Loading...
Ex Parte - Saunders 01/10/2017 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Saunders 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). n NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails ❑Calls Meetings and emails with correspondence from residents (Joe Huber, Bob Mulhare, Patrick Dorbad); Staff Report accompanying agenda item. 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 ❑Meetings ®Correspondence _e-mails pCalls Received Staff Report accompanying agenda item. CONSENT AGENDA 16.A.8. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Tract 3, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 20 Replat, Application Number PL20160000628. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE Meetings ❑Correspondence De-mails ['Calls 16.A.9. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Oyster Harbor at Fiddler's Creek Phase 1 - Replat 2, Application Number PL20160002690. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑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. NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE LMeetings ❑Correspondence De-mails ❑Calls V) c dl Ui -P W 1 N --. NJ p iLo ICO R J 0_ 131 3 O co m � Z om ° o m e o 3 3 x o m c m "' v a m # N I z o m F„ al a m i 'm m m a r o ° o $ D 1.111 o N n v R' 3 i 0 o'' _ M A g n f ^ m 0 3 O a P'` 0 2 . 11414 W ° Vf A a o N . N ? d G m a �/� 9 m N O = m 0 'o o a a \ e „ g. 0 . 33 W � � g N ' w O 9 n CO y. O M O m V _ ' W co n C - w V. t0 12 y 0' i O A 3 1C ry C C tilt 01 N 4 o P GI o O 3 Q c d N = 4 3 3 J o eo 0 to O Z d N O N N C A 'O J @ ; Eq '0' 3 an F, °- m o w AI 3 ce E m P 3 n 3 a '0 3 3 3 v v. A 2 m 3 H 3 c N o Q N m o 0, a al w c c 3 0- 3 O nup co vl `a c A O N O 3 g' Q n m 3 3 fD A. N W V O 3 m n a n o 0 J 3 N N c 0 I !D r C N 0 0 \ W On � � o (A o = r - 0 A! Rtt IT 0 < \' 71 \ ..... 0 - O O \ w 0 NO I -' `— r --+AJOw c J -•A A 'n m N O_ N- -1 J O,O N to S JOw01 IV W-AV 00) Z v. O,'O N In c o JO (D wO' 0 N *INJ- --J G jp C 0 G 0 w0"ON S v I-, lID N ?glow ,J V VV',m-!+A w NJ V 3 LykinsDave From: Bob Mulhere <BobMulhere@hmeng.com> f, Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 4:30 PMS To: SaundersBurt Cc: LykinsDave Subject: FW: Naples Heritage PUDA (on BCC Agenda Dec 13, 2016) Commissioner Saunders: I wanted to provide you with some background on the Naples Heritage PUDA which is on your December 13 agenda (along with companions easement vacations). We are proposing to add about 5 acres of land (purchased by the community now more than 12 years ago)to the PUD to accommodate a relocation of the Tennis Center to allow for redevelopment of the Club House/Community Center area, to add parking and enhanced amenities. This minor PUD Amendment was approved by the Planning Commission unanimously back in May. After the CCPC hearing in May, a few of the residents on Colonial Court expressed concerns and we began to work with them to address those concerns.The BCC hearing was postponed in order to allow us time to address the concerns. We added a number of limitations and redesigned the site to minimize any potential impacts. At the October BCC hearing,the item was remanded back to the CCPC so the CCPC could review the changes we made to address these resident's concerns. We went back to the CCPC on November 17th and again received unanimous approval.The item is now scheduled for the December 13, 2016 BCC hearing. Here are the limitation and changes made to the PUD and the Site Plan, including all of the CCPC stipulations: • Redesigned tennis courts so they will be at least 150 feet from any residential lot; • Limited uses to only limited to tennis courts, restrooms, storage space, and roofed and unroofed seating areas, landscaping and stormwater facilities; • No night play or lit courts(hour of operation limited to 7:000 am to sunset); • No amplified sound; • Lighting: Lighting shall be limited to bollard style as may be necessary for public safety and security and shall be limited to a maximum 4 feet in height. • Maximum height of building is limited to one story not to exceed 12 Feet Zoned and 15 feet Actual Height. • The tennis courts shall be Har-Tru, clay, or a comparable material. • When special events such as member guest tournaments are scheduled at the tennis center, in order to minimize parking demand at the center, additional parking shall be provided at the clubhouse and a shuttle shall be utilized to transport players and/or spectators to from the clubhouse parking area to the tennis center. • Within the areas labeled Natural Area on PUD master plan Exhibit "A-1" Naples Heritage Tennis Center Conceptual Site Plan, existing vegetation shall be retained to the greatest degree possible, after removal of any exotic vegetation. In the event that existing vegetation dies, it shall be replaced with the same or a comparable plant type, and shall be replanted in the future as needed. In no case shall there be less than 50%of the native vegetation remaining. If clearing results in less than 50%of retained native vegetation,then supplemental plantings shall be required to achieve 50%of the original native vegetation. I hope this summary is helpful. I know how busy you are, but I am happy to meet with you of you feel it is helpful. 806 /fu& e, I NCP 'e& P, icleet, P/ireii, Yet-u-ices 1 HOLE MONTES 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Office: 239.254.2000 Direct: 239.254.2026 Fax: 239.254.2099 Cell: 239-825-9373 Serving Clients throughout Southwest Florida Since 1966 Hole Montes,Inc.intends for this electronically stored data attached to this message to be accurate and reliable;however,due to the complex issues concerning electronic data transfers and data translators, Hole Montes,Inc.cannot control the procedures used in retrieving and manipulating data on your computers.Hole Montes,Inc.cannot and does not warrant or verify the accuracy,currentness,completeness, noninfringement,merchantability,or fitness of any of the electronically stored data attached to this message. Hole Montes,Inc.reserves the right to revise and improve electronically stored data at any time without notice and assumes no liability for any damages incurred directly or indirectly which may arise at any time as a result of the use of this data. The user agrees to verify the data to ascertain its accuracy for their intended purpose.The user agrees to consult with their engineer or other professional to ensure the applicability of the information. Hole Montes,Inc.makes every effort to ensure that the data is virus free.However,Hole Montes,Inc.assumes no responsibility for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of errors,omissions, or discrepancies in the installation or use of this information.Use of the data indicates that the user accepts the above conditions;if these conditions are unacceptable,the data should be returned promptly to Hole Montes,Inc.,950 Encore Way,Naples,FL 34110 and all copies should be destroyed. This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged,confidential,and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.If you are not the intended recipient or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,this serves as notice to you that any dissemination,distribution,or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately via email at postmaster@hmeng.com or by telephone at 239-254-2000.Thank you. 2 LykinsDave From: Burt Saunders <Burt.Saunders@gray-robinson.com> Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 11:06 AM To: LykinsDave Subject: RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/41 Thanks. This is an issue that I would like to speak to the County Attorney about in our meeting on December 12. He may need to bring his land use attorney with him for part of that meeting. Burt Saunders I Shareholder GRAYI ROBINSON 8889 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 400 Naples,Florida 34108 T: 239-598-3601 I F: 239-598-3164 E-mail I Website I Bio vCard Facebook LinkedIn Twitter This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s)or entity(s)named within the message.This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert,please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges.Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party,that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any review,dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.section 2510-2521.If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion.Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same.Nothing in this e-mail message shall,in and of itself,create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. From: LykinsDave [mailto:DaveLykins@colliergov.net] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 8:39 AM To: Burt Saunders Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Preparation for 9 am Monday December 12th meeting with Joe Huber. From: Huber,Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2016 7:24 PM To: LykinsDave <DaveLykins@colliergov.net> Subject: FW:VAC PL 2016-1406,Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/41 Dear Dave, Here is the material I promised. I would be glad to review with you by phone. I look forward to our meeting with Commissioner Saunders on Monday December 12 at 9:00. Dear Commissioner Saunders This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff member Dave 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. 1 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 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 2 tennis courts located near the clubhouse where there is adequate parking and designed road network to handle this type of traffic flow would be a better alternative. 3) Buffer Inadequacy. While the buffer has been increased since our objections have been raised, they will be inadequate to prevent noise ,visibility and disruption cause by locating the tennis center at this site.The entrance is off Colonial Court near residents driveway entrance. Providing a landscape buffer fails to address the end result of permanently altering the character of the neighborhood. 4) Failure to Make a Good Faith Effort for Alternative sites-As pointed out above the whole premises of this being the only suitable site is false. Management and the Board have failed to pursue a solution that would better serve the entire community without negatively impacting the residents of Colonial Court. No application was ever made for these alternatives even though their own report shows alternatives existed. Alternatives we believe are better suited and cost effective for the entire community 5) Bird and Wildlife Impact-All the land to the south, east and west of the residences on Colonial Court is currently either wooded, conservation or preserve. Residents commonly see birds, deer, squirrels, raccoons and occasionally panthers.The development of this site as a recreation with the attendant noise and traffic will negatively impact the environment for this wildlife. 6) Topographical Concerns including Water Flow- Due to the low level and topographical contour of the land, water flow, containment and sloop of the land considerable fill be required this could negatively impact drainage and create the potential for standing water. 7) Letter of Objection-All of the adjacent property owners have filed objection to the Vacation of the Conservation easement separating Colonial Court form the site. The Executive Summary by the staff list Criteria for considering PUD Amendments.A number of these are relevant in regards to this matter.They include the following: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land , surrounding areas,traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Inconsistent with current use 2. The internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropriate 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?Yes . No other RA in PUD 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses....Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Likely 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?Yes 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood...?Yes 10. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use? Other sites available 3 We believe that any one of these considerations should be sufficient to not approve the above matters. In our view there are more suitable alternative locations to locate the Tennis center .There has not has not been a good faith effort to pursue an alternative location for these courts.The residents of Colonial Court are not objecting to the Campus Improvement Plan merely the location of the tennis center for the reasons set forth above. While much of the applicants arguments for this location has focused on environmental consideration,they have not taken into consideration the environment of the residents of Colonial Court. We believe and have submitted for the record that the alternative site can be used with little or no additional impact on the environment. The Naples Heritage Community approved a Plan that included a new fitness center, administrative offices, enhanced club house and swimming pool as well as the tennis courts. Disapproval by the Board would not jeopardize these plans rather it would require Naples Heritage to choose another location for these tennis courts, one or more we recently learned were identified. This alternative site would be more convenient, less intrusive,safer, and less controversial that the proposed application and allow the residents of Colonial Court to continue to enjoy their resident in the manner they have become accustomed..There is no public benefit to approving the amendments to the PUD or vacating these easements but rather an adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent properties owners. This matter is being considered by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the South Florida Water Management District We ask that you do not approve the amendments to PUD and refuse to vacate the easements listed above or in the alternative postpone the decision until such time as these agencies approve the applications. I will follow up by phone to discuss the points raised herein. Thanks you for your consideration. Under Florida Law e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 4 LykinsDave From: Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 8:39 PM To: LykinsDave Subject: RE: Requested Meeting with Commissioner Saunders Dave, Thanks for getting back with me .The three items are all connected with a matter proposed by Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club . They are Resolution 2015 vacating a right of way, Resolution 2016 vacating a conservation easement, and an propose amendment to Ordinance 94-14 establishing the Naples Heritage PUD.This includes a rezoning of a tract of land incorporating t into the PUD. The purpose of this measure is to erect a tennis center immediately adjacent to a single family residential neighborhood ( Colonial Court), I am one of the individuals impacted, and I am also acting on behalf of all the residents of Colonial Court as well as other neighbors impacted. I am preparing a complete statement and position paper on the reasons for our objection with exhibits which I will have in your hands by Monday. Once you receive this, Could we arrange a call to discuss the matter. I will be returning to Naples for the hearing on the 13th.Thanks. From: LykinsDave [mailto:DaveLykins@colliergov.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 2:43 PM To: Huber,Joe Subject: Requested Meeting with Commissioner Saunders Joe, I left you a voice mail. Would you be kind enough to advise me what agenda item on 12/13 you are referring to? I will confer with the commissioner about a meeting...I suspect he will be available on 12/12,the day before the commission meeting. Regards... Dave Lykins Executive Coord. to District 3 Commissioner Burt Saunders davelykins a(�colliergov.net 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite#303 Naples, FL 34112 P: (239) 252-8603 F: (239) 252-3038 coder County 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. 1 LykinsDave From: Huber,Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2016 7:24 PM To: LykinsDave Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/41 Attachments: Naples Heritage Plan Exhibit A.pdf; NAPLES HERITAGE PUDA CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN TENNIS CENTER final.pdf; Colonial Court from Naples Heritage Drivejpg; Close up of proposed entrance tennisjpg; NHGCC News of Purchase 5+ acre parcel Nov 2004.pdf; Fleming Message.docx Dear Dave, Here is the material I promised. I would be glad to review with you by phone. I look forward to our meeting with Commissioner Saunders on Monday December 12 at 9:00. Dear Commissioner Saunders This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff member Dave 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 i property would eventually be used for a community purpose, the property could easily be left in a preserve condition and used to trade or exchange for other property currently in preserve as mentioned above. Another significant misrepresentation made during this process has been that the Army Corps of Engineers would not approve any of the alternative sites nor would they consider new property in a trade or exchange for existing preserve or conservation areas . We have learned that Naples Heritage 1)never made an application for an alternative site with the Army Corps of Engineers2) Published the alternative analysis report (April 2016) after the decision and vote on the overall campus improvement plan by the community (March 2016)3)the Army Corps of Engineers would consider a trade of property if appropriate. (see attached email from Army Corps of Engineers0. Our objections are well documented in the file on this matter These objection include: 1) Negative Impact on the Residential Environment—Approving these matters would completely change the peaceful enjoyment of our homes as well as destroying an essential preserve and conservation area that should be maintained. Owners paid a premium for their lots in this neighborhood properties and were told that the conservation and preserve areas would be protected.Vacation of the conservation is contrary to this representation. Approval of these changes will negatively impact property values of the residents on Colonial Court making them less desirable . 2) Safety and Traffic Flow- Development of his site as a Tennis Center would greatly increase traffic, and create a safety hazard not only for the residents of Colonial Court but for those that use Colonial Court for walking,jogging and bike riding.There are no sidewalks on Colonial Court.The road network was not designed for this level of traffic nor was it designed as a feeder road.There will be two intersection within 75 feet.The tennis community holds competition with other clubs several times a year.This will inevitably lead to increase traffic and inadequate parking. Having the tennis courts located near the clubhouse where there is adequate parking and designed road network to handle this type of traffic flow would be a better alternative. 3) Buffer Inadequacy. While the buffer has been increased since our objections have been raised,they will be inadequate to prevent noise,visibility and disruption cause by locating the tennis center at this site.The entrance is off Colonial Court near residents driveway entrance. Providing a landscape buffer fails to address the end result of permanently altering the character of the neighborhood. 4) Failure to Make a Good Faith Effort for Alternative sites-As pointed out above the whole premises of this being the only suitable site is false. Management and the Board have failed to pursue a solution that would better serve the entire community without negatively impacting the residents of Colonial Court. No application was ever made for these alternatives even though their own report shows alternatives existed.Alternatives we believe are better suited and cost effective for the entire community 5) Bird and Wildlife Impact-All the land to the south, east and west of the residences on Colonial Court is currently either wooded, conservation or preserve. Residents commonly see birds, deer, squirrels, raccoons and occasionally panthers.The development of this site as a recreation with the attendant noise and traffic will negatively impact the environment for this wildlife. 6) Topographical Concerns including Water Flow- Due to the low level and topographical contour of the land,water flow, containment and sloop of the land considerable fill be required this could negatively impact drainage and create the potential for standing water. 7) Letter of Objection-All of the adjacent property owners have filed objection to the Vacation of the Conservation easement separating Colonial Court form the site. 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: 2 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land , surrounding areas,traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Inconsistent with current use 2. The internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropriate 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?Yes . No other RA in PUD 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses....Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Likely 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?Yes 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood...? Yes 10. