, Sen. Passidomo, and others. If there is anything else I can assist with please do not hesitate to ask. Regards, Kevin From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday,January 6, 2017 3:23 PM To: Comerer, Kevin<Comerer.Kevin@flsenate.gov> Subject: Commissioner McDaniel Kevin Comerer Aide to Senator Kathleen Passidomo Hi Kevin, Commissioner William L. McDaniel has asked Senator Passidomo for a timeframe to meet with her and other legislators in Tallahassee regarding several issues. I want to take a moment to reach out to you to introduce myself to see how that is going. Please feel free to contact me for any questions or suggestions that you might have. Thank you very much for your assistance. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. In the meantime, have a great weekend. Sue Filson,Aide to William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 www.colliergov.net/CommissionerMcDaniel Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 Ecological,Environmental,Agricultural Land Management,Permitting,Septic Evaluations ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Ramsey Inc. CWB,CFEA,REPA,BURNING CWB -Certified Wildlife Biologist E-mail: Ramsey.lnc@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 • `,a 41J om •TE S13 -- = —jyralki i' 21:3" N. e VAP isla iii TA 0 ii. aitii;; 03 misca < a isi i im• Et N Es oh el NI Ns r0/40,44. [.., /, I I App.-Ike i • . 16 11. J a z e J 1,4O u 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.lnc@embarqmail.com 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. PROJECT LOCATION MAP • 4a i., , ___........iertoti1/4.y ii, iiilli 4• 0 r-,.TE 4% 4eS13 z 1:41=1:1N. 0 1 ' 11!111111111# �/ -///////I// 11111111tri 100 0A %%. • Ho iiii: -1 Li 1•'"' vp,„ lirik',411C__ _opomirere? it Vie- o lat�� EFFECTED HOMES to Z . . W Q Z 0". S7 go 10 is es vii lir �tii ho, POL woOk, L s r• U • Q I • O POLLYS6 O a < v m 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 Co lifer County tf) STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION /—/O--/7 FROM: ZONING DIVISION–ZONING SERVICES SECTION ,574a 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 !a�1luuili�IIilu e-aaiaaaa�aia'aaaaa aimisiiimin___IMERINEssimmEnz NNE ��E�{O�E��O�um w ° vaoo io0asov ai a o laaaaas� •. \:. �ouuIauuuuuuI_I saa�aa��esa■a�ses a :Q®oo�llii�Qmiiiim C iN wig um IQQQEQEEQQ6Qf7QQQQQQQQEQEo J EQQQE�EQQEQ. 14111 aEtQQEQQQQQ .. ®QEQQ�QaGQQQQQQ. 0 :011 ► , a 0_ QQ�QQEQQEEEQQEo a� ;,. �0 QQQEQQEQQQQAQQ®a- � x 0, co �QQOQQQQQQQ�EQn-- C G lees°e°eeiel1111� �N E asIII\ ; .I,� n1111 I��aPaIIMMENEMEN IMIIIIIMIIIIII IIMENIMMOIN=ME MEI=MI L'-" '"IN=1:= lar. i N. :Mill■M® ®INIMMIEM®®a a 4 i ® a ® H co Iwo®=®�®®tee e; ti �a�®®®gym®=�® o tom w°� ffe; mnu 14:,,,Ns‘L Ems Ain :44 ANI o 2 i reasisamyeasrammEmiTailliliMliumwmsea I®® ®®®�®isms qiAir . , pirt.�s�ttt e 0® Ee di _ J CLZ E D Z C Z V 0- cc oa Q. (o 2 c O a I +-i ' Mill U IKrL 1 I aA1SJamoo , -- rl _ a I — w sw % g Q ego ( C L t -• 8 _ <. N i ;if-- [EL= •� �$W� -,� mq sm� N>3 for , �/ Vd `-- us8 $ » 3 ° 20 a` =,M1ra 2 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). c.f `, Jenkins WAY Kearney AyE � t F+ Vior ArV L 3, t;AVE-SW , . tr i`41- V N y- Markley AVE ti:'F2t E VO-NBMO EN{NN Aerial(County GIS) PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 3 of 18 November21,2016 r , 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 r , 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 1-75 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 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 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. The proposed use would not change the existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties. 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 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 PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 17 of 18 November 21, 2016 PREPARED BY: / t °// 3//6 ERIC JOHNSON,AICP, CFM, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: 74 f /031/6 RAYM D V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER I DATE ZON DIVISION MIKE BOSI, AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: • ES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT (7 ` / 000/ Aria e 14, DAVID . WILKISON DATE DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 18 of 18