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use?Other sites available We believe that any one of these considerations should be sufficient to not approve the above matters. In our view there are more suitable alternative locations to locate the Tennis center . There has not has not been a good faith effort to pursue an alternative location for these courts.The residents of Colonial Court are not objecting to the Campus Improvement Plan merely the location of the tennis center for the reasons set forth above. While much of the applicants arguments for this location has focused on environmental consideration,they have not taken into consideration the environment of the residents of Colonial Court. We believe and have submitted for the record that the alternative site can be used with little or no additional impact on the environment. The Naples Heritage Community approved a Plan that included a new fitness center, administrative offices,enhanced club house and swimming pool as well as the tennis courts. Disapproval by the Board would not jeopardize these plans rather it would require Naples Heritage to choose another location for these tennis courts, one or more we recently learned were identified. This alternative site would be more convenient, less intrusive, safer, and less controversial that the proposed application and allow the residents of Colonial Court to continue to enjoy their resident in the manner they have become accustomed..There is no public benefit to approving the amendments to the PUD or vacating these easements but rather an adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent properties owners. This matter is being considered by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the South Florida Water Management District We ask that you do not approve the amendments to PUD and refuse to vacate the easements listed above or in the alternative postpone the decision until such time as these agencies approve the applications. I will follow up by phone to discuss the points raised herein. Thanks you for your consideration. 3 « p Ji a3 s tu O C T V I3 'oeoN• .� 4 yyy O G`, r *) 3 il 4 ;; ;I'l 11111�� - `y * _ t co R u:_ o.49/4„ Y.2, p...0 0 . >, . ...., .5 Qc Q a is : ,*1 ) , - ‘ \'') ': .14_, G at \ 3 n, O o o b e 3 W F 1 .. Q-9. 2 y C :nQ f ? � 1 a o .3 0 0 U = n o Rpt T ..• d e s c I x = 'y o r y o aE r•4 .I C � m ` y y (V a y T c ,43 y 0yo.3 w ` v3 aF y v•'' a sxcoa oy= Rm �o c4 aNc vLa `3 5 L m m 5. y> E r, r- o oo m 3 f,39.—• ---8 .;. ? y = a on u.. = u c�gEr. 5-11.-' „,- 636g c 6-0 c 6 R T y 4« u 3 3 � y N 9 8 J a O y ,^ ,.,'-.."• '=.. • V O U 06E= Q i ' y 8 y O 83 o o v 3 c -. c Ev ;« cx syzR, � ETu � . —'.-. 4= 15 : 82�„ mc � .� = ° e � oCy Evy ` O w > cDuc 141-2 „ ioa^ Fv .a °2 72EwF $ Ry - « 5R ° 3to _ Ny _ °bm ° o — o - ▪ CyE = yoC Ez - Z. i > ROO z sy � E d c< uO <•v = R � 4 -217, 3 ▪ ou y E mommu , „,,, i nV+d � ` w .LL S I o ,° S c« em + � Es -.o v = y ▪ ti y •u u . UF. • O FL- ., 7' EL u• v.c C G Y Op a5' a K, m c a C ^., u R.U 'fl L 5 4� O 3 r C d gU ' '. 4. g `3s 4 0 C H 0 U o �3 Z L y m z ra - __ W t d o 0 y w iG L F...- 0 Y 4.2 a y w d. C N ¢ Q, 5 G y Pio4 u o e L `w t - -. - v R= Z e co - , knit' '___ _-- te - y0 S n w 6 > r- :a O "-1 _ - 4 IX fi OO ---",1 a Jr �i..i G f 3 O = C g l —1 2'##--..,.. , W \ C ` HI =c a T. 'o4. H % a a tu ,5...F x cc 26' >2 m _ O U r 3 t 3 o � Q 52. w i 3 2 5n >f73 j C o_ .O C '_J ii E -s J 3 2 a N ° c o O y E o o E 0 i - a s $ P Lu a 8 LZ U L L- '0 U �� A ,_ m L C3 2 ‘ -,0---0 \ ' R z \--1‘ 'i '4..• "":c--\ \f-il A - , -' ,. o u"#2 v 11:4 .X Y -44%: z — G W ` IS wU . - ^L U 0. ? co QQ ca'.. cav Oz O )^ ° a.L t4 zaw w 4 •o e . � Fw F o ,CcE m > ci O J t « y V G ,Q G - v ^C O - LL S` z a' G^ U c KO 1 -. oZ mQ J w - C c a ..' c v 5 c. 1, - t' m -J ., S 3 w y F s .a F • •A-- uv u c a y "' a 1•.� 2 \44.06.•0.) ,.../.\ ll Y LOT 38,BLOCK B II NAPLES HERITAGE / GCC PHASE TWO-A. I TRACT GC4-GOLF COURSE PB 28,PGS 11-13 \..,_ NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE 1, II II PB 26,PGS 71-80 ..\ I /".'",--__ LOT 39,BLOCK B i CNAPLES HERITAGE II II /� E%.LAKE GCC PHASE 711-13 r PB 28,PGS 11-13 1\ AlIR CCNIRCL SIRICNIL TRACT GC4B,NAPLES HERITAGE GCC TRACTS B&C5 REPLAT,PB \ �\ II II • 27,PGS 98-100 LOT 6,BLOCK F, �\ NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TWO-A, -� I `� PB 28,PGS 11-13 ES CUNSTO REMAIN JI II TRACT a-ca6m+A1RR AREA _ / EASEMENT TO REMNN I NARES IMAM GCC RAMS A d -\.. •• / C5 561.8n,Rssetro LOT 5,BLOCK F. ' NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TWO-A, 6 "NATURAL AREA n m '' PB 28,PGS 11-13 ce ee m F- I 30' o CC O In 0 LOT 4,BLOCK F, ti N • NAPLES HERITAGE HAREA 5•• W Z I 5� LOT 3,BLOCK F 1 l 4 NAPLES HERITAGE 1 orrir o LI{ GCC PHA,PGSES 11-TWO-13 A, MID \\ PB 28 0, m IR ( 111 10 i ) , I•A II ?, TR1C 140'' _ a NIS PAVILION- % �\ LOT 2,BLOCK F 1,.. ,IIS UI R �, _ RESIROOMS, ,�„ z_ \� NAPLES HERITAGE STORAGE h < GCC PHASE TWO-A, �. �� m PB 28,PGS 11-13 I _ COVERED PORCH o �� C "NATURAL AREA N m r - -I- s2 H f N I LOT 1,BLOCK FINAPLES HERITAGCC PHASE TWO A, It1 RPB 28,PGS 11-3 iVS pU AREAL,A ING ,,I 52' L — J I. DINT. 168' I + + + + + + + . + + + + + • + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + • + • + • + + + • + • . + + I + • • • • • • • • • • • • • • + • • • • • + TRACT C5-CONSERVATION AREA I + + + + + + + • • • • • • • • • • • • • • NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE 1, I + •.+.•+•+•+•+•.•.•+•.•••+• •.+y•+•+•+•.+ •+• . PB 26,PGS 71-80 I ++ • + + + + + + + + + + . + . + + . . + . . T I +.'+`+ ` * `++ + CONStR+VAATI9NISRtA+.+.+.+,+.++„++.+V + + + + • + + + + + + • + • + + + + • + + + + • + •+• • • • • • • • • •+• • • • • ++• • •',+ TRACT RW4-RIGHT-OF-WAY 1 • • • • • + • • • • • + • + + • • • • • • + \ RESERVATION NAPLES HERITAGE GCC ++++ + + y + + + •+ y•4 Y PHASE 1,PB 26,PGS 71-80 + + + • + • + + + + + + • + • + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + a + + + + + + + J — p. + + +LL+y..-. -...*._*, vALL-,-+.r+=s + . .P — — — *AIN NO CASE SHALL THERE BE LESS THAN 50%OF THE NATIVE VEGETATION REMAINING. IF CLEARING RESULTS IN LESS THAN 50%OF RETAINED NATIVE VEGETATION,THEN SUPLLEMENTAL PLANTINGS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE 50%OF THE ORIGINAL NATIVE VEGETATION. EXHIBIT "A-1 " NAPLES HERITAGE TENNIS CENTER CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN NO SCALE , ,: '# $ 6 ' r Gt.«,. x µ„ • « .t ' '::4°4‘*'r.:14'' ' . k •� 'f Imo' fyy�� _P y NO ,. A FiC, - c: ' _ s ct a ' ;+r 9k l =-'" , « • A- r x. 4 �«gip„ , z -„-.,:et''-*,; " L""� 'w.T.+ "4�• ` � .� ' ,,� .p wm ' s '. 7 w . i:-.,--;;,,-$4,)::. .., '� _ .»'Y r ' .."..>,3a >trt ' .*; a,p's� at £ ,ems, v tZ r pw a.-',,,-"';',4414-1.- E. p r= s „pw #� '�p" , r f f , ., . * ,... 1 Its, ,- it . .., ,%. '''' ‘ ,.. ilt :.....411., ...*- fr..% „ 1/1111k. s 4 . 41 1111 If d __ 4Fr" '_ 3 -. .. T iz 4" —' -.., r. s '� ' ,- ," . --v...,:, - -' ® -;se �, j: .'--vo.'t.----�_ 1. s` .: ,;4-,-,Fii` §4, >s i. 5 •>u, Vit'` yt a`F'- t� $ , - 3k moi- ,r .4 „ ""4..„�i '4:;',.. ? � t A R -€ �, -**1,4 ..4 #F mak � ',:#11-. {.-” .-f -�� . ' ,a. '''','--44.4..'‘‘,1-♦ ate . 3, -_ ,tom _ - '.. � `. t - a - /. i # t 9 d Ax Y. tr s , v � 4:. a ` Q - '` 4.#�` - �., if e #: s , _ 1 �`'" it( e e t,» '� r. au �� an r. �.�.�"a. ri air. ulli �iwr r - " ' :.I 11111111111111111111111111 r 11 ail00 = vw 1 1 "-` 1 . a) I .5.a t1 II) Ul Qi i� � ' � iv 'm 1 4 • - t'} t 1 f I 1 t. fit I 1 M r 4# Y» � .m m -z�7' ''r iiirot—a s#T` k 77'; '.li } s a i t . e ; t4 :I , x s : M" � r' I OFF-SITE LOCATION#S OFF-SITE LOCATION#9 a OFF-SITE LOCATION#7 ; TAORMINA RESERVE ' COOK PROPERTY 7 > > i MPUD ; RPUD I oo°®� 0emtioauN_ s �o� ea®�e��� oleo �eeg 0LN n!;ri"M 4 oAoow maiso 3li � �A,wgg6 - T -,- \: _, U A� B :i QQ9.© '` ` gyBV \ sm tu �N \., eo.,.a, _ [,r adv45;,110, 04H6= 1 �� 0 . C O4 \ 4p _ a U . � Qly 'Vim mow. 0 0 i n p= j6 i - \ �_ � oT j g8 Io m D T ' O 0 m r min`,-i., I =i s z -1rn j `c'= >4 r D a o r� �l... i O 3 O� I ly.\;0.C: �i O rn o Z z j a %c' t "I o z 5-, 73 o n _ i! j o c D #a p � I x '11/ a n p CO 7J T y `111 7J 0 e:, V O L liq (--% m Dom ' \s_,.s:-,,, ° II i, z -nI I i' J m r C 1 ..,',,,,tit Z CO jP it Ct.d I 11! ' 1Iillidx;11 j;iIt:1[iilei ilqUiMilirli!111 ¶iiJ:31i 1 d t I # t 1 c ' r I CR951 ' 0 i D • ',"4-: aer L4 V iNr• � .iwrr tiZ� 0 % T �omill1110S p `� iii IS o O � xRg ilxmiD I� xRa RslR9sxOAA_ 1wI ! jPO ig 5R D • Q Eg - ins $ig R � 1 ®i Z D ¢g a 411 '' I gli rJ m 1 gid 1 a 5 gee n a .o s €.,R, ii r a1 A'lI. gig, '4 A gg 24 Ill! ii 1¢ 3 _------i , .g 5 g. 3, g IS -7-6, .•r0e` "C x 6 Rux° i?P,CExg Frn NAPLES HERTIAGE GOLF CLUB.INC 0 f ti. REVISIONS -°u GINA R. GREEN P.A.- ^�^ «a .TbN < NAPLES HERITAGE TENNIS CENTER - St of w ENGNEERING .0 1ST AVE N.x. 'CORi,, ' NAPLES HERITAGE OVERALL SITE PLAN @� -'4 •t' tw.nac zns ev c...a.mm r..ri wrz a><v.m (...)".=.07(954T2-013ury n/n 5° �9ry^�. " ow�wwe t t W• f=. lm " ,EM ire. fo 1 H _.,7.._. _.—. i O '1! COOK PROPERTY1 ..01.r 3 C" i —0I �" � -RPUO •mq£? ,. , 'A. ' .i C 1.'"''"'.' p 01.4;1 �..+. .��.'r F uy re ers Kr _ MI s#stJ , ,.., rr�tcitKMr � � dEdA � ,g4{4r „ r `.,F144; ,s21 iNndi t� v :tea & Apt - . m•� p 5 1 , It,,,,.....:J...1:7- ' 1. -'i fli' i IL tiet-P;;...a.-Sittat':41;7.1:: . 1 S. _ . � ;ask � � I i) r' V r�= .;, •.•)\((kL/ >, s=.�\ d k bt.ii�L.l l!{jT,l' } ' . �/ ,, ny'"�t �� ,CL Q'�d si, 1. .i"� 3 �i D /4417,:' l 011 p; { 6 '6 kite n 5 ' a . i., - Po"— .-,-* -- - -4._ ,,, ?6,,,,.,0, .... , i a', rte, .1.-'„:;`,„:'c . f .-t; 4 MM,......1, mo — - --....4, ,-;._ =., f ,t •44':•, Ni‘. •r.41;4144. , , _, ( D !fit rm _ „ mss . ,..,-kwi.: ..;;;,-- . -... ,-•,., ,,,r „,..e. ttet (3 .. .,,w.....,.... ..,;,-,,i:..„, 1:, ,,, . _ - - -\ 153 f'"\``....,,, i Al i • , ,...tet47 .4- _, i i Ecological,Environmental,Agricultural Land Management,Permitting,Septic Evaluations ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Ramsey Inc. CWB,CFEA,REPA,BURNING CWB -Certified Wildlife Biologist E-mail: Ramsey.Inc@embarqmail.com CFEA-Certified Florida Environmental Assessor Office: 239.564.1660, REPA-Registered Environmental Property Assessor 2631 4th St.NW,Naples,FL 34120 OSHA 5—Hazardous Materials Incident Commander FDACS—Natural Areas Certified Commercial Pesticide Applicator FFS - Certified Prescribed Burn Manager 03 January 2017 Mr.Joe Huber PROJECT: EVALUATION OF RELOCATION OPTIONS FOR TENNIS 7693 Colonial Ct. COURTS &PARKING TO FOLIO 00407440001,5 AC,WEST OF Naples,FL 34112 COLONIAL COURT,NAPLES HERITAGE ; Street Address: west of Colonial Ct. NE;Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club Inc.City: Golden Gate Est.,Naples ; State: FL; County: Collier; Sec 09 Twn 50 Rge 26;Road Frontage: 255 feet; Acres: 5.0 Mr. Huber, This letter is in response to your request for a review of the Tennis Court Relocation Project as proposed by Naples Heritage Golf And Country Club Inc. (NHGCC) on the property described above. Specifically,the NHGCC as administrators of the home owners (HOA)is proposing to move 4 tennis courts,restroom facilities,parking, lighting, utilities and necessary storm water management improvements to the 5 acre parcel on the farthest southwest location within Naples Heritage subdivision.This relocation is at the end of Colonial Court approximately 1.64 miles from the existing clubhouse location(Figure 1). The number of tennis courts will increase from 4 to 6. LOCATION. NHGCC is approximately 558 acres, 799 residential units as well as an 18-hole golf course, a clubhouse,four swimming pools, six tennis courts, a bocce ball court,and a fitness center. It is located south of Davis Blvd approximately 1.7 miles west of Collier Blvd. At this time the 6 tennis courts are located at the Country Club location at the center of the Naples Heritage subdivision sharing the utilities of the Country Club facility(electric,water,waste water,parking,etc. ). PERMITTING. I have reviewed the current Collier County PUD,The South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)permits covering NHGCC. The 5 acre parcel adjacent to Colonial Court is not a part of the current Collier County PUD , SFWMD and USACOE Permits. All Permits will have to be modified to include the new parcel into the existing permits and water management plans. Costs is estimated at$30,000.00. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT. NHGCC is also a part of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project or LAISP. This a stormwater drainage project that is attempting to improve the drainage and management of stormwater in an 11,135 acre sub basin area of Collier County. This area begins at the intersection of Davis Blvd at Collier Blvd proceeds southwest generally down County Barn Road and culminates at the Lely Canal and Lely Manor Main Discharge structures northeast of Rookery Bay Preserve. NHGCC drains all of its storm water discharge into this system. More specifically the Colonial Court area drains into the Lely Manor Basin and discharges through the Lely Manor Canal Main Discharge. Moving the tennis courts to the Colonial Court area will increase the discharge from Naples Heritage into the Lely Manor Basin due to the increase in impervious surfaces. It will most likely discharge directly into the proposed Shadow Wood PUD area that is directly south. Mr. Joe Huber 7693 Colonial Ct,Naples,FL Evaluation Tennis Court Relocation 03 January 2017 Page 2 ALTERNATIVE SITES. NHGCC has elected to review alternative sites as a response to the US Army Corps of Engineers inflexible wetland mitigation processes. In the Alternatives Report,the NHGCC developed commentary on 16 alternate site locations-9 were offsite or adjacent to the legal permitted boundaries of the NHGCC subdivision and 7 were internal. All Adjacent/Offsite site locations selected except two (Site 6 and 7), clearly do not present practicable cost components because they are already permitted and/or developed which tremendously increases the acquisition cost. Site 7 was described as 6 parcels under separate ownership that also have separate road access. The report clearly states that the acquisition price component was not known,nor sought. Nor did NHGCC proceed to acquire a legitimate cost estimate to acquire and construct the proposed tennis courts for feasibility evaluation. Site 6 is the 5 acre parcel west of Colonial Court that is being considered for tennis courts relocation. It is currently owned by NHGCC. The acquisition cost is known. It was purchased in the past to prevent any development adjacent to the current NHGCC subdivision. NHGCC has chosen only this parcel to do a full construction cost estimate. There were six Internal sites selected for evaluation. All of these are owned by NHGCC and have no cost acquisition component. All except sites 10 and 13 have facilities or have been permitted and developed with facilities. Sites 10 and 13 have no acquisition costs and would be considered to have a high practicability. However there was no reasonable cost estimate for permitting and construction done to allow comparison with permitting and construction with offsite location 6. In regards to existing conservation areas and permitting agencies they will always listen to any proposal regarding wetlands and protected species. If the applicant has a desired development project and it may involve impacts to a currently protect area,the permitting agencies will listen and consider any legitimate proposal. In this analysis not all proposals were considered or submitted. In particular the construction cost for building 6 tennis courts only at Site 10 and utilizing Site 6 for offsite/ replacement mitigation was not considered. This proposal may be cheaper and have more qualitative benefits,but was not explored. Nor was it considered for Site 13. WETLANDS/PROTECTED SPECIES. I visited all the sites listed in the Alternatives Analysis considered practicable-Sites 6, 10, 13. Habitat mapping and descriptions of the areas are accurate. Site 6 has a very poor habitat quality and not much use by wildlife. No protected species were observed utilizing the area. The area is infested with the exotic nuisance plant Melaleuca almost at the 80% level. It has the potential to become a quality wetland area with a viable upland island habitat component if treated and planted. Slash Pine plantings could be very valuable to protected species in this area. Sites 10 and 13 have been treated for exotic nuisance plants and have a quality habitat appearance of a Cypress Pine wetland association. No Protected Species were observed using the 2 areas. General wildlife utilization was also low to none. No wading birds were observed. This is typical in a wetland situations that is close to a human activity location and dries out every winter. It does appear that Site 6 could be treated and managed to come up to the same habitat and wildlife utilization conditions as Sites 10 and 13 or better. This option and costs was not considered in the Alternatives analysis. Mr. Joe Huber 7693 Colonial Ct,Naples,FL Evaluation Tennis Court Relocation 03 January 2017 Page 3 TRANSPORTATION,TRAFFIC,NOISE,ACTIVITY CENTER. The current location of the Tennis Courts at the Country Club location appears to be optimal.The design of the subdivision has 2 main road paths with all of the residences that go east and south of the Guard Gate with the community activity center (Country Club)being at the intersection. It is in a location that is close to the entrance and there is not a lot of residences around. This design allows for a special events to be held with large increases in traffic to enter the area but not bother the existing residences. The proposal to move the tennis courts and parking area to Site 6 on Colonial Court will shift all of the traffic for this activity to specifically utilize Naples Heritage Drive from the Guard House to the end of Colonial Court. It will specifically increase the traffic pattern in front of 96 homes on the portion of that road. Traffic during special events especially if on weekends or holidays could be more disruptive. CONCLUSIONS. LOCATION,TRANSPORTATION,ACTIVITY CENTER. Moving the tennis courts to Site 6 directly effects 96 resident's of the community. In addition,it will increase road maintenance along the route and increased risks for golf cart crossings. Parking during special events will also be a problem on Colonial Court especially if Emergency Vehicle access is needed. The Country Club allows users of the Site 13 Driving Range to park and "check out" an electric golf cart. 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 west of Colonial Court(Site 6)could be utilized for mitigation if treated for exotics and the habitat improved. The entire 5 acres could be used for habitat improvement without imposing a storm water management system on it. STORMWATER. If the 5 acres west of Colonial Ct. (Site 6)was used for mitigation and Sites 10 and/or 13 were used for the Tennis Courts relocation less storm water 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 petntitting,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. Sites 10 and 13 look to be the cheapest because it can continue to utilize the electrical,parking lot and restroom facilities of the Country Club. Utilization of Sites 10 and 13 appear to be most feasible and it would produce less storm water discharge,which is always a concern in the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project. 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 restoration management was implemented. Typically wildlife prefers a combination of habitat types and minimal human activity. Sites 10 and 13 appear to have minimal wildlife/protected Mr. Joe Huber 7693 Colonial Ct,Naples,FL Evaluation Tennis Court Relocation 03 January 2017 Page 4 species utilization. Improvement of the habitat on Site 6 could improve cumulative utilization over the entire community and assist with providing upland habitat that could be utilized by upland protected species. OVERALL,based on the data available the most practicable solution would be to construct the 6 tennis courts at Sites 10 (existing parking lot) and/or 13 (existing Driving Range) and utilize Site 6 for mitigation. This would: • More embrace "Green Concepts," i.e reduce traffic trips,exhaust gases,less storm water discharge; • Create better and more acreage of wildlife/Protected species habitat; • 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; • Reduce Permitting Costs • Minimize construction costs by utilization of the existing Country Club parking lot,utilities (water, waste water,electricity),restrooms, and other facilities; • Maintain the Country Club as the high traffic activity center of the subdivision; • Better Emergency Vehicle Access; • Prevent the increased traffic in front of the 96 residential homes along the route. Please call if you have any questions. Best regards Michael R. Ramsey President PROJECT LOCATION MAP • Ja it r' TE % Qa, S13 Z 4 .._ ,.. i • L illSi� s 1 c ' 1111111`11/I� 2/ _//////I/ Ito t.i. I. .... -... '"W1111/111.401.111.1** in 11.11.1 ��10 o 0i 1 0 ill 4r e EFFECTED HOMES to -or‘l a • • N iil i x X) a r �� zor 14 � Z S7 gm Ns a el vs is „..... I #.','� POL 00, Er I Ns F ler -15 z - o - POLLY 6 v 36 ✓ m PROJECT: NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB TENNIS COURT RELOCATION,PID 00407440001 Figure 1 . Project Location Map. RAMSEY INC. Environmental Consulting PROJECT NAPLES HERITAGE: south of Davis Blvd at Colonial Ct, Collier Co; 2631 4th St.NW Naples, FL Sec 09; Twn 50; Rge 26; totaling 5.0 acres Naples FL,34120 PID 00407440001 239.564.1660 Ramsey.Inc@embarqmail.com • . . ,z .� ... 3 y•4 Z —.1<iv);;.-- ''''' . S Mr•R4+`�iIIF a M` . F�Y xi} i ( . vtr w.N iR m F e k'., „ # e 1 040. 11.,,-,... /�moii �' w... _ f 4 44- '44444 • • 1 - ' • P3f 4 n 4 #_ t f� 4 * 1tl • • Eta //yy ar •am N Ivs .1.1N1103W 0 - f" tri r ?.. _; ( Lill r • �• • �• • r ■ • ■ :, 111 II 4 s ■ co rv/ a 4 c • t �// • �� !V < ryry•V�� v' ■ 4 * , ',,,,Cji i.'1,,' , • V 0 r r �, AP. T`j x ,gyp t 1 r 0. t 1 � . • iP^. , -E v +*Sr.m-s z --ii--',.. a f=.lr r F..�.' Y 0.11 �',Sty. .. .'''''-:".1!'''....;" { . Ljt .,.. 9 4 t 11 w . i y �} g, A' F`4".t.� t t i" ,tet u'° G ' A DC GOEDE / ADAMCZYK / DEBOEST / CROSS ATTORNEYS AND PROFESSIONAL COUNSEL INFO@GADCLAW.COM / WWW.GADCLAW.COM December 27, 2016 Sent via electronic mail(huber@CCAPGH.org) Mr. Joseph V. Huber and Residents of Colonial Court 7693 Colonial Court Naples, Florida 34112 RE: Resolution No. 2013-166, Objection to Vacation of Platted Interest(Naples Heritage) Dear Mr.Huber: You have requested an opinion as to the following question, which relates to ongoing efforts to vacate platted County interests (namely, a conservation easement and a road right-of-way) at Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club: Does § C2 of Attachment "B" to Collier County Resolution No. 2013-166 render "null and void"any application for vacation or partial vacation of platted interests, where an applicant is unable to obtain a Letter of No Objection from an immediately adjacent property owner? Opinion: Yes. Resolution 2013-166 provides the policy and procedure for vacation of plats and portions of plats. Section C.2(e) on page 2 of Attachment "B" to the Resolution provides policies and procedures relating to letters of"No Objection" in relation to an application to vacate a platted interest. Under this section, an applicant is required to provide letters of"No Objection" from various parties, including adjacent property owners (see § C.2(e)(7)). This section further provides that "[i]f the petitioner is unable to get the . . . Letters of No Objection from the listed above [the list expressly includes adjacent property owners], then the application is 'null and void.'" Based on the plain, unambiguous language contained in the County's policies and procedures relating to Letters of No Objection, where a petitioner/applicant for vacation of a platted interest covered by Attachment"B" to the Resolution is unable to obtain a letter of"No Objection" from any adjacent property owner, the plain language of Section C.2 of Attachment "B" to the Resolution renders the vacation application null and void. 8950 Fontana Del Sol Way,Ste.100 2030 McGregor Boulevard 2600 Douglas Road,Ste.717 500 Gulfstream Blvd.,Ste.104 Naples,Florida 34109 Fort Myers,Florida 33901 Coral Gables,Florida 33134 Delray Beach,Florida 33483 P: 239.331.5100 P: 239.333.2992 P: 786.294.6002 P: 561.270.3291 F: 239.260.7677 F: 239.333.2999 F: 305.503.9551 F: 561.404.4684 The fact that an adjacent property owner has filed a letter of objection is further proof of the applicant's inability to obtain a letter of"No Objection". As to the two items scheduled for the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on January 10, 2017 (specific agenda numbers not presently available), if the applicant is unable to get a letter of No Objection from adjacent property owners, the applications relating to both items would be "null and void," and would presumably remain in that status unless and until such a letter(s)is obtained. This information assumes that the applicant been unable to obtain a letter of "No Objection" from an adjacent property owner, and that no such letter or similar communication has been provided to the applicant. Very truly yours, Goede, Adamczyk, DeBoest& Cross,PLLC 411 IF Je + right enclosures: Collier County Resolution Nos. 2013-166 and 2016-243 Z G 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 from a willing seller. Cost Estimated Cost The cost of constructing the additional parking must be reasonable and affordable for the residents within the community. Logistics Compatibility The parking facility must be compatible with the remaining portions of the Naples Heritage. This includes consideration of whether the current functions of a proposed site (such as an existing lake, conservation area, or golf course hole) could be re-established elsewhere on-site. A potential site that would eliminate a vital current function that could not be replaced elsewhere is not practicable. A discussion of the practicability of the nine sites located immediately adjacent to the Naples Heritage project boundary is provided below. Site 1. Cedar Hammock Golf& Country Club The lands within this property that are immediately northeast of Naples Heritage are either developed golf course holes, residential development, or dedicated conservation areas (Figure 1). None of these areas are available for purchase. If these lands were available, the cost of the land would be excessive. The use of a site within the developed portion of Cedar Hammock Golf & Country Club would negatively impact either the overall golf course or stormwater management system. The use of an undeveloped portion of Cedar Hammock Golf & Country Club would negatively impact wetlands within conservation easements. In addition, access from Naples Heritage to these lands would impact golf holes or wetlands that are already encumbered by a conservation easement within Naples Heritage. Based on the criteria above a site within Cedar Hammock Golf & Country Club is not a practicable site (Table 1). Table 1. Site 1 Practicabilit '75.77E Available for No. It is highly unlikely that the current owners Ac•uisition? 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 golf course, Compatibility? lake, and wetland im•acts. j No 3 E 0 *.l. _ ..ree,4ii Ria_ ,,,,,_,, U o N a y O. no ` a w w sa WZF ° g q��, an �� tD N ,p fn m4m ri,VR a) y R V 0 ' A 14-1 w a` z° a` F W V tr) EN v W q 0 0 a q� � 0 , 0 0 * 4, .... , l'.....'' , ,) Y C r x - � O 1 y,. as L. s ; ile I • # *,,,, -ftr,. , .„..e.,___________xj___,1 , , ,.. o 8 r` f !► , i s o o v 2 " 00 m 'i Coote l Cti ...,_ _, ' t , 4P-_ , (-_7 i .,/ N _U C A. N N O r . s , II iiiiit As. . . ..,,,,. , ,., ,;-.,-,,—2 Lis ' a _ aF Nv 4k � QQ� g g Site 2. Naples National Golf Club The lands within this property that are immediately east of Naples Heritage are either developed golf course holes or dedicated conservation areas (Figure 1). None of these areas are available for purchase. If these lands were available, the cost of the land would be excessive. The use of a site within the developed portion of Naples National Golf Club would negatively impact either the overall golf course or stormwater management system. The use of an undeveloped portion of Naples National Golf Club would negatively impact wetlands within conservation easements. In addition, access from Naples Heritage to these lands would impact golf holes, existing residential development, or wetlands that are already encumbered by a conservation easement within Naples Heritage. Based on the criteria above a site within Naples National Golf Club is not a practicable site (Table 2). Table 2. Site 2 Practicabilit Available for No. It is highly unlikely that the current owners Acquisition? would consider sale of a portion of their pro'ect. Purchase and No. The cost of the land, if available, would be Construction Costs? excessivel hi•h. No. Access to the site would require golf course, Compatibility? lake, or wetland impacts (within existing conservation easements). ' € e €c aNo 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 project. Purchase and No. The cost of the land, if available, would be Construction Costs? excessively high. dei No. Access to the site would require existing Compatibility? development and wetland impacts (within existing 1.,;=.11k,-: :: conservation easement). No 5 Site 4. Serenity Park This property located southeast of Naples Heritage is part of Collier County's Serenity Park which is a wetland mitigation area for a County surface water conveyance project known as LASIP (Figure 1). The property is within a dedicated conservation area. None of this area is available for purchase from Collier County. If these lands were available, the cost of the land would be excessive. The use of a portion of Serenity Park would negatively wetlands within conservation easements. In addition, access from Naples Heritage to these lands would impact existing residential development or wetlands that are already encumbered by a conservation easement within Naples Heritage. Based on the criteria above a site within Serenity Park is not a practicable site (Table 4). Table 4. Site 4 Practicabilit Available for No. It is highly unlikely that the County would Acquisition? consider sale of a portion of their mitigation area. Purchase and No. The cost of the land, if available, would be Construction Costs? excessive) hi•h. No. Access to the site would require existing Compatibility? development and wetland impacts (within existing conservation easement). 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 .�.� � � Yes. Naples � �� for Heritage could potentially purchase a l Acquisition? portion of this property. Purchase and No. The cost of the land, if available, and a bridge Construction Costs? over the canal would be excessively high. 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 Practicabilit Available for Yes. Naples Heritage was able to purchase the Ac•uisition? 'rose for a reasonable cost. Purchase and Yes. The cost of the land was reasonable and the Construction Costs? adjacent road/utilities reduces future development 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 Practicabilit ' Available for Yes. Naples Heritage could potentially purchase Acquisition? one or more of these properties. Purchase and No. The cost of the access road/utilities and 0111Construction Costs? reconfiguration of lakes and golf holes would be excessively high. No. Access to the site would require impacts to a « « Compatibility? stormwater lake, a golf course hole, and potentially existing single family homes. 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 _. Available for Yes. Naples Heritage could potentially purchase a Ac•uisition? portion of this •ro•ert . Purchase and No. The cost of the access road/utilities and Construction Costs? reconfiguration of a lake and home would be excessive) hi.h. Compatibility? No. Access to the site would require impacts to a stormwater lake and an existing smile famil home. No Site 9. Firano at Naples Firano at Naples is an existing residential development located west of Naples Heritage (Figure 1). None of these area is available for purchase. If land was available, the cost of that land would be excessive. In addition, the access road would impact a stormwater lake and wetlands that are already encumbered by a conservation easement within Naples Heritage. Based on the criteria above a site within Firano at Naples is not a practicable site (Table 9). Table 9. Site 9 Practicabilit ; 3 ems" •Available for No. It is highly unlikely that the current owners 41-4,4 Acquisition? would consider sale of a portion of their project. Purchase and No. The cost of the land, if available, would be Construction Costs? excessively high. No. Access to the site would require existing lake Compatibility? and wetland impacts (within existing conservation easement). No A discussion of the practicability of the seven sites located within the Naples Heritage project boundary is provided below. 8 v 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 Practicability Available for Yes. Thea applicant owns the property.Acquisition? pp p p y. 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 replaced elsewhere. Yes Site 11. Southeast of Existing Parking Lot This option expands a new parking area into existing developed areas located southeast of the existing parking lot(Figure 1). This area is under the ownership of Naples Heritage. There are no land acquisition costs for this option. However, the use of this area would impact portions of a stormwater lake, a golf hole, and a putting green that would require significant expense to relocate. In order to expand the existing parking area to this area a portion of golf hole 10 would need to be converted to parking. The tees for this hole cannot be moved to the east (to allow for the parking) without substantially reducing the length of that hole and thereby impacting the overall course. Signature golf courses are required to have a minimum total yardage that is distributed between a certain number of par three, four, and five golf holes. Filling a portion of the stormwater lake is problematic because the area is needed to meet the State's water quality/quantity standards. This would reduce the water management system runoff storage and water quality volume. The proposed site would also require that an important part of the golf course, the practice putting green, be removed. Based on the criteria above expanding the parking lot to the east is not a practicable site (Table 11). Table 11. Site 11 Practicability �. ',� Available for • u �m Yes. The applicant owns the property. Acquisition? Purchase and No. The cost of reconfiguring the golf course, .` Construction Costs? stormwater lake, and putting green would be excessively high. 9 1 t No. The impacts would significantly impact the golf Compatibility? course and water management system that could not be re.laced elsewhere. No Site 12. Parking Garage This option is to construct a multi-story parking garage within the footprint of the existing at grade parking lot at the clubhouse (Figure 1). This area is under the ownership of Naples Heritage. There are no land acquisition costs for this option. A multi-story parking garage built over the existing parking lot would require 360± square feet for each parking space to provide for ramps, stairwells, and elevators. The cost is estimated to be approximately $4.5 million to build (i.e. $15,000 per parking space) and would require additional yearly costs to operate and maintain. It would be out of scale with all other buildings in the community where both residential and amenity structures are intentionally low profile to emphasize the natural surroundings. The clubhouse would be shut down during the parking garage construction and the normal operation of the golf course would be disrupted for an extended period of time. Based on the criteria above building a parking garage is not a practicable site (Table 12). Table 12. Site 12 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 excessively hi.h. No. The garage would not be compatible with 3 - Compatibility? architectural theme of the overall development and would impact use of the clubhouse and golf course mig 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 Table 13. Site 13 Practicabilit Available for Ace uisition? Yes. The applicant owns the property. 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 Practicability { 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 Practicabilit Available for Ace uisition? Yes. The applicant owns the property. Purchase and No. The cost of relocating the maintenance facility Construction Costs? to a nearby area would be excessivel high. No. The relocated courts would impact the golf Compatibility? course and the buffer alon. 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 Acquisition? Yes. The applicant owns the property. Purchase and No. The cost of relocating the swimming pool to a Construction Costs? nearb area would beexcessively his 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 ofloss 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 CTDOM 9 TOW11Ei►-dP 50 s Naples Heritage Tennis Facility RANGE: 26 E 0 100 200 SCALE 00:•�.• 625E.����:+ ���'/ tv,,.• pi j.�:4,/ ►i j Wetland Fill (1.52 ac.) L'/ ,/,` ������������� Secondary Wetland Impacts (0.55 ac.) 1 'WWII Impacts to Existing Upland Preserve ,jjjj, Area (0.25 ac.) f ,......../ WET-1S ,—4. 619 1 FLUCCS Description 619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 625E2 Hydric Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (26-50%) Notes: 1. Property boundary and surveyed wetland line provided by McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. 2. Site plan provided by Gina R. Green, P.A. 3. Mapping based on photointerpretation of 2015 PERAl/T 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: NHGIFIGURES2-7.DWG Figure 2 Site Site Plan Analysis W. DEXTER BENDER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Is'NPIRONMA'NTAL e@ MARINE CONSULTING \�4_` /an FORT MYERS 239-334-3680 l 14 r sECnom 3 TOWNS/4.: 5o s Naples Heritage Tennis Facility RANGE: 26E W W W W 0 100 200 vr� W W W W W W SCALE FEET * 4. '4' * 4. /err, W W W W W W �� � W W W W W W • *P W W r E:strng Proposed�� Existing Tennis Coutts W Parkin �� P cki W g W W �� ...., W W W W 4, W /. F W W W / a..x. W W �� 9 W W W W ;� V W W W W W 4'4. W W W W W W '. W W W 4, W Existing Preserve W W W 7 Wetland 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 14, 2016 10:10:33 a.m. 2. Site plan provided by Gina R. Green, P.A. Drawing: NHGIFlGURES2-7.DWG I W. DEXTER BENDER ( Figure 3. Proposed Site 10 Plan ASSO CIA TES, INC. 4(LENVIRONA(ENTALc@ AlARINE CONSULTING � FORT AIYERS 239-334-3680 �r 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 SEC71Ofk 3 ro F so s Naples Heritage RANGE, 26 E W Tennis Facility W WWWW WW W W W WW W WWWW Ale 100 200 • / 0-.,. W WW TW W � /'''21 ; SCALE FEE !11'/ 11i!41v :. 1i , 1 �J� .x /n11j;/10it0.'iI,/i4111t %,/ Proposed Tennis Court �� • r'r rr�i°rr� ' W W * W W W W W WW .. Proposed r#=;' * W W W W Parking 4, W W E W s.3 W W W sting W 1 • Parkin W W W W * `' - W W Existing Preserve W W ���j Wetland Fill (3.02 ac.) W W X7"v��© W W 4. t:, W W „ r s 4, W .4' W '' 4, W Wl'. Notes: PERMIT USL' ONLY Property boundary and surveyed we line provided by McAn/y Engineering and Design, Inc. NOT FOR COATSTRI:10:33 March 14, 2016 10:10:33 a.m. 2. Site plan provided by Gina R. Green, P.A. Drawing: NHGIFlGURES2-7.DWG Figure 4. Pro W. DSS O XTCIA TES N R 4.- 1. ig► posed Site 13 P/an FNVIRONA(IsNTAL c@' MARINECONSULTING _ FORT....L'RS 239-334-3680 17 r 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 SECT101# 9 ro 50 8 Naples Heritage Tennis Facility RANCE: 26 E 0 100 200 SCALE FEET r.. . I s.•.•�%•% ..• ! 0 • ��<A%♦i♦ii i i 0 `..4,/ � =j! j///// Wetland Fill (3.00 ac.) WET1N ! !•••••••.•••,•••,•••,•••' SecondaryWetland Impacts (0.44 ac. )�•..• ►� IIIIIII Impacts to Existing Upland Preserve ,jjjj, Area (0.25 ac.) v 4, `WET-1S , E , 619`;,... —�—_t. 11„) 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 PERA(IT USE ONLY aerial photography and ground truthing in July 2015. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 4. Delineation of jurisdictional wetlands has been field March 14, 2016 10:10:33 a.m. reviewed/approved by the SFWMD and COE. Drawing: NHG1FlGURES2-7.DWG W. DEXTER BENDER Figure 5 Proposed Site Plan 1 ASS O CIA TES, INC. 44(( )-- ENVIRONMENTAL ct MARINE CONSULTING FORT MYERS 239-334-3680 t 19 r 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 CTIOM 9 TOWNS-F': 50 s Nap/es Heritage Tennis Facility RANCW 26 E ti 0 100 200 SCALE FEET f _ e ® 625E2 •-•:>•:4,A +' ^ 0r • ' .000 r " �, Wetland Fill (1.84 ac.), Pi �,- IPA' ;•;•;•;•;•;.;.;.; Secondary Wetland Impacts (0.33 ac.) ►® "WWII, Impacts to Existing Upland Preserve ,� Area (0.25 ac.) F.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. i t. :::::::::::::::::::::::::2. ::::. Upland Buffer(0.06 ac.) I // `::: WET-1S — —, 619 - 1---- FLUCCS Description 619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 625E2 Hydric Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (26-50%) Notes: 1. Property boundary and surveyed wetland line provided by McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. 2. Site plan provided by Gina R. Green, P.A. 3. Mapping based on photointerpretation of 2015 PERMIT USE ONLY aerial photography and ground truthing in July 2015. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 4. Delineation of jurisdictional wetlands has been field March 14, 2016 10:10:33 a.m. reviewed/approved by the SFWMD and COE. Drawing: NHG1F1GURES2-7.DWG W. DEXTER BENDER Figure 6. Proposed Site Plan 2 & ASS O CIA TES, INC. (�1 ENYIRONJfENTAL ct ALIRINE CONSULTING \�` _ FORT AfYERS 239-334-3680 21 4 SEC710At 9 TOWNS • 50 S Naples Heritage Tennis Facility R ANCE: 26 E 0 100 200 SCALE e.:44 625E2 •�•:•:O•`:•i!E O•♦ •••:•:::::"A:0•+� N 4341 � ._ ►� = j//// Wetland Fill (1.52 ac.) A404 1 r:i,- '„- ' 40, -1 i „,,,,f,sr „T,.i, _ Arf"A ° /�lp;•;•;•;•;•;•;•; Secondary Wetland Impacts (0.55 ac.) , IIIIIII Impacts to Existing Upland Preserve ,�,�,�,�,�, Area (0.25 ac.) toN Upland Buffer 0.10 ac.) 619 WET-1S i-+. 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, INC. (1 ` ENVIRONMENTAL et MARINE CONSULTING ��_ _,_ FORT AIYERS 239-334-3680 �„� 22 Appendix A Site Plans and UMAM Analysis 23 Naples Heritage Tennis Facility Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method Matrix (March 18, 2016) Site 6 Wetland Impacts UMAM Scores Location Water Community Polygon # FLUCCS w/o with w/o with w/o with Delta Acres FL WET-1N 619 4 0 5 0 2 0 -0.37 1.12 -0.41 625E3 4 0 5 0 6 0 -0.50 0.95 -0.48 Total 2.07 -0.89 Site 10 Wetland Impacts UMAM Scores Location Water Community Polygon # FLUCCS w/o with w/o with w/o with Delta Acres FL WET-2 621 8 0 9 0 10 0 _ -0.90 1.25 -1.13 Total 1.25 -1.13 Site 13 Wetland Impacts UMAM Scores Location Water Community Polygon # FLUCCS w/o with w/o with w/o with Delta Acres FL WET-3 624 8 0 9 0 10 0 -0.90 3.02 -2.72 Total 3.02 -2.72 24 RESOLUTION 2013- 1 6 6 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2006-160 IN ORDER TO AMEND THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR: 1) THE CLOSING AND VACATION OF ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY; 2) THE VACATION AND ANNULMENT OF PLATS OR PORTIONS OF PLATS OF SUBDIVIDED LAND; AND 3) THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF PUBLIC EASEMENTS CONVEYED BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS (CONVEYANCES OTHER THAN ON A SUBDIVISION PLAT) ON PLATTED OR UNPLATTED LAND, EXCEPT FOR PUBLIC ROADS. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (Board), pursuant to Sections 125.01, 125.37, 177.101, 336.09 and 336.10, Florida Statutes, Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-57,and the Collier County Land Development Code is authorized to grant or deny vacations and annulments of plats of subdivided land, road rights-of-way, alleyways, and public dedicated easements conveyed by separate instrument recorded in the public records;and WHEREAS, the Board,on July 25,2006 adopted Resolution 2006-160 which superseded and replaced Resolution 1998465, establishing the policies and procedures previously established for the above;and WHEREAS, the Board desires to further amend the policies and procedures for: 1) closing and vacation of road rights-of-way; 2) vacation and annulment of plats or portions of plats of subdivided land; and 3) extinguishment of public easements conveyed by separate instrument records in the public records(conveyances other than on a subdivision plat)on platted or unplatted land,except for public roads. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: 1. This Resolution amends Resolution No. 2006-160 as set forth in the following Attachments. 2. The policies and procedures for the closing and vacation of road rights-of-way are amended and set forth in Attachment "A", incorporated herein and made part of this Resolution. 3. The policies and procedures for the vacation and annulment of plats or portions of plats of subdivided land are amended and set forth in Attachment"B"incorporated herein and made part of this Resolution. 4. The policies and procedures for the extinguishment of public easements conveyed by separate instrument records in the public records (conveyances other than on a subdivision plat) on platted or unplatted land, except for public roads, are amended and set forth in Attachment"C",incorporated herein and made a part of the Resolution. BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, that the Clerk be directed to record this Resolution in the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second, and majority vote favoring same this I 041 day of d em k7 ,r ,2013. ATTEST: ""ora `' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGI T AR N., Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA . By.as a C1�81mi .s� By: Attest uty Clerk Georgia A. Hiller,Esq., Chairwoman signatureonl • i's Approved as to form and legality: Emily R.11:4-'4—in l" Assistant County Attorney ,01 Or/i () Attachment"A" POLICY AND PROCEDURE ON THE CLOSING AND VACATION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY A. AUTHORITY: Sections 336.09 and 336.10, Florida Statutes. B. POLICY: When a request is in the interest of the general public welfare or where no public detriment is established and when said request does not invade or violate individual property rights and otherwise qualifies under Section 336.09, Florida Statutes,the Board of County Commissioners(BCC)may: I. Vacate, abandon, discontinue and close any existing public or private street, alleyway, road, highway,or other place used for travel,or any portion thereof,other than a state or federal highway, and to renounce and disclaim any right of the County and the public in and to any land in connection therewith. 2. Renounce and disclaim any right of the County and the public in and to any land,or interest therein, acquired by purchase, gift, devise, dedication or prescription for street, alleyway, road or highway purposes,other than lands acquired for state and federal highways. 3. Renounce and disclaim any right of the County and the public in and to land, other than land constituting, or acquired for, a state or federal highway, delineated on any recorded map or plat as a street,alleyway,road, highway or other place used for vehicular travel. C. PROCEDURE: 1. An application for the vacation of road right-of-way is to be completed along with the listed items needed for review and to be submitted to :••••- ••• `: - :: - . -: .- " :- -- : _ - Growth Management / Planning and Regulation, Engineering Services Section. It must be accompanied by a non-refundable application fee (refer to Growth Management/Planning and Regulation current fee schedule for the applicable fee). 2. The petitioner must also provide: a) Evidence to show that the petitioner owns the fee simple title to the whole or that part of the parcel sought to be vacated (FEE SIMPLE DEED). If petitioner is not the owner of the fee simple title, petitioner shall provide a statement demonstrating the reason for the request including any property or financial interest or projects affected by a granting of such request. b) A statement explaining the general public benefit received from the proposed vacation. Attachment"A" June 2013 c) A copy of the document which granted,conveyed or dedicated the right-of-way to the County or the public. d) Certificate(s) showing all State and County taxes have been paid for the subject parcel if petitioner is the owner or the agent of owner of the fee simple title to the whole or part of the parcel sought to be vacated. (Available from the Collier County Tax Collector's Office, Building C-1,at the Government Center). e) Assessment Map depicting area of proposed vacation. (Available from the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, Radio Road). f) List of abutting and other property owners within 250 feet of the proposed vacation to include: (1) Name (2) Address (3) Zip Code (4) Parcel Number g) Site Plan - the site plan must be on 8 %" X 11" paper and show all data pertinent to the proposed vacation,which shall include at least the following: (1) Date of drawing (2) Scale (3) North arrow (4) Locations and dimensions of property lines, abutting rights-of-way, easements, setbacks, off-street parking,proposed and/or existing structures,and any proposed landscaping. (5) Location of proposed vacation and, if applicable,proposed dedication. h) Legal description of what is to be vacated submitted on 8 'A"X 11"paper labeled in bold capital letters as EXHIBIT Exhibit"A". This legal description is to be accompanied by a sketch of the legal description. Both the legal description and sketch are to be signed and sealed by a Florida Professional Surveyor and Mapper and have a"Prepared by"block listing the name and address of the Florida Professional Surveyor and Mapper. i) When applicable, a copy of the recorded subdivision plat. (Available from the Clerk of Court Recording Department on the 46 :_ _ .' : • - _ _.. - _ - - _ 2NO Floor of the Collier County Courthouse). j) "Letters of No Objection" from all pertinent utility companies or authorized users of the easement and/or dedicated public area as determined by Growth Management / Planning and Regulation Administrator or his designee. Such letters may include but shall not be limited to the following: (1) Electric Company (2) Telephone Company (3) Cable Television Company (4) Collier County Sheriff's Office (5) Homeowner's Association (6) Rescue and Fire Control District (7) Adjacent property owners Attachment"A" June 2013 The letter sent to the utility companies and authorized users requesting a "Letter of No Objection" shall contain the statement "I have no objection to the proposed vacation" at the bottom of the letter with a signature block directly below it. Upon submitting the petition for approval Enaineerinq Services will distribute the package to the following areas for their approval or objection. (1) Collier County Utilities/PUED (2) Collier County Engineering Services—Subdivision Review (3) Collier County Engineering Services—Stormwater Review (4) Collier County Transportation Department If the petitioner is unable to get the pertinent"approvals"or Letters of No Objections from the listed above then the application is deemed denied. k) If a replacement easement is required by Collier County, the reviewing parties are under no obligation to accept the offered alternative. If a Petition to Vacate is premised on the grant of a replacement easement, the Board will not take action on the Petition until the instrument necessary to grant the alternative real property interest has been accepted in form and content by all reviewing parties and the County Attorney's Office.it is properly executed by the granting or conveying entity. and delivered to the County Attorney's Office to be held in trust pending the Board's consideration of the requested vacation. If a replacement easement is required by Collier County,the following shall be submitted: (1) Legal description and sketch of what is to be dedicated, signed and sealed by a Florida Professional Surveyor and Mapper and have a "Prepared by" block listing the name and address of the Professional Surveyor and Mapper. (2) Attorney's title opinion or Ownership&Encumbrance Report by a title company(current). (3) Executed conveyance document. (4) Executed subordination documents. 3. -: ` = :: •• • _ -- ' : - •• -- : Engineering Services will review the petition application for completeness and compliance with this Resolution. rsiwicennientelEngineering Services will prepare an appropriate executive summary and resolution and transmit both documents to the County Attorney's Office for approval. If approved as to form and legality-su€€eiency by the County Attorney, the petition will be filed with the Clerk to the Board with a request for a time and date for a public hearing. The petition may be placed on the BCC agenda to establish a time and date for a public hearing by Resolution pursuant to Section 336.09, Florida Statutes. 4. Once the time and date of the public hearing are established, the Clerk to the Board shall publish legal notice of the hearing one time in a newspaper of general circulation at least two weeks prior to the date stated therein for such hearing. 5. The petitioner and all property owners within 250 feet (and others as may be required by - • - - '. . •• - - . •• • - - - Engineering Services of the requested vacation parcel shall be given notice by the Clerk to the Board; stating time, place and date of public hearing, by regular mail. If the number of property owners within two hundred fifty feet(250')exceeds twenty (20), petitioner shall incur an additional postage and handling charge of fifty cents ($.50) per additional property owner. 6. In the event that the petitioner for the property in question does not represent himself at the public hearing(s), he must provide a signed letter or other appropriate documentation which authorizes another specific person to represent him. 7. The Board of County Commissioners shall then hold a public hearing and any approved resolution by such governing body shall have the effect of vacating all requested streets and alleys which have not become highways necessary for use by the traveling public. 8. Notice of the adoption of such a resolution by the Commissioners shall be published by the Clerk to the Board one time, within 30 days following its adoption, in one issue of a newspaper of general circulation published in the County. The proof of publication of notice of public hearing,a certified copy of the resolution, and the proof of publication of the notice of the adoption of such resolution shall be recorded by the Clerk to the Board in the Public Records of the County. 9. The processing of this petition shall coincide, where applicable, with the processing of such other platting or land use change applications proposed for the same property with regard to submissions of applications, staff reviews, reviews by advisory bodies, or the Board of County Commissioners, so that the decision on such vacation shall occur at the same meeting at which time the reuse application is reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners. 10. Once the application is accepted for review it will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to a county reviewer's comments is received within 90 days of the date on which the comments were sent to the applicant with a one time extension of an additional 90 days upon written notification. If a response is not received within this time, the application for request review will be considered withdrawn. Further review of the project will require a new application subject to the then current code. Attachment"A" June 2013 II '')1 Attachment"B" POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR THE VACATION AND ANNULMENT OF PLATS OR PORTIONS OF PLATS OF SUBDIVIDED LAND A. AUTHORITY: Section 177.101 Florida Statutes, and Collier County Ordinance No. 01-57 and the Collier County Land Development Code. B. POLICY: When a request is in the interest of the general public welfare or no public detriment is established and the request does not invade or violate individual property rights • - -- .', •• - . . : , the Board of County Commissioners may adopt resolutions vacating plats in whole or in part of subdivisions in said counties, returning the property covered by such plats either in whole or in part into acreage. C. PROCEDURE: 1. To petition for the vacation and annulment of plats or portions of plats of subdivided land, an application is to be completed along with the listed items needed for review. The application must be submitted to : -.- `: : ::- :• : -: _- --- -- : Engineering Services,,accompanied_ by a non- refundable application fee (refer to . - - : - -. . _ ' .• --_• . -_ :: Growth Management/Planning and Regulation current fee schedule for the applicable fee). 2. The petitioner must also provide: a) Evidence to show that the petitioner owns the fee simple title to the whole or that part of the parcel sought to be vacated(FEE SIMPLE DEED). b) A statement explaining the general public benefit received from the proposed vacation. c) Certificate showing all State and County taxes have been paid for the subject parcel. (Available from the Collier County Tax Collector's Office, Building C-1, in the Government Center). d) Assessment Map. (Available from the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, BuildingC ., the Government Center Radio Road). e) List of abutting and other property owners within 250 feet of the proposed vacation to include: (1) Name (2) Address (3) Zip Code (4) Parcel Number Attachment"B" June 2013 f) Site Plan - the site plan must be on 8 1/2" X I I" paper with an adequate scale showing all data pertinent to the proposed vacation, which shall include at least the following: (1) Date of drawing (2) Scale (3) North arrow (4) Locations and dimensions of property lines, abutting rights-of-way, easements, setbacks, off-street parking,proposed and/or existing structures,and any proposed landscaping. (5) Location of proposed vacation and, if applicable, proposed dedication. g) Legal description of what is to be vacated submitted on 8 'A"X 11"paper labeled in bold capital letters as EXHIBITS-ibiit"A"to the petition. This legal description is to be accompanied by a sketch of the legal description. Both the legal description and sketch are to be signed and sealed by a Florida Professional Surveyor and Mapper and have a"Prepared by" block listing the name and address of the Florida Professional Surveyor and Mapper. h) A copy of the recorded subdivision plat. (Available from the Clerk of Court Recording Department on the 49' .. :.' .• _ _ _. _-• • _ . : 2nd Floor of the Collier County Courthouse). e) "Letters of No Objection" from all pertinent utility companies or authorized users of the easement and/or dedicated public area. Such letters may include but shall not be limited to the following: (1) Electric Company (2) Telephone Company (3) Cable Television Company (4) Collier County Sheriff's Office (5) Homeowner's Association (6) Rescue and Fire Control District (7) Adjacent property owners The letter sent to the utility companies and authorized users requesting a "Letter of No Objection" shall contain the statement"I have no objection to the proposed vacation"at the bottom of the letter with a signature block directly below it. Upon submitting the petition for approval Engineering Services will distribute the package to the following areas for their approval or objection. (I) Collier County Utilities/PUED (2) Collier County Engineering Services—Subdivision Review (3) Collier County Engineering Services—Stormwater Review (4) Collier County Transportation Department If the-petitioner is unable to get the pertinent"appirovals"or Letters of No Objections from the listed above then the application is"null and,void" f) If a replacement easement is required by Collier County, the reviewing parties are under no obligation to accept the offered alternative. If a Petition to Vacate is premised on the grant of a replacement easement, the Board will not take action on the Petition until the instrument necessary to grant the alternative real property interest has been accepted in form and content by all reviewing parties and the County Attorney's Office, it is properly executed by the granting or conveying entity, and delivered to the County Attorney's Office to be held in trust pending the Board's consideration of the requested vacation. If a replacement easement is required by Collier County, the following shall be submitted: (1) Legal description and sketch of what is to be dedicated signed and sealed by a Florida Professional Surveyor and Mapper and have a "Prepared by" block listing the name and address of the Professional Surveyor and Mapper. (2) Attorney's title opinion or Ownership&encumbrance Report by a title company(current). (3) Executed conveyance document. (4) Executed subordination documents. 3. Engineering Services will review the petition for completeness and compliance with this Resolution. EnvireamentalEngineering Services will prepare an appropriate executive summary and resolution and transmit both documents to the County Attorney's Office for approval. If approved as to form and legalityieieaey by the County Attorney,the petition will be filed with the Clerk to the Board with a request for a time and date for a public hearing. . 4. Once the time and date of the agenda item are established, the Clerk to the Board shall publish legal notice of the hearing in not less than two weekly issues of a newspaper of general circulation in the County.pursuant to Section 177.101.Fla.Stat. 5. The petitioner and all property owners within 250 feet(and others as may be required by Community Engineering Services of the requested vacation parcel shall be given notice by the Clerk to the Board; stating time,place and date of the agenda item, by regular mail. If the number of property owners within two hundred fifty feet (250') exceeds twenty (20), petitioner shall incur an additional postage and handling charge of fifty cents ($.50) per additional property owner. If the County receives an objection or anticipates an objection to the vacation request, then the agenda item shall be scheduled under advertised public hearings in the BCC Agenda. 6. In the event that the owner for the property in question does not represent himself at the BCC meeting, he must provide a signed letter or other appropriate documentation which authorizes another specific person to represent him. 7. The County Commission may adopt a resolution vacating plats in whole or in part of subdivisions in the County,returning the property covered by such plats either in whole or part into acreage. 8. A certified copy of any approved resolution shall be recorded in the public records of Collier County. 9. The processing of this petition shall coincide, where applicable, with the processing of such other platting or land use change applications proposed for the same property with regard to submissions of applications, staff reviews, reviews by advisory bodies, or the Board of County Commissioners, so that the decision on such vacation shall occur at the same meeting at which time the reuse application is reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners. 10. Once the application is accepted for review it will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to a county reviewer's comments is received within 90 days of the date on which the comments were sent to the applicant with a one time extension of an additional 90 days upon written notification. If a response is not received within this time, the application for request review will be considered Attachment"B" June 2013 withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the project will require a new application subject to the then current code. Attachment"B" June 2013 1.1.I/> . yam_, '• � olID" -% {4( �\ Attachment"C" POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF PUBLIC EASEMENTS CONVEYED BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS(CONVEYANCES OTHER THAN ON A SUBDIVISION PLAT) ON PLATTED OR UNPLATTED LAND, EXCEPT FOR PUBLIC ROADS. A. AUTHORITY: Sections 125.01 and 125.37, Florida Statutes. B. POLICY: Requests will be granted as long as the public benefit is established or no public detriment is established. The Board of County Commissioners may: 1. Extinguish, vacate, abandon, discontinue, and close any easements, or any portion thereof, granted to the County or public by any instrument recorded in the public records of Collier County and to renounce and disclaim any right of the County and the public in and to any land in connection therewith; when such interest is granted to the County or public by any instrument recorded in the public records other than on a subdivision plat. 2. Quitclaim, renounce, and disclaim any right of the County and the public in and to any land, or • interest therein, acquired by purchase, gift, devise, dedication or prescription for drainage, utilities, access, maintenance, preservation, or conservation or other public purposes; when such interest is granted to the County or public by any instrument recorded in the public records of Collier County other than on a subdivision plat. 3. To make an exchange of real property whenever, in the opinion of the County Commissioners, the County holds and possesses any real property, not needed for county purposes, and such property may be to the best interest of the County exchanged for other real property, which the County may desire to acquire for county purposes,as authorized by Section 125.37, Florida Statutes. C. PROCEDURE: 1. To petition for the extinguishment of County dedicated easement on unplatted land or platted land a application is to be completed along with the listed items needed for review be submitted to - : - - • : Engineering Services and it must be accompanied by a non refundable application fee (refer to : •• . - : :: : :-: - - ' ,• --.- : --- Growth Management/Planning and Regulation current fee schedule for the applicable fee) 2. The petitioner must also provide: a) Evidence to show that the petitioner owns the fee simple title to the whole or that part of the parcel on which a public dedicated easement is sought to be extinguished (FEE SIMPLE DEED). b) A statement explaining the general public benefit received from the proposed vacation. c) A copy of the document which granted, conveyed or dedicated the easement interest to the County or the public. d) Certificate(s) showing all State and County taxes have been paid for the subject parcel. (Available from the Collier County Tax Collector's Office, Building C-1, in the Government Center). e) Assessment Map. (Available from the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, Radio Road). f) Site Plan - the site plan must be on 8 %2" X 11" paper with an adequate scale showing all data pertinent to the proposed extinguishment, which shall include at least the following: (1) Date of drawing (2) Scale (3) North arrow (4) Locations and dimensions of property lines, abutting rights-of-way, easements, setbacks, off-street parking,proposed and/or existing structures,and any proposed landscaping. (5) Location of proposed extinguishment and, if applicable,proposed dedication. f) Legal description of what is to be extinguished submitted on 8 ''/2" X 11" paper labeled in bold capital letters as EXHIBITEnthibit"A". This legal description is to be accompanied by a sketch of the legal description. Both the legal description and sketch are to be signed and sealed by a Florida Professional Surveyor and Mapper and have a"Prepared by" block listing the name and address of the Florida Professional Surveyor and Mapper. g) Letters of No Objection" from all pertinent utility companies or authorized users of the easement and/or dedicated public area. Such letters may include but shall not be limited to the following: (1) Electric Company (2) Telephone Company (3) Cable Television Company (4) Collier County Sheriffs Office (5) Homeowner's Association (6) Rescue and Fire Control District (7) Adjacent property owners The letter sent to the utility companies and authorized users requesting a "Letter of No Objection" shall contain the statement "I have no objection to the proposed vacation" at the bottom of the letter with a signature block directly below it. Upon submitting the petition for approval Engineering Services will distribute the package to the following areas for their approval or objection. (1) Collier County Utilities/PUED (2) Collier County Engineering Services—Subdivision Review (3) Collier County Engineering Services—Stormwater Review (4) Collier County Transportation Department Attachment"C" June 2013 If the petitioner is unable to get the pertinent"approvals"or Letters of No Objections from the listed above;then the application is"null and void" h) To the extent applicable, where the petitioner desires to exchange his/her interest with that interest dedicated to the County, the requirements and procedures of§125.37, Florida Statutes, and the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance No. 97-17 shall be utilized as practicable and legally required. The reviewing parties are under no obligation to accept the offered alternative. If a Petition to Vacate is premised on the grant of a replacement easement, the Board will not take action on the Petition until the instrument necessary to grant the alternative real property interest has been accepted in form and content by all reviewing parties and the County Attorney's Office, it is properly executed by the granting or conveying entity, and delivered to the County Attorney's Office to be held in trust pending the Board's consideration of the requested vacation. The following shall be submitted: (1) Legal description and sketch of what is to be dedicated signed and sealed by a Florida Professional Surveyor and Mapper and have a "Prepared by" block listing the name and address of the Florida Professional Surveyor and Mapper. (2) Attorney's Title Opinion or Ownership&Encumbrance Report(current). (3) Executed conveyance document. (4) Executed subordination documents. 3. `.. •.- •. L= = ::•''' - • -. • : Engineering Services will review the petition for completeness and compliance with this Resolution. :•- -- ••- _ : ::-•,- _- • :. --:. : Engineering Services will prepare an appropriate executive summary and resolution and transmit both documents to the office of the County Attorney for approval. If approved as to form and legality legali -suffieieney by the County Attorney, the petition will be filed with the Clerk to the Board with a request for a time and date for a public hearing. The-Petitier,may . : - = •:- ;.", -• • . Where an exchange of property interest is applicable, the terms and conditions of any such exchange of property shall be published, once a week for at least two weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation published in the County prior to the adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. 4. In the event that the owner of the property in question does not represent himself at the BCC meeting, he must provide a signed letter or appropriate documentation which authorizes another specific person to represent him. 5. The processing of this petition shall coincide, where applicable, with the processing of such other platting or land use change applications proposed for the same property with regard to submissions of applications, staff reviews, reviews by advisory bodies, or the Board of County Commissioners, so that the decision on such extinguishment shall occur at the same meeting at which time the re-use application is reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners. 6. Once the application is accepted for review it will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to a county reviewer's comments is received within 90 days of the date on which the comments were sent to the applicant with a one time extension of an additional 90 days upon written notification. If a response is not received within this time, the application for request review will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the project will require a new application subject to the then current code. Attachment"C" June 2013 RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - 2 4 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA TO DECLARE A PUBLIC HEARING 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. (PETITION VAC-PL20160001403) WHEREAS, Gina R. Green, P.E., of Gina R. Green, P.A. on behalf of the Petitioner, has requested that a public hearing be held pursuant to Resolution No. 2013-166, to consider disclaiming, renouncing and vacating 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, being more specifically shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto: and WHEREAS, Petitioner does hereby request that the Board of County Commissioners take appropriate action, including the adoption of a resolution setting the date and time of a public hearing to consider disclaiming, renouncing, and vacating the County's interest in the above right-of-way in accordance with Sections 336.09 and 336.10, Florida Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that pursuant to Resolution No. 2013-166 in a regular session of the Board of County Commissioners, a public hearing to consider disclaiming, renouncing and vacating the County and the public's interest in the above described right-of-way will be held on the 13}'' day of Da,ca.,-r t f , 2016 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as practical, in the Boardroom, 3`1 Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center. 3299 Tamiami Trail East. Naples, Florida. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote favoring same, this IS*- ' day of NI 0 v e.- a-Y , 2016. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA y. Caiutan, \By� By: Deputy desk. Donna Fiala, Chairman Attest as to Chairman s- signature only. - Apprgyed as to form and legality: IS 14/4 Scott A. one Assistant County Attorney Attachments: 1. Exhibit A 2. Location-Site Map Iik McANLY ENGINEERING _ AND DESIGN INC. MILCIVIL ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING EXHIBIT "A " LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRACT RW4 TO BE VACATED LOCATED IN NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF& COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA FEBRUARY 3,2016 COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP SOS,RANGE 26E, AND RUNNING THENCE BINDING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 9, S89°24'20"E 3268.58' TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT RW4 OF NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF' & COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE,AS RECORDED IN THE LAND RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY IN PLAT BOOK 26 PAGES 73 THROUGH 80, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE BINDING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT RW4,NOW°43'07"W 100.03'; THENCE BINDING ON THE NORTHERLY OUTLINE THEREOF, S89°24'OO"E 1307.42' TO THE EASTERLY OUTLINE THEREOF;THENCE BINDING ON THE EASTERLY OUTLINE, SOO°41'08"E 100.03' TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 9; THENCE BINDING THEREON N89°24'O0"W 1307.36' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 130,789 SQ.FT OR 3.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS PREPARED B Y: (12,4?4„/ !�j / WILLIAM C. McANLY P.S.M. FLORIDA REGISTRATION NO. 1543 McANLY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC. 2025 J& C BLVD. SUITE 5 NAPLES FL 34109 t2Oi6OOO 0 REV 1 1 2025 J&C BOULEVARD-SUITE 5 NAPLES,FLORIDA 34109-6204 PHONE(239)593-3299 FAX(239)593-3298 EXHIBIT "A" SKETCH OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB PHASE TWO—A PB 28, PG 11 LOT 9 BLACK F LOT 8 LAT 39 LOT 7 BLOCK F BLOCK B BLACK F LOT 8 BLOCK F LOT 5 BLOCK F N NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & 8 BLLOCCK4F COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE .i PB 26, PGS. 73-80 m Uo $ 8 LOT z v BLOCK 3F TRACT C5 0 z r- w .1".CONSERVATION AND BUFFER EASEMENT r S $ wain 00O O O A p FlJ0 s Q FCO E4 Ce a)o BLOCKLOT 2F * O; ,n a A yZ0� TO LAT I Vo E v;D w ch BLOCK O �L n 6.U x 4. A O w z° z 'S i-. IIUU v a v 6 a NO0'43'07"W 100.03` S8974'00"E 1307.42' /1/7",/ 1/30.780 S0. FT. OR 3.00 ACRES t� //,///0/11: S89 24 20 E1\,_ N89'24 00 W 1307.36' • 3268.58' 04) P•0•B• $00'41'08 E P.O.C. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT RW4 100.03' SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 9 S.D. CORPORATION OF NAPLES, INC. COUNTY PARCEL No. 00418640007 UNPLATTED j 1 i SIGNED: �U . 4`. /Z4.1t f f3/(ki7f 1 °, t t Willihm C. McAnly, P.S.M. #1543 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: C SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON SHEET 1 OF 2 SKETCH OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION McANLY ENGINEERING VACATION OF EASEMENT AND DESIGN INC. IIIN . NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF a COUNTRY CLUB PHASE TWO-A 2025 JLC BOULEVARD- SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109i Milk SCALE:1..2001D'AM.:9 N. ICHK.:4.KRIDATE: 1/15/16 (239)5G3-3299 FAX(239)593-32921 N0. RENSIONS OWN DATE COPYRIGHT, 2016 BY MCANLY ENCINEER1NC AND DESIGN, NC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT: 130299 I SHEET: 2 OF 2 ,40)F 1.112/1. 21.1111111 I Uliiitt�uu •�• II i al - "4 I- -I' .41 a , , , _zik ,.: ifirmaec. bid i 1 -1 *v.' Irig,....-• a—Ilimili ii—`,17 Re—ARA r=----- LAUXIAAA“ '- 0 le r . lel 8 . .. _.., _ ., ,, . g el-am,.. _ilairm,. ..A.... MI ,-, > ,..„ i& . . ,. , MAI ' NM' 11111P7eAri, ifj TIVi r- _$ : cr:c. O - 17* lia 1 b . : .. \____ ..,. , . .00.ti Al z1 ',,, i4 0 PI MI. T Row f., ,ii s i , . r OO III 10:4 111 m :AE &2am C sR � a � lir � 1 JI 0.0 Sry'= R. E <b r• p a Pi Nacro sCAIE �– tC// Z��r. d m o^ p Y Ox` TRACT CS ��ACT� 41' -n �j � Fes, .p• o O nX i_ g o v _ es. Vette C TRACT ora o ra"h OCJ g. M E tli •;0' 0 ? R < D 0 DD M rn_ Z TRACT 0 i 9°141 9.A.1 Co er county STAFF REPORT 7 TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT -o HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2016 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20150001416 NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF AND COUNTRY d CLUB PUD PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT &AGENT: a 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 > 0 There are hundreds of other property owners in this PUD. REQUESTED ACTION: c. The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an cin 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 c) 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, z 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 Packet Pg. 36 9.A.1 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). U 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 d 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 N subdivision plat, a vacation of this right-of-way is being processed separately (VAC- r- PL20160001403) as well as the aforementioned VAC-PL20160001406 petition. These vacation 'o 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 o petitions. Since the petition was reviewed by the CCPC on May 5,2016,the applicant is requesting aai• to modify the conceptual site plan by proposing a different location for the access point (to the cc subject parcel) as well as making further changes to the proposed uses, exterior lighting, hours of operation, and amplified sound. `n s z a (See location map and revised conceptual site plan on the following pages) E PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 2 of 12 November 4, 2016 Packet Pg. 37 I 4J1L1--- ---1 i ) 1114 ---- li 11 4 SI ill 4 1111 vo, III ._____,L i11►,IIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIII,,,,; �`,.\ .00 0 E? .4 r (1111~IIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIII,,, ``: jrhb'lOr—ema o E ,�ounmiiig al 11 0QIN ui �O��Inniunn►o11\1� I' 0 - �p�. � \\` �k -• a_ _...... IN 1 li El IIIIII7,�I��� 1 $ oF....,,,......6,171.,21,1„ ilir:44111 i O.! W 21 Qa � 1 �1 ,��11111 � gown � ,".. O • • * E of I ,::4' C \ C _tlA ; ..iU✓�, tai is--IN�SI \MirtillIZI111111111:11111111:1111111‘1,0 dunuuupul t �iru1NsO (I'1 c oauuq 11 LJ �8 InNa-ilu si ��I�IIIIIIIIUr� 44SM111illmir < 0 Y ral� :.r�: I 14 11 04 MM. ii rd 0 "Ilil_ ��� �►alu III — 111111111111111111// "' — 111 In 4�i` illllln_ll 1' IIIIIIIf'1.I, imam "— R MN Lo si►V,uunnnliuNNN11N olll.1l1NO0i r _el I IIIIIIIIII�= it 11��►�Vr����!I►�1 I`I _ _ 0 CO ��b�; AIminn►��� �I < - w CV J N CL CC CD 37135 01 ION0 4— / 7 D O a N 4k h e- Z <0 ..`2, o z ua A z n 1— t E a� 1 `p � o w O b H g� aa F Z a� ? o� i d 17. �F <Q I �p U O x z t a d 6- m ' Li r< W - K SCelit V p N g — U< pl _, N W -2 a 2 pZb m < U O a s 3 Qo o rr'iled OJT z i sg IS6'a'o / J I WI i `5 4R Y = 8 Cl—aaVn3lnoE Z:1310 loo - W — C ++ gpyA i50 C p CNN/ATTIC/13 noeaeilloo SYS � 1ss•a o � u.i99 d 10 o3,LVO lsv3 o 34 m z g gd $WS tC N 3$ � )130ae3l0OVs z o �> b N a I_ �mW < ' o r N Z+ n a 1 z x U �m5 1 n ! u< i_ Q _t 5a @�>\ 5 - 'g g z 676 �j s o . 'g p 0 G 114i il < (..) 'u '; n ISx� a e Q ,-'i' _ i `• 3 W ~ 0 -a N \ a ,fe, 3NVl TONS 7 i i p� g v l wo �� > t 0 Li toxp NOLLV1NVld r ®� (n zo Fel t o u aft W- Qatln3'In09 8 i ` l; S g raveav°e Y1NYs Non VaV8aVS VINVS, S3 ■- O aaviG no7 V s Vs' ' MIll o < 3 :3, a t G ` -lin od 43�.m m Sz >u8 E . a <u" Qav o& x 2 p a ro mU NZZ6 Nw N tig, gg1N ' p o '' OVOa Nave 1NnOozoO F. Eraimi - -All § s31Vis3 7 f5gy 6 2 '/ • 043BN3LL ` INN wo Packet Pg. 38 . .7 00843111M ¢ la W .� m 31N10d NMOaO .' LU Sit 13� \ NAPLES HERITAE `\ --- s' l GCC PHASE TWO-A, II 1 ' �- \ 9.A.1 TRACT DC4-RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION NAPLES HERITAGE PB 28,PGS 11-13 OCK ,B, `) fI GCC PHASE 1,PB 26,PGS 71-80 \ P ASE TWO-A I I I I NATES TK B I II II I \ NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TWO-A, ?P..-- \1. `,\ PB 28,PGS 11-13II '�' EX.LAKE \ \ IIIIIII AIIXCIUff TRACT GC4B,NAPLES HERITAGE \'i\\"- I I I I \ GCC TRACTS B do C5 REPEAT,PB .` \ 27,PGS 98-100 HI II I LOT 6,BLOCK F, 1 I I NAPLES HERITAE I GCC PHASE TWO-A, TRACT C5-C06FRYAIRN AREA PB 28,PGS 11-13 ; NAA6 IERIA6E GCCNI" B SEINATICK , , i/ ill' GS IEPLIT,PB Zl,PGS 9E100 _ � ' - / H- ------- - .9 • E32.. . r e' NAPLESLOT5, HERITAGEBLOCKF, GCC PHASE TWO-A, U PB 28,PGS 11-13 II 1 0T 0 ce NATURAL AREA m' I U E III §I c ' C.) LOT 4,BLOCK F, 03 INAPLES HERITAGEQ GCC PHASE TWO-A, O N — PB 28,PGS 11-13 '^ O V 1 I I I O 1 I II 1 {pF _ G ARFA _ - I. V LOT 3,BLOCK F RS 1 Iy:: Ma' 1 I� NAPLES HERITAGE �_: ^�I---- GCC PHASE TWO-A. IIMONIrd= PB 28,PGS 11-13 Tn - I I I AlIllrAllk‘-'11 OMMIll CL CZ 13. .b.. Illinfinp MR Ilk it..__,61 _ __. „I i Z N. Tt imam. lig MUM iii , CNI ��` oli 200' ts- 18 ,,, \\., _.././ LOT 2,BLOCK FI. NAPLES HERITAGE.� wGCC PHASE TWOGE C�� ¢ PB 2B,PGS 11-13 N11111H - Pa II �+ ' z > ���, I LOT 1,BLOCK F Z 0 III <N I I Ego_ NAPLES HERITAGE I I I .' E3 GCC PHASE TWO-A, t' PB 28,PGS 11-13 O 0. III �N����`31111111 " 1111 p ,, I 8 �' 1,„,ii 111 CO _ • .4 .. . T.. ... N L_____- _______.„ . v • `+•+'+'+`+++"+'+"+`+"+'+'+++++++`+'+"+++`+'+ TRACT CS-CONSERVATION AREA Q + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE 1, �.+ ++ + + + + " ` + + ` + ` + + + + + + + + PB 26,PGS 71-80 = CD .+.+.'. . . . .`. .". .+.+.+.+.'.".+.'.'.+.+ E MI A *•*., ,rPA0PO5F�.C�ON* F�R�ATICNJ R I• EA . .+. • • ...+• • • • . ` • • • • • . ` ` • . ` N'o TRACT RW4-RIGHT-OF-WAY I.+ + + + . +•++' ` .+ +• ` + + + . + + RESERVATION NAPLES HERITAGE GCC +,Em 8 4 PHASE 1,PB 26,PGS 71-60 a-,4. . . . .•. . + . .•589'27'45"W 326.82'(IA)• • • . • • * 589'23'06"W 326.7. a • • " ii... r..l�l� ..T_.,._*r--•,. • -4— . .'•--ter.F v . s . .r _ EXHIBIT "A-1 " NAPLES HERITAGE TENNIS CENTER CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Packet Pg. 39 NO SCALE 9.A.1 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 .a Country Club PUD. v Z East: Tract C5 Conservation and Buffer Easement, including a portion of a ten (l 0)- foot wide Collier County Conservation and Buffer Easement/Tract RW4 100- o 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. o C9 a) South: Vacant/undeveloped land Tract E (for future multi-family residential), zoned co Shadow Wood PUD. w N West: Vacant/undeveloped land, zoned A. a cz z NAPLES■ cb°G7,,,.'„,. -' t0 HERITAGE ''....,.:.../ + Kes r, h. t' L---40,, ,,,, N i 4t. ' ,,,,,,,„:7'5,',,---:. cc „vacr c 77 Subject Property �e *y Atirjrit 'j- ` N aP•,.OR '2onrig O {{ CD to_. W -Oiling A - oni rig A e— z � a a) 1 y .. (jN Y,} t. .Folly AVE. rg.:.,.:. +..� �+w ,sy. �+e':' , z ' }. , SHADOVI . .. �'A Q Zoning - j "j ' Pu:-.. L I L• .yam- _ ..__.. 4 h i.,i r.i-"r.R.O_. _`_ - Aerial(County GIS) PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 3 of 12 November 4, 2016 Packet Pg.40 9.A.1 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 v 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). v Transportation Element: CD Transportation Planning staff reviewed the application and found this petition consistent with a) 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. 0. coConservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME): ti N 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 c amendment to the PUD [three (3) acres from vacation of the 100-foot wide right-of-way r- 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. a. as 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. z ANALYSIS: a> 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 Packet Pg.41 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 -0 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 a) 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 d 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 v 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 N Conservation and Buffer Easement. Staff has reviewed the PUD Document and the master plan and has no issues with the requested changes. o z Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition request, the PUD0. Document, and the Master Plan for compliance with Collier County Access Management CL Resolution Number 13-257; and as noted above, for consistency with the transportation elements co of the GMP. Transportation Planning staff is recommending approval of the request. Utilities Review: Approved. No comment. a, 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 z 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,restroomsl a 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 Packet Pg.42 9.A.1 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 a Side yard: 25 feet v Rear yard: 25 feet *'c' Preserve: 25 feet E. 0 0 U Staff has no issue with any of the proposed setbacks. The PUD Document also contains limitations a on building height,exterior lighting,and hours of operation. Amplified sound shall be prohibited. „° 0 0 PUD FINDINGS: a) R LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make i findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the a findings in LDC Section 10.02.08": a ca z 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, v drainage,sewer,water,and other utilities. is Potable water and sanitary sewer lines are in the vicinity of the subject parcel. N Notwithstanding the fact that new recreational facilities are proposed next to residential N. areas, the proposed Master Plan shows that Colonial Court would serve both as a means of o 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 o o. the PUD Document, staff determined the intended recreational use would be compatible with the existing development in the area. R 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, vn 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 E operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or s maintained at public expense. a Documents submitted with the application,which were reviewed by the County Attorney's c Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. The applicant states that "the E continuing operation and maintenance of areas and facilities that are private (not to be c provided or maintained at public expense) shall be maintained through the existing as homeowners association. Additionally, the development will be required to obtain SDP Q 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 Packet Pg.43 9.A.1 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. a"' 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 4.• the east and west boundaries of the subject parcel. a) 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the1.9 development. Zi, x 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 Z 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. 0 z The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. 0 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. cn 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 E 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 Packet Pg.44 9.A.1 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 v 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. c 2. The existing land use pattern. o C7 The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding a, 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 d acre to 1.42 dwelling units per acre. z 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. 0 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. z_ The subject parcel is currently owned by the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club, Inc., a who purchased the property in 2004. The boundary of the PUD would change if the newcc parcel were incorporated into the PUD, but not to the extent that the new PUD boundary would be illogically drawn. cin 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning c 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. c 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 Packet Pg.45 9.A.1 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. U Stormwater Best Management Practices, flow paths, treatment, and storage from this c 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. a 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. Z.13" This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or N 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 o is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. o. a) cC 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 a individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. .; If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 9 of 12 November 4, 2016 Packet Pg.46 9.A.1 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. U 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 z under the proposed zoning classification. v N 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 N ti permit process. 0 z 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 c responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and z 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. as 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 Packet Pg.47 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: a 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 v original CCPC hearing,staff received letters of objection to the project as contained in Attachment .a 6 -Emails_Letters from Public. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: a) a) ns The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on October 3 I, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: o z Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. •• ca ti 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 Publica. 7) Legal Notifications PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 11 of 12 November 4, 2016 Packet Pg.48 9.A.1 PREPARED BY: D/z / 7-/1/6 ERIC JOHNSON,AICP, CFM,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION l U 4 c 0 REVIEWED BY: o c -13 1' ° Ai / ` /1 - 1- /6cu RAYMOI 9 V* ELLOWS,ZON TANAGER DATE c ZONIN DIVISION cu I Cl) a) Q .r (L) '2gJ C (9 co MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE N ZONING DIVISION 0 0 N ti APPROVED BY: z to 0. .r /4, cc _ as (---;,2a-2,--3-,..4-„, A ES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE in GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT r c a) 4 V 'C , ' .E--"'' , -I.\-- II 73 /) 6 .E cz VID S. WILKISON DATE DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT a PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 12 of 12 Packet Pg.49 01/10/2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ***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. [PUDZ-PL20150001416] (Companion to agenda items 9.B And 9.C) OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review staffs findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition, render a decision regarding this PUD Amendment petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The subject site is a±5.21-acre parcel of land that is currently located externally and abutting the southwest portion of the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Planned Unit Development (PUD). The applicant is requesting to rezone the parcel from Rural Agricultural (A) and incorporate it into the PUD. The parcel would be used for additional recreational facilities for the residents of the PUD, and a portion would be added to the preserve of the PUD. There are two (2) companion petitions that were submitted in connection with this PUD Amendment. The first is an application (VAC-PL20160001416) to vacate a portion of Tract C5 Conservation Area, including a portion of the 10-foot wide Collier County Conservation Buffer Easement within Tract 5 as shown on the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Phase One Plat, Plat Book 26, Page 73. The second companion petition (VAC-PL20160001403) is to vacate public right-of-way that is no longer needed and include this land in the project preserves. Staff is recommending approval of both vacation petitions. This PUD Amendment was reviewed by the CCPC on May 5, 2016. At the hearing, the applicant presented a conceptual site plan illustrating how the subject site would be developed. The CCPC recommended approval of the petition. Subsequent to that meeting, however, the applicant requested changes to the PUD Document, including changes to the conceptual site plan. The petitioner intended to present the changes to the Board on October 11, 2016, but instead of hearing the petition,the Board voted to remand the petition to the CCPC. 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 PUD Document related to the proposed use, exterior lighting, hours of operation, and amplified sound. It should be noted that since the initial CCPC hearing, there has been public opposition to this PUD Amendment,to the companion vacation petition(s),or to both. FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element(CIE) of the Growth Management Plan(GMP) as 01/10/2017 needed to maintain an adopted Level of Service(LOS)for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the CCPC to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject site is identified as Urban Designation, Urban Mixed Use District,Urban Residential Subdistrict in the FLUE of the GMP. Staff reviewed the proposed land uses for consistency with the Urban Designation. Adding the ±5.21 acres to the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD for the development of additional recreational facilities and a portion of this acreage for preserve are both non-residential uses listed (#2 - Parks, open space and recreational uses) in the Urban Designation of the FLUE and therefore, consistent with the GMP. As such, Comprehensive Planning staff finds this rezone petition may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. 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. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC reviewed this petition at their November 17, 2016 meeting. The applicant gave a presentation, which included a different conceptual site plan than the version in each Commissioner's packet. Several members of the public came forward to speak. Commissioner Homiak made a motion to approve, which was seconded by Commissioner Chrzanowski. The vote to approve was unanimous (5-0) subject to the following stipulations: 1. Minimum setbacks as shown on RA site plan. 2. Use the new plans presented today. 3. Provide some assurance that the retention of native vegetation in the "natural areas" will be replaced if they do not survive. 4. No special events will occur after hours. 5. Hours will be more specific than reference to"dusk", applicant will use sunset. 6. Clarify the various details discussed on the RA site plan. 7. List any and all uses proposed for the building and label the sun shade buildings as to what they 01/10/2017 are. 8. Lighting will be with bollard lights. 9. Courts to be clay comparable to HarTru type courts. Commissioner Schmitt suggested that staff should communicate to the Board that the applicant's narrative and paperwork should indicate that tennis and recreational uses are proposed and the project intent is to use the site for more than just extra off-street parking. Opposition to this petition has been received. Opposition was voiced at the CCPC hearing. Notwithstanding a unanimous vote to approve by the CCPC,the petition is being placed under Advertised Public Hearings due to public opposition. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a proposed PUD Amendment and rezone. The burden falls upon the applicant for the amendment to prove that the proposal is consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board, should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of the listed criteria. Criteria for PUD Amendments Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not. 1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas,traffic and access, drainage, sewer,water, and other utilities. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development(as proposed)for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities,both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with 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 01/10/2017 regulations. 9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan? 10. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested PUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? 12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a"core"question...) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed PUD rezone 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 [Code ch.106, art.II], as F 01/10/2017 amended. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the PUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? The Board must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the Board hearing as these items relate to these criteria. This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval(HFAC). RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendation and stipulations of the CCPC, which are reflected in the attached PUD Ordinance and have no issue with the new location for the proposed access point and recommends that the Board approve the applicant's request to add 5.21± acres of land zoned A to the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD. Prepared by: Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner, Zoning Division, Growth Management Department ATTACHMENT(S) 1.Attachment 1 - Staff Report(Nov 17 2016) (PDF) 2.Attachment 2-Proposed Ordinance (PDF) 3. [Linked] Attachment 3 -Application and Support Material (PDF) 4.Attachment 4-Items Presented by Applicant at CCPC(May 05 2016) (PDF) 5.Attachment 5 -Items Collected by Court Reporter at CCPC(Nov 17 2016) (PDF) 6.Attachment 6-FLUE Consistency Review (PDF) 7.Attachment 7-Vacation of Conservation Easement (PDF) 8. [Linked] Attachment 8 -Emails_Letters from Public (as of Nov 30 2016)(PDF) 9.Attachment 9-Legal Notifications (PDF) 10. Legal ad-Agenda ID 2333 (PDF) ._ 01/10/2017 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.A Item Summary: ***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. [PUDZ-PL20150001416] (Companion to agenda item 9.B And 9.C) Meeting Date: 01/10/2017 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst, Senior—Administrative Services Department Name: Bendisa Marku 12/13/2016 1:57 PM Submitted by: Title:Division Director-Planning and Zoning—Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 12/13/2016 1:57 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Division Reviewer Completed 12/13/2016 2:06 PM Zoning Michael Bosi Additional Reviewer Completed 12/14/2016 3:56 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 12/14/2016 6:04 PM Growth Management Department James French Additional Reviewer Completed 12/14/2016 6:58 PM County Attorneys Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 12/15/2016 4:00 PM Growth Management Department Jeanne Marcella Level 2 Division Administrator Completed 12/16/2016 2:37 PM County Attorneys Office Jeffrey A.Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorneys Office Review Completed 12/16/2016 3:42 PM Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 12/16/2016 4:42 PM Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 12/20/2016 3:13 PM County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 12/27/2016 1:54 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 01/10/2017 9:00 AM s : ,< ORDINANCE NO. 16 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 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 2 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 a 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 N 3, 4, 9 and 10, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER a) COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PUDZ-PL20150001416] Z WHEREAS, on December 12, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners approved Csl CD Ordinance No. 95-74, which established the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Planned Unit Development(PUD); and 0 WHEREAS, Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP of Hole Montes, Inc. representing Naples a Heritage Golf and Country Club, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to amend Ordinance 95-74, the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD, E L as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: Zoning Classification. The zoning classification of approximately 5.21± Acres of the herein described real property located in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD) zoning district,together with the existing RPUD, for a 563±acre parcel to Words underlined are added;words stwslchrough are deleted [15-CPS-01482]222 Naples Heritage—PUDZ-PL20150001416 Page 1 of 9 11/29/16 Packet Pg. 50 9.A.2 be known as the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Planned Unit Development in accordance with the PUD document attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 95-74 as amended by this Ordinance. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Amendment to in Section I, Property Ownership and Description, of the PUD Document of Ordinance Number 95-74, Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD. 7 Section I, Property Ownership and Description, of the Planned Unit Development Document, previously attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance Number 95-74, the Naples Heritage 6. Golf and Country Club PUD, is hereby amended as follows: 03 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION •L PROPERTY DESCRIPTION o z The North half(N '/2) of the North half(N 1/2) of Section 10, Township 50 South, Range co 26 East, Collier County, Florida, less the easterly 100 feet thereof. v N_ AND a) c) The East half(E 1/2) of Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. EXCEPT the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of the Southeast Quarter(SE A) of the Southeast Quarter(SE 1/4) of Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. c ALSO EXCEPT the Southwest Quarter(SW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter(SW '/4) of the o Southeast Quarter(SE 1/4) of Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. AND r The Southerly 1,370 feet of the Southeast Quarter(SE 1/4)of Section 4, Township 50 r South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, lying southerly of Davis Boulevard(S.R. 84). c CD AND The Southeast quarter(SE '/4) less the southerly 1,370 feet of Section 4, Township 50 a South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, lying southerly of Davis Boulevard(S.R. 84). AND Words underlined are added;words strode-through are deleted [15-CPS-01482]222 Naples Heritage—PUDZ-PL20150001416 Page 2 of 9 11/29/16 Packet Pg.51 SA/ The North half(N ''/2) of the West half(W '/2) of the West half(W ''/2)of the Southwest quarter(SW 1/4) of Section 3, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, lying southerly of Davis Boulevard(S.R. 84). AND The East 1/2 of the Southwest '/4 of the Southwest '/4 of the Southeast 1/4, Section 9„ Township 50, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. * * * * * * * * * * * * 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION U The 558 563 acre project site is comprised of portions of Sections 3, 4, 9 & 10, Township 50 S, Range 26 E. The irregularly shaped development parcel abuts Davis v Boulevard on the north and CR 951 on the east. The primary development objective is an cu 18 hole regulation golf course and country club,together with a maximum of 799 single and multiple family dwelling units. Maximum gross project density is 1A3 1.42 units per acre. a� cu a) co 1.6 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE z r- n Development of The Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club will comply with the goals and objectives set forth in the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. A. The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map as set forth in Objective 1, of the Future Land Use Element(FLUE), and the uses contemplated are consistent therewith. o B. The proposed density of Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club is 1.13 1.42 units per acre and less than the maximum density permitted by the FLUE Density Rating System is therefore consistent with the Future Land Use Element Policy 5.1. The entire subject property qualifies for a base density of four units per acre. Certain parts of the subject property are further subject to density r adjustments including a proximity to Activity Center density bonus. £ Words underlined are added;words stwsk-through are deleted [15-CP S-01482]222 Naples Heritage—PUDZ-PL20150001416 Page 3 of 9 11/29/16 Packet Pg.52 9.A,2 SECTION THREE: Amendment to Section II,Project Development, of the PUD Document of Ordinance Number 95-74,Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD. Section II, Project Development, of the Planned Unit Development Document, previously attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance Number 95-74, the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD, is hereby amended as follows: SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 0 U V 2.4 MAXIMUM PROJECT DENSITY No more than 799 combined single and multiple family dwelling units shall be constructed in the 558 563 acre total project area. If all 799 dwelling units are constructed, gross project density will be 1.43 1.42 units per acre. cp CA CDO. SECTION FOUR: Amendment to Section III, Tract A Development Regulations, of the PUD Document of Ordinance Number 95-74,Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD. Section III, Tract A Development Regulations, of the Planned Unit Development Document, previously attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance Number 95-74, the Naples Heritage =a Golf and Country Club PUD, is hereby amended as follows: O SECTION III c c. TRACT A a` DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS r c E s R r 3.2 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land use, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Single family detached dwellings. 2. Single family attached dwellings, zero lot-line and patio dwellings and/or multi-family units. Words underlined are added;words struck l►rough are deleted [15-CPS-01482]222 Naples Heritage—PUDZ-PL20150001416 Page 4 of 9 11/29/16 Packet Pg. 53 9,A.2 3. An 18 hole golf course, clubhouses and related facilities, practice driving range, and golf course maintenance facility. These facilities will be substantially completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 390th dwelling unit. 4. Recreation Area, labeled RA on the Master Plan, limited to tennis courts, restrooms, storage space, and roofed and unroofed seating areas, landscaping and stormwater facilities, for use by all residents and guests, and generally as depicted on Exhibit "A-1 Naples Heritage Tennis Center conceptual site plan . B. Accessory Uses: • v 1. Accessory uses and structures customary in golf course, single and multiple family residential projects. 'o U 2. Project sales and administrative offices, which may occur in a residential c or recreational building and/or in the Country Club complex, and/or in a temporary building until such time as permanent structures are available. 3. Model dwellings, in the single family lot are and/or in the single family/ a, multiple family tracts, during the period of project development and sales. Model dwellings a) L shall be converted to permanent residents at the end of a two year period unless otherwise = specifically approved by the County. a 4. Signs as permitted by the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time permits are requested. co ti 3.3 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS °; A maximum of 799 dwelling units may be constructed in this 558.563 acre project. cu a 0 3.6 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS N r ' m F. Recreation area, labeled RA on the Master Plan E ' R 1. Setbacks for Structures and Tennis Courts: a) a. From the east boundary of the RA tract: a (i) A minimum of 140 feet to the restroom/storage structure: (ii) A minimum of 168 feet to the tennis courts; and Words underlined are added;words struck through are deleted [15-CPS-01482]222 Naples Heritage-PUDZ-PL20150001416 Page 5 of 9 11/29/16 Packet Pg.54 9.A.2 (iii) A minimum of 152 feet to the small courtside shade structures. b. From the west boundary of the RA tract: (i) A minimum of 30 feet to any structure., and (ii) A minimum of 30 feet to tennis courts. U c. From the north boundary of the RA tract: a minimum of 65 feet to 6 any structure and to tennis courts. 'o ca d. From any preserve or conservation easement boundary: a minimum of 29 feet for tennis court and principal and accessory structures. v, d � 2. Lighting: Lighting shall be limited to bollard style as may be necessary for public safety and security and shall be limited to a maximum 4 feet in co height. z es) 3. Maximum height: Maximum height shall be limited to one story not to exceed 12 Feet Zoned and 15 feet Actual Height. 4. Other Limitations and Operational Conditions: 0 a a. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to sunset. ` N b. Amplified sound of any type shall not be permitted. v c. The tennis courts shall be Har-Tru, clay, or a comparable surface_ d. When special events, such as member guest tournaments, are held cts at the Tennis Center, additional parking and shuttle services will be z a provided at the Clubhouse. Special events are subject to the 7:00 a.m. to sunset limitation set forth in a., above. Words underlined are added;words strusk-threugh are deleted [15-CPS-01482]222 Naples Heritage—PUDZ-PL20150001416 Page 6 of 9 11/29/16 Packet Pg. 55 9:A.2 e. In the areas labeled Natural Area on PUD master plan Exhibit "A- 1" Naples Heritage Tennis Center Conceptual Site Plan, existing vegetation shall be retained to the greatest degree possible, after removal of any exotic vegetation. In the event that existing vegetation dies, it shall be replaced with the same or a comparable plant type, and shall be replanted in the future as needed. In no case shall there be less than 50% of the native vegetation remaining. If clearing results in less than 50% of retained native vegetation, then supplemental plantings shall be required to Z achieve 50% of the original native vegetation. ' U c * * * * * * * * * * * * 0 0 U c 0 3.11 REQUIRED BUFFERS c Buffers shall be installed along the rear yard of multi-family sites or recreational facilities CD which abut off-site single family zoned or vacant agriculturally zoned lands. Buffers shall 0 separate the single family and multi-family development areas unless the necessity for such buffers is waived due to a common architectural theme housing project. Buffers 0 shall meet the criteria set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code. Buffering 00. requirements may be met with existing natural vegetation, installed vegetation, structural z screening, or any combination thereof. Buffering plans shall be submitted to and •o approved by the Collier County Development Services Director prior to issuance of N permits for the facility required to be buffered. CD * * * * * * * * * * * * C C s c SECTION FIVE: Amendments to Section VI, Traffic Requirements, of the PUD Document of Ordinance Number 95-74, Naples Heritage Golf 0 and Country Club PUD. y 0 0. Section VI, Traffic Requirements of the Planned Unit Development Document, a previously attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance Number 95-74, the Naples Heritage Golf and N Country Club PUD, is hereby amended as follows: c a) E SECTION VI Q TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS c a> * * * * * * * * * * * * E .c V CO QM' 6.2 IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * G. Commitment is hereby made that the southerly 100 feet of that portion of the Words underlined are added;words truck through are deleted [15-CPS-014821222 Naples Heritage—PUDZ-PL20150001416 Page 7 of 9 11/29/16 Packet Pg.56 9.A.2 right of way acquisition. SECTION SIX: Amendments to Section VIII,Water Management Requirements, of the PUD Document of Ordinance Number 95-74,Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD. Section VIII, Water Management Requirements, of the Planned Unit Development Document, previously attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance Number 95-74, the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD, is hereby amended as follows: 0 U SECTION VIII WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * a) 4- L 8.2 THE WATER MANGEMENT PLAN CONCEPT as 354.1 acres of the 558 563 acre project is planned as a stormwater catchment basin. 68.7 co acres of lakes and 91.9 acres of natural/preserve area are included in this area. z Stormwater originating on lands to the north of the project will flow through the project ti by using culverts, swales, and preserved areas of the site in a manner intended to duplicate predevelopment conditions. a) _ 03 Flood protection will be provided to the project by raising buildings, roads, etc. in conformance with South Florida Water Management District criteria for building pad -a elevation is the 100-yr./zero-discharge storm elevation and the minimum road elevation is c based on the 25 year storm event. After heavy rainfall events, surface waters stored in the c catchment areas will be slowly discharged through small bleed down structures into the a` existing preserved wetland slough. Off-site outfalls which receive stormwater discharge from the property will likely undergo modification in the future due to development/modification, at which time modifications to the Naples Heritage Golf and E Country Club water management plan may be required. SECTION SEVEN: Amendments to PUD Master Development Plan of Ordinance Number 95-74, Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD. Exhibit A, Master Development Plan to the Planned Unit Development Document, previously attached to Ordinance Number 95-74, the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD, is hereby deleted in its entirety and hereby replaced with Exhibit "A", PUD Master Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein. Words underlined are added;words are deleted [15-CPS-01482]222 Naples Heritage—PUDZ-PL20150001416 Page 8 of 9 11/29/16 Packet Pg. 57 9.A.2 SECTION EIGHT: Amendments to PUD Document of Ordinance Number 95-74, Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD to add a Conceptual Site Plan. The Planned Unit Development Document, previously attached to Ordinance Number 95- 74, the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD, is hereby amended to add Exhibit "A-2", Naples Heritage Tennis Center Conceptual Site Plan, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2 U SECTION NINE: Amendments to PUD Document of Ordinance Number 95-74, Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD to add a Landscape Buffer Exhibit. -a ca The Planned Unit Development Document, previously attached to Ordinance Number 95- 74, the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD, is hereby amended to add Exhibit "A-2", d Naples Heritage Tennis Center 25' Landscape Buffer Exhibit attached hereto and incorporated herein. L a) SECTION TEN: Effective Date. a This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. z co v N PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,this day of , 2016. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -a DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA a By. By: N Deputy Clerk DONNA FIALA, Chairman E Approved as to form and legality: a (ht<,s a) "A1ti' Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney a Attachment: Exhibit A—Master Development Plan to Planned Unit Development Document Exhibit A-1 —Naples Heritage Tennis Center Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit A-2—Naples Heritage Tennis Center 25' Landscape Buffer Exhibit Words underlined are added;words struck #rough are deleted [15-CPS-01482]222 Naples Heritage—PUDZ-PL20150001416 Page 9 of 9 11/29/16 Packet Pg.58 69 6d 4e Pd �. 0 N i 0 4 1 z N vi 400 aE N u+0) UI 4 Q 0 "::LI"' N D 1 O Q Q O a Q OQ gt N 0co�- Id) • , N o a aA'18a311100- 1.96' $ € ,94 j 1- N N N a z m W z 'a ii r. d W �� Of 2 W 0 w0 O `a u G W Q 1 03 J ? o W= x }N S S Q W O W W Q zm te=a Wr. Z c �; opo LL= Q D Nt W C W O O JW W< Z W 7 Q OZfu W3W 5ie �arn (� o w°uag�WLL �= 7:--.---wir—fiii!,:. a Z 3 J ��� Z aa7= O �~ appCDWli E0. .4 'W^ r W O F = Wm¢ y 0 J t0j7,p0 W=i7 C� n'F-- ..= 13 QOLL b iz� W f0X=C R pw �0] 3HF fwu J rc2a.< N W¢ >_ Qra X33 T a W to oa a. WX LLzx 3 cf <o> �t51 N , ow QN�m Z zzZzzz o NI IX = 2 y J J(O 1 w W k 8 w Z Wp O D S Y W CD hw» J d Z _ H-W . O =»a m In fe� 40 . Umu= N aay Q .-e. ]C9F-F- FEwa� aim 'o=m �f a' N OviwwZw�"¢ Ozo� CO 0 I QwWwWWOaNWC .W M ag`g3 U N UpFulmWzzYwVY � Q�i� a LL- ,. H 0 z0 ixaag¢Ega i•-SSW U O 3F.F. m a r t °"_� f0A f 1 2 a 11111111\1)‘1 gg m 5Q °zc0.D WLLo za. o G I= O. W U w)c Un U oa) 0 w w 0 W 12 2 ✓ Q y O co = W Ca 0 0: V a W "_ o it Z w a w �sw ? .. „.4! Y U O A � J a ul m m \a = = Z g ' 8 V �,H6izCD 1`11 i CO 4/4, ', __ —_ a / c)"." j Q d to Cil , SL�b8 co co • 0 O b'S 0-.... V (5 0 A� Z �S'�/.y�� � a. '... � Q C) W �( X 0 En • Q V O gLi a alami Z O ma a w n �� _ as U • ��•` c 2W to �w �`a ' z 0 J S to oo �\ 0. amimo (Q (Y w � B 4".. W Jpao, ansa c fAF- rnF- § F,..,oH ua3doad)1000 1111 aZQ Z Q ccy I 1 I i 09 fid le)I3ed r-. aU CV 8 2 g 0) z I Z i N .Q Q s i, D J o I° � g N i ui � L v • L W Wo 41 ♦• 2 a; E ig Icp S ( ce o F 2 =9 a. IIU�- Hi 5 w U 17 zo D V) "ce Q 0 O _cIMMO a Ce o Z 3mQ m W a n-I 00 D � (F J 'm Q V a W w Z U. 1 a s O I a Lil 3 Q I o a 0 Z 1 aIJ- N N O 1 x 0 I Z1 LU ao o Cl)0I O 3 O t' Q " 8i CDD a I zmo 0. W z I 3 O W 1 Q I I oQ I— = 1 >0 0 K N W 1 IJJ W O .t). CI) cc>L o Q 0 m W 1 3°, - Z u r = f2 o Z a o ^a^ m — aI -0 Z ° V cc a a LI>I a s a�4 a U) 4111111°N., $O K' I (� U -J 5s r a pi Yp:1t -I ~ 0 AiX6 n) Q a - ea 2 d# \-- n -$`a <D 0 O C) a 3 w A) a r 3 Q 0. LL o a LL a - o m = w ' / N a CL � 0 _�14A—___: . _ Li _J0 C) E'vs EL 4341'1ea I z a a )I � � a I 0ldW ( a a 1 1 3A213S321 VNIW21OVl I 1111 ®®41-1 t ..,..P.Ane4.U. .Cla�,.,. ,a.,Aft•—..._*A..0,.,..,�...,statm ..,,or...... \....41:...) ., LOT 38,BLOCK B 1 )) ( ('\ 1AGE I TRACT GC4-GOLF COURSE PB 28,PCS 11-13 \ NAPLES HERITAGE CCC PHASE 1, / II� PB 26,PGS 71-80 `,\ I j i �� LOT 39,BLOCK B i NAPLES HERITAGE �i I� /' EX.LAKE \ CCC PHASE TWO-A, \T\ P828,PGS 11-13 .\ LEN CORMSI&BCTRE TRACT GC48,NAPLES HERITAGE \ I GCC TRACTS B&C5 REPEAT,PB . II II 27,P05 98-100 LOT 6,BLOCK G, \�` I NAPLES HERITAGE -- GCC PHASE TWO-A, -\ PB 28,PGS 11-13 TRACT a-OOIY9VAl101 NEA18 �_ -------------- - EX CDNSERVATIDN 1 II II RES VENTAGE OS NAOS B 0 - EASEMENT TO REMAIN / CS NKAT.F9 V.PGS 99-10 '- . BAI---------- '•'•------- LOT 5,BLOCK F, NAPLES HERITAGE -A, 6' 'NATURAL AREA I 3 PBC 28,CS PHASE 11-13 3 " U 0 1 z c a ~ O 30' bi - 0 0 in 0 I LOT 4,BLOCK F, "p 1 RT I' w J NAPLES HERITAGE ril ■` (�NEIMNG -J ,, N Q i GCC PHASE TWO-A, CO Lj P8 28,PGS 11-11 11 MARIA NN�amlr:Eac Z 5 C9 • i LOT 3,BLOCK F NAPLES HERITAGE 411111 — GCC PMA :; 4 \ PB 28,AS 11-13 5 \ d lj.$ INt ( l�CTU" ,' - �� 40' 11 / co + _ f.21.- :0ic■� ISV'BR I -��' PB 28,PGS 11-13 • 0r�► s — -' ""NATURAL AREA r RS= ‘la ilm In I 1 - �+ 1 LOT 1,BLOCK P 0 NAPLES HERITA rliS ��,� GCC PHASE TWO-G{�3,0t , ' PB 28,PGS I1-13o MIRING L - O 11 AREA ,sr L — J Oo. 1filliA. ....ruNc.iiii 68' ��� N ' -NI._ - - - - " - • • E •.•.•.•.•. .•. " ••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•. ••.•.•.•.•. � w TRACT C5-CONSERVATION AREA c ` ` ` ` ` ` ` • ` • NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE 1, d `- • • • ••• • ••` `.•• • • • ••. • ••• • P826,PGS 71-80 E • ` •• • • .• (ANSER-VON ARL•A • •• • • ••• •• I co_ • • • • a ••• ' • ` • • • • • • • ` • • • • • • • • • • • TRACT RW4-RIGHT-OF-WAY ` • • ` • ` • ` ` • . • RESERVATION NAPLES HERITAGE GCC • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PHASE 1,PB 26,PGS 71-80 "IN NO CASE SHALL THERE BE LESS THAN 50%OF THE NATIVE VEGETATION REMAINING. IF CLEARING RESULTS IN LESS THAN 50%0F RETAINED NATIVE VEGETATION,THEN SUPLLEMENTAL PLANTINGS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE 50%OF THE ORIGINAL NATIVE VEGETATION. EXHIBIT "A-1 " NAPLES HERITAGE TENNIS CENTER CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Packet Pg.61 NO SCALE 9.A.2 II Enhanced Type B Buffer: Twenty—five—foot—wide, 80 percent opaque 5 U within one year landscape buffer including a hedge, which must be made up of a minimum of ten gallon plants five feet in height, three feet in spread and spaced a maximum four feet on center at o planting; a mid—story tree or shrub spaced 15 feet on center and a U minimum seven feet in height at time of installation; and trees -a spaced no more than 25 feet on center and a minimum of 14 feet as in height at time of installation. R/w LINE 'i" 4.. 25'RIGHT-OF-+6 25'LANDSC PE BUTTER a) a ) —is GUTTER TO R/W LYE YAKS 1'-20'INTO 1 :511 BUTTER EASEMENT L d CANOPY TREE,SPACED 25' I a C., 14'HGT.AT PLANTING ai v.0 • n. d R 4a z -aa CD It 10 GAL SHRUB,5'IN HOT., ► o ct cNa 3'SPREAD,SPACED 4'O.C. C 4.' EX. VALLEY GUTTER P(`� p 1 m �40 d o�° ca Ex10R t+/- . 'w o C i 126'-13.1' , ao A�`Q �r v �i d G EX. PAVEMENT VY/ L 11.5'/- 6D 0 � vrf r.4:'::7 + `s'.•:; , .s / 'T MAX ki:. -a `. i•fAoxit s$74;s'!a:Nt��'0. ::: \' \-' \ d •:•'��A. �....0i1• �••:;s( `fit •::•• '•*::� / \///\ \.:. �JI AVE. EX. GRADE EL 10.0' NAVD, O /\/' 't�1'�'��=•s' .s`2.'," --:"" \ 111I& SLOPE TO NATURAL GRADE \/ �,, VARIES EL.131 +/- _..\/\,l\•.,`f� �,�\/\. o\ARIES 2:6-13.1'~\-,7 \ w�, L /\ \/\ . ,/ /\/\ \/ ," , \/ MID STORY TREE/SHRUB,SPACED a. /,\/<\,//`‘/\/ /' \ \�\/'\/\\ //\/\/ // , 15 O.C.,7'HGT.AT PLANTING N \/\/ 'V / :, ECONTROLEL10.0' NGV/\/ . /\�\ / co EXHIBIT "A-2" NAPLES HERITAGE TENNIS CENTER c TYPICAL 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENT ADJACENT TO COLONIAL COURT N.T.S. Q Packet Pg. 62 9.A 4 Turned in by the Court Reporter U 1' c O U SECTION ONE: asAMENDMENT TO PUD DOCUMENT, SECTION I, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION, ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 95-74, NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF O AND COUNTRY CLUB PUD Cu d C) to SECTION I a) PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION72. * * * * * * * * * * * * Z PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ca F— "1 The North half(N'/2)of the North half(N 1/2)of Section 10,Township 50 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida,less the easterly 100 feet thereof. AND 0 The East half(E'A)of Section 9,Township 50 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. 2 EXCEPT the Southeast Quarter(SE'/)of the Southeast Quarter(SE 1/4)of the Southeast Quarter (SE'/4)of Section 9,Township 50 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. a. U ALSO EXCEPT the Southwest Quarter (SW '/) of the Southwest Quarter (SW '/<) of the cc Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. Q AND a The Southerly 1,370 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE 'h) of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida,lying southerly of Davis Boulevard(S.R.84). AND a) The Southeast quarter(SE 1/4) less the southerly 1,370 feet of Section 4, Township 50 South, a. Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida,lying southerly of Davis Boulevard(S.R.84). AND The North half(N'A) of the West half(W'A)of the West half(W'A)of the Southwest quarter (SW'/)of Section 3,Township 50 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida, lying southerly of Davis Boulevard(S.R.84). L to AND Formatted:Font:(Default)Times New Q Roman,8 pt,Do not check spelling or grammar rti Page 1 of 6 a=i Words underlined are added,words shuel.-through are deletions AVP" 6 P 11, • \ .1e...: tar. • IA P ..9, 5.-ur416 5-4.'/0 . ,• • '' r a.+ r.+ ( t1)C Ch1« Packet Pg. 63 Turned944y the Court Reporter 12 U 0 U The East V2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest'/a of the Southeast'A,Section 9,Township 50, a Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida 47; * * * * * * 0 m C) 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION •L a> The 558 563 acre project site is comprised of portions of Sections 3_4,9&10,Township = 50 S,Range 26 E.The irregularly shaped development parcel abuts Davis Boulevard on ai the north and CR 951 on the east. The primary development objective is an 18 hole R regulation golf course and country club, together with a maximum of 799 single and Z multiple family dwelling units. Maximum gross project density is 1.43 1.42 units per acre. N t0 r 1.6 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 0.1 Development of The Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club will comply with the goals >, and objectives set forth in the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. 1° A. The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use District/Urban Residential a. Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map as set forth in Objective 1, of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), and the uses contemplated are consistent therewith. c B. The proposed density of Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club is 1.43 1.42 units per acre and less than the maximum density permitted by the FLUE Density Rating System is therefore consistent with the Future Land Use Element Policy 5.1.The entire subject property qualifies for a base density of four units per acre. Certain parts of the subject property are further subject to density adjustments .a including a proximity to Activity Center density bonus. a; c m m a SECTION II U) PROJECT DEVELOPMENT * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.4 MAXIMUM PROJECT DENSITY a) t c) Formatted:Font:(Default)Times New ,' Roman,8 pt,Do not check spelling or grammt a; a Page 2 of 6 E Words underlined are added,words aare deletions r' Ma4 . 5-4- ....._. .. .._ . .. . es r L 1'•+" f � tV, �e-„.a 1�i' -Cl 70b llenta a PUDA(PL 20150000116)(5 S 2016).doce Packet Pg. 64 Tu - -: : • e • • A.4 Co U 0 No more than 799 combined single and multiple family dwelling units shall be U constructed in the 558 563 acre total project area. If all 799 dwelling units are tts constructed,gross project density will be 1.43 1.42 units per acre. 0 CD SECTION III a> TRACT A ca DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS aa>> * * * * y a 18 3.2 USES PERMITTED Z No building or structure,or part thereof,shall be erected,altered or used,or land use, in whole or part,for other than the following: �+ A. Principal Uses: 0 1. Single family detached dwellings. 2. Single family attached dwellings,zero lot-line and patio dwellings and/or nes multi-family units. 3. An 18 hole golf course, clubhouses and related facilities,practice driving U range, and golf course maintenance facility. These facilities will be substantially completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 390 dwelling unit. C 4. Recreation Area,labeled RA on the Master Plan.which can include,but-is a not limited to. clubhouse or amenity c:.nter. swimming poola. tennis courts, pickleball courts, bocce ball, indoor and outdoor fitness facilities, and pro shops,and other similar uses designed for use by all residents and guests. y B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customary in golf course, single and N multiple family residential projects. a> 2. Project sales and administrative offices,which may occur in a residential or recreational building and/or in the Country Club complex, and/or in a d temporary building until such time as permanent structures are available. y E 3. Model dwellings, in the single family lot are and/or in the single family/ multiple family tracts,during the period of project development and sales. A Formatted:Font:(Default)Times New r Roman,8 pt,Do not check spelling or grammar Page 3 of 6 Words underlined are added;words are deletions f E 11:2.10 615u551W1,1t?DzfcpQ:vjes_lisritsneAJDAjPL-2015o0Q9416J(5.4-2016).docrL142015\2431-50 ,->ln.-,.•.iges I T ieritnee P1 DA(PL 2V 18 r Packet Pg.65 TurneclbiAly the Court Reporter 2 U c 0 Model dwellings shall be converted to permanent residents at the end of a 0 two year period unless otherwise specifically approved by the County. 73 C 4. Signs as permitted by the Collier County Land Development Code in ta effect at the time permits are requested. p 0 3.3 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS m rsi ca A maximum of 799 dwelling units may be constructed in this 558 563 acre project. 43 To 5. 3.6 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS Z * * * * * * * * * * * * co N F. Recreation area,labeled RA on the Master Plan cc Principal structures: N Front yard: 50 feet : "- . - e' in Side yard: 25 feet from residential parcels only.otherwise 0' e Rear yard: 25 feet:: :: . - . •. .. • _• • - ' ea Preserve: 25 feet 0 Accessory structures: U 10-or where adjacent to a golf course or lake 0'as measured from top of bank 0 ca All pole lighting shall be limited to flat panel fixtures with full cut-off shields and c limited to 15 feet in height. co Where a setback is required.any lighting fixture placed within: .a +----(Formatted:Indent:Left: 1",First line: Cr Q f a) 50 feet of the external boundary or residential parcels shall be limited to a 15 feet in hcizht: (b) 30 feet of the external boundary or residential parcels shall utilize full cut y off shields. c ca rn Maximum height shall be limited to two storiea30 feet actual height. a N Hours of operation shall be limited to 8 AM to 9 PM. E 0 Amplified sound of any type shall not be audible from the adjacent residential property line. c a) E * * * * * * * * * * * * .c U 0 Formatted:Font(Default)Times New CO i Roman,8 pt,Do not check spelling or gramma Q f / Wi Page 4 of 6 / c / y Words underlined are added;words trnek th-ou'zh are deletions / E tI'°?tS 0I5055\Wf VD_yCCJ'S\ tesJ1gnL e1'i11;j9 FJ—Q,0f #J C1 i3 -sot6l g„s t ,1__m sols wr,runz ccirc�v !s° --1 i rktn,a PUDA�-Ft-0I50000 tt6H5 4 20}61-de. t V CC a-, w Q Packet Pg. 66 Tu -..i +y Ile Co .: r m 0 y c 0 3.11 REQUIRED BUFFERS -a c Buffers shall be installed along the rear yard of multi-family sites or recreational facilities 4- which abut off-site single family zoned or vacant agriculturally zoned lands.Buffers shall e) separate the single family and multi-family development areas unless the necessity for a) such buffers is waived due to a common architectural theme housing project. Buffers c shall meet the criteria set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code.Buffering requirements may be met with existing natural vegetation,installed vegetation,structural a) screening, or any combination thereof. Buffering plans shall be submitted to and N approved by the Collier County Development Services Director prior to issuance of a) permits for the facility required to be buffered. ca Z * * * * * * * * * * * * co ti N SECTION VI co TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS c N * * * * * * * * * * * * O A 6.2 IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * a .. U --. .... - -• -- .. .. . 0 ra Heritage Golf and Country Club project which abuts the south line of Section 9, Township 50 S, Range 26 B will be reserved for possible future public thoroughfare m right of way acquisition. c.> 0. * * * * * * * * * * * * Q .0 Ts SECTION VIII a) WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS cu c It) 8) * * * * * * * * * * * * a u) 8.2 THE WATER MANGEMENT PLAN CONCEPT E a) 354.1 acres of the 558 563 acre project is planned as a stormwater catchment basin.68.7 .a. acres of lakes and 91.9 acres of natural/preserve area are included in this area. c Stormwater originating on lands to the north of the project will flow through the project E by using culverts, swales, and preserved areas of the site in a manner intended to E duplicate predevelopment conditions. 2 Formatted:Font:(Default)Times New Q Roman,8 pt,Do not check spelling or grammar Page5of6 a) Words underhned are added;words struck thrh oe are deletions I` E Ik2lF2O 545.�krutPZ? Frvipts #-15,i c.3Ava 415 1§.Lf-4-'ot6�au's - . _ _ - ' -c as Q Packet Pg. 67 Turn erl the Court Reporter U 0 Flood protection will be provided to the project by raising buildings, roads, etc. in U conformance with South Florida Water Management District criteria for building pad = elevation is the 100-yr./zero-discharge storm elevation and the minimum road elevation is ,R based on the 25 year storm event.After heavy rainfall events,surface waters stored in the catchment areas will be slowly discharged through small bleed down structures into the existing preserved wetland slough. Off-site outfalls which receive stormwater discharge from the property will likely undergo modification in the future due to cc development/modification, at which time modifications to the Naples Heritage Golf and d Country Club water management plan may be required. _ rn d Exhibit"A",PUD Master Development Plan,of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 95-74,is deleted in its entirety and is hereby replaced by the new Exhibit"A",PUD Master N Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein. t0 N Rf n. 1a a a, m L a a) Formatted:Font:(Default)Times New Roman,8 pt,Do not check spelling or grammE � w Page6of6 ai Words underlined are added;words stnek-through are deletions f E ( 11k11,;015055ArrvpzfcpfPh:: T e..i.'Yi e Co 1 - - 1. -r 2 c U c c OAsSE,a n IIII o zs.PGs n—BB NAPLES HERITAGE COG TRACTS B 11 I iI LOT 6,BLOCK F, 0 k CS REPLAY.PB n.POS 90-100 CCC PHASE t.PB .... BTR(5-COMM A6 ( iii'I 26.PCS n-BD I • ARO IOW AN BCIWSLA = ANS n-e 0 — . 2E.6. // _ I .0T S,9lMCK F. d / / I NAPLES UDC SE I.PE I/ 28.POS 71 50 90 NARRAL AREA CC .L �.--r-77.7—=---------\.....,.>J ''o I aNi /� Q U ( BLOCK F, ,E— LOT S RAGE Q. IIIIIC/i0 Q I OCC PCS 71-80 1.PR Z cla . .. I \ PARKING.AREA I I26,! ii • LOT 3,BLOCK • I \�rs n—BB �O rill i in lin _-- .-a�- ---1 NO SCALE O I AA N • •• a N)�II ),.. I_I IaI ��� B96ANK _ GCC PHASE I, g V v I V Zq PCS 71-60 v/ O 1 •qiiii a. g � -r., PMDT SIIDT RIT'Ao ` •I A P 28.PCS �+R = 1\..(\i iLirl ��IIII h , a *6.� I � 6.a' a "...._ ,.., _._______________„___,. .4 >, ..„:____________ . _ _ sa lc a) ,RACY CS-CCHSERVATION AREA c NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE I. a) PB 26.PGS 71-80 (n CD L a PROPOSED CdSERVATION AREA 0 .g £ N P 8 S TRACT R1,4-RN9R-0E-BAT a) RES PHASE. 8. CS 71-8 GCC F� 'u PHASE 1.P8 25.PGS)1-80 .1.. n E 6BPMY6G5•N]ie.eY((v1 ]1'06'N>'M3Y � • 4., a) E NAPLES HERITAGE TENNIS CENTER cc CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN a NO SCALE b.E C 0 E V (13Q Packet Pg. 69 • Te!�,' ,ii ' i e Co e- . .. r .0 m 0 C m 0 0 C co 0 Type B Buffer. Fifteen-foot-wide,80 percent opaque within one year landscape buffer six feet In height, which may include a wall,fence,hedge,berm or combination thereof,including trees spaced no more than 25 feet on center.When planting a CO hedge, It shall be a minimum of ten gallon plants five feet in height, three feet in spread and spaced a maximum four feet to on center at planting. When a Type B buffer Is located within a residential PUD and adjacent to a lake,the required plant CO materials may be clustered to provide views. Clustered tree plantings shall not exceed 60 feet between clusters and the clustered hedge plantings con be provided as a double row of shrubs that ore a minimum of 30 Inches in height. When the 'L. adjacent lake exceeds 1500 feet In width the hedge planting shall not be required. When a community facility is located C) within a residential PU0 and abuts a residential unit,a Type B buffer shall be required. When a fence or wall is used within I the buffer a minimum of 50 percent of the trees and hedge plantings shall be located on the residential side of the fence N or wall. 0 0. R C R/W LINE P Z 25'RENT-OF-WAY 25'LANDSCAPE:.•I' 10 Iti It —13'CURER TO 11/W INE •AES r-20'NM .N.► LANDSCAPE BURR FASEUBrr CANOPY TREE,SPACED 25' T- +C.,14'HGT.AT PLANTING 0 A of V4 13 o Q a >. 4 2 10 GAL SHRUB,5'IN HGT., 00- c. o 3'SPREAD,SPACED 4'O.C. e C. 0 V EX. VALLEY GU ' C� o Q U o -�o ENL ROADWAY a ''1'i 1 Q O p c> p fC 12.6'-13.1'-\ "Q �'OQp 0-.7 EX. PAVEMENT vrr a 11.5''/- II c od bio�o 'v�.wi�.;,P 4 j MAX. i ' CL .oN,0 OWN 04.40te`o°y,¢ . d or /\.�\\A \/�\\. �`�r AVE EX. GRADE EL 10.0'NAVD, Q \` SLOPE TO NATURAL GRADE /\/i;:/j :\ \ / /.ii,• \' � VARIES EL 13.1'-13.5'+/- i >, Y Y. \\\\\ \\\/../\\•\\/\.,.,\."-.,(./...2.:.<,„:"\\.",\/\\\\VARIES-76-13.1'4,• �/\\/\\\\\'\MID STORY TREE/SHRUB,SPACED .0 // // //' // // : ///\‘ '//:// // //:�\/\�`�/ / 15'O.C.,1'HGT.AT PLANTING d . `/\ \\/'\/\\/•\/ KE CONTROL EL 10.0'NGVD\/\Y\\/*�> \\j\\ \j .\. C \•`��\ \/ \\���/ \ 1 /,\\\\ .\\.\\,/\\\%\\\. \\,/,•.\ \�� ,/..,\ \/�: a u) E NAPLES HERITAGE TENNIS CENTER TYPICAL 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENT ADJACENT TO COLONIAL COURT C N.T.S. E t V 0 r r Q r.% C E t V R Q Packet Pg.70 9.A.5 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M.,NOVEMBER 17,2016, IN 2 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, U COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: 0 NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON U ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN c ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 ca MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED C� IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A a� MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRI ITEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL achi MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR Z PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. er N ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE N PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. z 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE a- 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY U 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA a) 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES m 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 20,2016 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT a) 8. CONSENT AGENDA aUi 0 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: U w E a) I0 d E ca 4- 4- m E U Packet Pg. 71 9.A.5 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M.,NOVEMBER 17,2016, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, U COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: 0 NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON U ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLO 11 ED 10 CO MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED U IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A as MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN {° ANY CASE, WR1 I.1 EN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A a. PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR Z PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF co APPLICABLE. v ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. z_ l. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE a 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY ca 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA y 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES m rY 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 20,2016 0 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS U 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT o a) 8. CONSENT AGENDA °' 0 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: U N to to C CO r 1 Packet Pg. 72 A. PUDZ-PL20150001416: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County. Florida amending Ordinance No.95-74,the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Planned unit Development,and amending Ordinance No. 200441,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; -a and providing an effective date. The subject property. consisting of 563± acres, is located c 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. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, AICP.CFM,Principal Planner] B. RZ-PL20160001132: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41. as amended, the Collier County Land Z Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the m unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map Q, or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Rural Agricultural(A) zoning district to the Residential Single Family(RSF-1)for property located on the west side of Morgan Road,approximately 750 feet north of Sabal Palm ti Road in Section 23,Township 50 South, Range 26 East,Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5.7-* acres: and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, AICP,CFM, Principal Planner] 0 N C. PUDA-PL20140001836: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier r.- County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 86-19. commonly known as the Regency Autohaus Planned Unit Development, by deleting provisions relating to restoration of 0 wetland site and allow offsite preservation of native vegetation to accommodate additional parking on Tract D: by adding two access points on Hazel Road; by deleting outdated a provisions; by adding deviations relating to offsite preserves, usable open space and V architectural standards: by revising the Master Plan to reconfigure the wildlife and retention area and depict the parking/water management area; by deleting figures and attachments; by correcting acreage of the project from 14.6 acres to 15.44 acres and by providing an effective m date. The property is located on the east side of Airport-Pulling Road, north of Hazela. 0 Road and south of Westview Drive in Section I, Township 50 South. Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 15.44± acres. [Coordinator: Daniel J. Smith, AICP, Principal Planner] 0 U D. PL20160001369: Commercial Excavation Permit and approval of off-site removal of up to 350,000 cubic yards (cy) of material associated with the Panther Island Mitigation Bank (P1MB) Expansion on property owned by the National Audubon Society, Inc., located in m Sections 3 and 4, Township 47 South. Range 27 East. The property is Zoned Agricultural y with a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) designation. The maximum depth of the c excavation is 3' with the intent to create additional wetlands on the subject property. Subject U to the stipulations noted in the Staff Report. [Coordinator: Matthew McLean, P.E., Development Review Division Director] 10. NEW BUSINESS u7 11. OLD BUSINESS E E 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellowsijmp E co z Packet Pg.73 9A A. PUDZ-PL20150001416: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County.Florida amending Ordinance No.95-74,the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Planned Unit Development,and amending Ordinance No. 200441, the Collier County Land 2 Development Code,by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the C) 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; -a 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. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, j AICP.CFM,Principal Plannerj as B. RZ-PL20160001132: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County. Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the y unincorporated area of Collier County,Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Rural Agricultural(A) zoning district to the Residential Single Family(RSF-l) for property •• located on the west side of Morgan Road,approximately 750 feet north of Sabal Palm Road in Section 23, Township 50 South,Range 26 East,Collier County, Florida, consisting v of 5.7:+ acres: and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson. AICP, Principal Plannerj �O 0 N C. PUDA-PL20140001836: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier r• County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 86-19. commonly known as the Regency Autohaus Planned Unit Development, by deleting provisions relating to restoration of wetland site and allow offsite preservation of native vegetation to accommodate additional parking on Tract D: by adding two access points on Hazel Road; by deleting outdated a provisions; by adding deviations relating to offsite preserves, usable open space and U architectural standards; by revising the Master Plan to reconfigure the wildlife and retention area and depict the parking/water management area; by deleting figures and attachments;by correcting acreage of the project from 14.6 acres to 15.44 acres and by providing an effective date. The property is located on the east side of Airport-Pulling Road, north of Hazel 0 0. Road and south of Westview Drive in Section 1, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 15.44± acres. [Coordinator: Daniel J. Smith, AICP, Principal Planner] U D. PL20160001369: Commercial Excavation Permit and approval of off-site removal of up to 350,000 cubic yards (cy) of material associated with the Panther Island Mitigation Bank ._ (P1MB) Expansion on property owned by the National Audubon Society, Inc., located in }aD, Sections 3 and 4, Township 47 South, Range 27 East. The property is Zoned Agricultural y with a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) designation. The maximum depth of the excavation is 3' with the intent to create additional wetlands on the subject property.Subject U to the stipulations noted in the Staff Report. [Coordinator: Matthew McLean, P.E., Development Review Division Director] 10. NEW BUSINESS a) 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT as 13. ADJORN 4_; CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp C.) CO Packet Pg.74 saldeN : 9LPZ) (960Z LI AoN) OdOO le Ja.odej pnoo Aq paloallo3 swell-g luawgoeud :luewg3e d 44 O O o o a` _ t;, ui AMs aO ge . 40, .00,--N 01°e) c! 0. 0 2 vi •D"'� N �a � -,.....- .C.' " 0 p OornN 4.0 o oA19i31I10�' L56 aJN �` »; G W LU J g I, 1 :M H fZ a . 0 7i ---- aJ W w a CO o ° j N / �� Z o, LU W LL = U Z O N Q Z O W } O? U _ / Q W cZ w ¢ �'Fr i_r n' ���//�� cto Lu,L O JZ O{y11� c,2 I a F- CO p Z yJ = J G dccm! W H.yOj IL = LU0 ' 2 . J U\ Ma LL J O I n 0 Z 0 W Q. Q r w O (7 Q U� F- >�u. o f� ), W p219- E Um 0m Q2Z -.a2, J w-55g W c7 w2 z K~r fial� ¢y n< N 0 Q . r Q3Q a � , n� l a a a LLcc <pn,',, Z, 0000 NOU eF$QLL NdCOJO : CC 4 YO sC4III la»QC'•• 0 e ON�=INNI aa'aa m 0 Q z 0UU1 E1J- JeU �pzm1 I K2 a' U \ QWWWZ waQ 7� 0200O U U °wwo -,..1-- wcoWmcnw 5:4 :4, O j N ¢el w ,rNW�rW Va rJrcotA-,..-• UYW JC>> a U O LuExai4act ¢ozW a3 J ) 'ogr r r, p $LLQ t a {{11 I N w„E;S q I, Q � U•�� � m=iLLg 2 J �� W ` w CC \ 1' W O Q C= V a l 0 w-- Y tY \ \ V O 2 \ ‘cc , ", bit LU U1 Q IW aH I.(-I) Cpl... M ,\b'o g\'b � � � Ja$` o w �la) Z S/ib �0 `� a F- Li Lu Ii Z `\ w» 0 a 7 (� Z 0 j> \ I /I CL L L W a wy \�6 \\-,,ii Z Om Q a l\ CC _.SOT" IO 0 W NLL \ U U 111 �� ds ;;A.e 111 CD C 0 a ' ill �� LUillil -�O andN • c'^. 2 M w° 1\l2l3dO Jd�IOOJ O ;I i u ; ix„1, Z Z �� I y' Ow 44431 = << saldeN : 9LtiZ) (91.0Z LI, AoN) 3d33 le Japodeu pnoo Aq papelloo swell-9;uewgoe;;b :;uewgoefd 8 co 2 g c 13) Zcu d Z N a .Q a CD = --1„, g o g � cu . Seo61 IliMi 0 11. gi '� i aW Jog (Lg ni O Q' O: , :.0J �Z a owe U w N J W CD c 0 1 1- z O w a as CO 0 to 3 �m Z � � LLQ �W J � CD I Q w J 0 y o z a u- cc 0 N 0 1 0 LL Z WI yoga O 0 X to _ LLXsz° I- a P2 g14 W z fry` LU I a = I 0 of ! W I W CC c0, o� CO 1a Ce W I b LL W H Z i I— a n W> o^go _ J 0 \I cc ccFe �I a a < m LI s Q a o ilteibL\lice, o 0 \4111 o 11( a W a S LDQ ix w o ~ a m = W )76 0_ U n t = o8 ala INIIIPOAr.__... LLI , gRpt3E dUh § Q 'AE^ aadne.ai__ z J Q O. a Ofldw I Q < g1 ia I 3A83S32i VNIMIOVl I 1111 iVO III N.,.....- N.m.1.,.tee ma m.a......._,kO.....p AO........1 stasiemir.Acere,Aa 9.A.5 . M U r c O O U a c R 0 Enhanced Type B Buffer: Twenty—five—foot—wide, 80 percent opaque 0 within one year landscape buffer including a hedge, which must be a) as made up of a minimum of ten gallon plants five feet in height, three feet in spread and spaced a maximum four feet on center at planting; a mid—story tree or shrub spaced 15 feet on center and a N minimum seven feet in height at time of installation; and trees a) spaced no more than 25 feet on center and a minimum of 14 feet a. as in height at time of installation. R/W LINE Z 25'PoGR-OF-WAY 25'LM9)SCC'E BUFFER ti a' —13'GOER TO R/W LME VAR3 1-20'INTO v IMOSCAPE BUFFER EISEMBT CD CANOPY TREE,SPACED 25' C M.C.,14'HGT.AT PLANTING N A 1' 1-- v a ,- Z3 > 4a 4 Z iff 0 10 GAL SHRUB,5'IN HGT., 0' o U 3'SPREAD,SPACED 4'O.C. A ° U EX. VALLEY GUTTER �+'`7 p iG+/- QO fi'o.c. v L 4 EK ROAM 1 ',• d p 12.6'--13.1.--\ aQ G��`pQp roa c � O EX. PAVEMENT I vr/ EL 11.5' / Q. - �++,r ' `::: •:o /' 41'SAX "•¢._g® �;.; ;� ,'a�`„e / /\ \ J� AVE. EX. GRADE EL. 10.0' NAVD, m �/ �, � o�TAIie•Ca� '\ ES EL 13.1' 13.5+/ �'�� COPE TO NATURAL GRADE O `\/- �/ /i/\/\7 /\X.VARIES T2:6-13.1„ -f/ -- I\/SA/� ' /\ \/\/\/\y\ A/\�\ ' \/VA/V A/ MID STORY TREE/SHRUB,SPACED \ \ '\`\\/ \�\/�\/\\��\/\\ �'\\5-\�T\T.AT PLANTING /\/ / �\/ / // E CONTRO.EL. 10.0'NGVD,// /, / / / \\ �/\/�//\�/�//\/\\/�//\\/\\///i /\\/�//\/\\ //\/\\��/ ' c°� u) EXHIBIT "A-2" NAPLES HERITAGE TENNIS CENTER TYPICAL 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENT ADJACENT TO COLONIAL COURT a) N.T.S. ts.1 t- r Q r c d E (..) asQ Packet Pg.77 9.A.5 10i 38,BLGCKB --..„..2 \ --i / ' 7 / NAPLES HERITAGE ,`\ /-- (, / �/ GCC PHASE TWO-A, `•� �� // 1---' �\ TRAC .C4-RICHT-. WAY PB 28.PGS It-1} �I/ RESER 10N N - RITAGE CK 'B� GCC PHA• - •.PGS 71-80\\\,..... \ ' / 3 P ASE TWO' I Lor 39,BLOCK B �� II () / • �`\ NAPLES HERITAGE ��� CCC PHASE TWO-A, • PB 28,PGS it-tJ EK.LAKE ` as ,\ ••„„...,.....,..., I 3 . 001r– / • EN 585dPA TRACT GCAB,NAPLES HERITAGE -� \� I (' �� 'a • CCC TRACTS B A C5 REPLAT.PB i 27,PCS 98-100 LOT 6,BLOCK F, \``\., --:,,,,,` ,f •+\ �� II I NAPLES HERITAGE f �'\_ , CCC PHASE TWO-A, Ct MCI C5-C01501V.1BCH AAA PB 28,PCS 11-13 0 /� WO lam CCC RUC1SB 'TRA ♦n CS CS-C019NABd ARIA _ `_`—________—__ _ t CS IEPIAT.PB 77,PGS 98--, • II I N MORES HBfACL CCC TRAM B! , 6 WI At PB P,PGS 98-100 �'- 10 --- 327.17' (M) �� I I I I MIME 328. G.. , ( LOT 5.BLOCK F. t NAPLES HERITAGE -. f GCC PHASE TWO-A, 4 P8 28.PGS 11-13 1 _ _ LII a II NATURAL AREA to —198.4' _ I I� I Z 3Q \T\ 0 ( LOT 4.BLOCK F, 0 ' cV ' NAPLES HERITAGE '� GCC PHASE TwoGE C• RT j ¢ I PB 28.PCS 11-1} N111,11 fill ii , A - 85.2' o �I, vx oi. III � , xCV . A LOT 3,BLOCKF y NAPLES HERITAGE r • GCC PHASE TWO-A. / �- \ PB 28.PGS 11-13 �! \ Q I 1 I / U 1 3b.b tic 1 1-_ s .� I1 /' U 03 11 �■ 1� $ \ LOT 2,BLOCK F 1. CD NAPLES HERITAGE , t5•W-� I P GCC PHASE TWO-A, lI I I I.9 PB 28.PGS 11-13 Q II d a> T è � , I NATURAL AREA ( gii "Pt t m I I I I LOT I,BLOCK F Q Ai NAPLES HERITAGE t 1 VIGCC PHASE Two-1A, V w�,I I 73 , kI ICEI \ AI L1 t5L' + / U \I 2 y •.•.•.• • +. + . .•+• • • • + • • • • . . . . • + • • • TRACT C5-CONSERVATION AREA Q1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . ' NAPLES HERITAGE CCC PHASE 1, L + . P8 26.PGS 71-80 = .i V CKS j• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' Q RO I' + PPOSELI CONSERVATION VG. . .•.•. . .•+`•. I• • + • - • • - ..••••.• ag TRACT RW4-RIGHT-OF-WAY 1 • • • • • • • • • • •.. +. +-• + •+�''-'- o RESERVATION NAPLES HERITAGE GCC •• .•.•• • .•.•. . + + .^t o'., PHASE 1,PB 26.PGS 71-80 = tv 1 .• • •+.+Y. 5589127'15'W 12682'CH) . • • • • • ' ' •E! '--- N89'2S'O6 W'326.337+ • . . -_._.___ Q Packet Pg. 78 9.A.5 II ,A`` LOT 38,BLOCK B �_\ �• I / /� / NAPLES HERITAGE �---- \RI �/ CCC PHASE TWO-A, }t ( (,- �1\ TRAC C4-RIGHT- WAY � PB 28,PCS 17-13 .1 II\ RESERY 'ON N RITACE OCx I \ccc PHA Pcs n-ao \ P ASE TWO—A \ NAT ES,BLOCK E (� NAPLESCHHETWO-E I If 11 CCC PHASE T11-13 Z----...-......"' PB 28.PGS 11-iS /, EX.LAKE \ \ �I II O l it �, ' • �\ TER DIMF,O'.518NC68tE TRACT GC4B,NAPLES HERITAGE \ \'� �� I� I CCC TRACTS B&C5 REPLAT,PB \\ �.. 27.PCS 98-100 , ` LOT 6,BLOCK F, AV NAPLES HERITAGE = �� I I CCC PHASE TWO-A, ) NAC1 05-WNSYVA1ION APIA PB 28,PGS 11-13 0 tlAsJS OITAa SC TRAM 9 1RACT.P.ES R-GE GCC TRACTS AREA `\� / /, k C5 REKL47, P.PS 8-100 NAPE IMAGE CLC 7RAC5 B t f/ CS PdRAT PB 27,KS 98-100CD ___ 327.17 (M) 6i _-_____ D! SS OSE 326.10 f yC6 I aF I LOT 5.BLOCK F, A. 1 SS NAPLES HERITAGE "� 8ti GCC PHASE TWO-A, PB 28,PUS 11-13 I I 1 II WI d N I lid 1 .. O. \ NATURAL AREAMI Z I 1-- .,77.,.. .)-A_ '.98.4' I cc -13g .. o�\ I U LCT 4,BLOCK F, h J NAPLES HERITAGETr ®�C RT _ . Q CCC PHASE TWO-A. v -1 Z PB 28,PGS 11-13 , iii A J I 1157 . -;"ora I Ili ®. � i > ( 061„,?,• PIto L1� . D N 1 z LOT 3,BLOCK F r- L1____il I s:2 V NAPLES HERITAGE T...CCC PHASE TWO-A. i I i /� I \\B,PGS 11-13 `\il #111 Ci i3b.� �----� '' _ _ I ) I a 1 CfkN 8..7' kir 140.1' / m 7 t• L f I I I �'� ( I `,.....:7-,----', LOT 2,BLOCK F Y I (i ■S OU'1t 1 a NAPLES HERITAGE o I, ■ 1 .� a�, \GCC PHASE TWO-A. =S.2E 1 i `PB 28,PCS 71-13 O CD II i, g' I \ Ce '�II� I NATURAL AREA n , M LOT i,BLOCK F Q a i oNAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TWO-A, 1 U t I I => PB 28,PGS 11-13a \ 71p CUR� � III \i (11I 'r / 73 `36.6'/ Ql.,.\.1., I II■ 1I 15l/ o I U i. ...` ..` •. • • ` • • • ` `"' • `' TRACT CO-CONSERVATION AREACD NAPLES HERITAGE CCC PHASE 1. E a w _ _ w . . . a . ".`w`w`_`a`.`.`.`$.`I P926,PGS 71-60 = • r„• • `-` `PROPOEEQ CONSERVATIQN REA.,`w' a. `a.. w..+_ j .1.A . . ` ` - - • . ` ` ` . . . .. .yyd $ TRACT OWN-RIGHT-OF-SAT r0.1 .. " ... - - - . - - a • " - - _ -.a -._ ..,-,,,, .e.,,,--._ RESERVATION NAPLES HERITAGE GCS PHASE I.P9 26,PGS 71-50 E ` w _ . _ a _ w - ' L CU -r ae. . 33 •.'.. . . . . S89'27'45-W 328'82'(6A).`.' `.` `a`.` t N89'2J'OB"W 326.7. _ Packet Pg.79 # 9.A.5 S ECTXO+O 9 row 50 8 Naple Heritage Goff and Country Club RANGE: 26 E U -; 1..,:*..1 , " i '� 't,4. �� ` :- ' 0 600 1200 -a '" '► ; N. � , , a{ ; ;J SCALE FEET haO .: , is ,_ }, a as r ra } rn o. cc , - - - � ;,r �r and= 'rz�pflseo �S� = N 4 p #74 . N -44. 4: ya ♦ �, ,.. — - {? 0 176 I : f— Property Bout aiy s *" '`- z . at � ;,- a, � , , I '4' a 4. o - .4.. - 43 1 c di ' SIY r �` I ' = ;. ,mow. t v d 1 i'', potential Li , „, ' v L=� ".'`4 it1gation ' 'r_ . , .i„,., , ,.. �. � " Area .. ,,lf`' {j ,,,, . .c R Q Notes: cu 1. Property boundary is approximate and obtained from E Collier County Property Appraiser's Website. March 02, 2012 2:24:38 p.m. ca PERMIT USE ONLY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Drawing: NMGIPLANCouRTS.DWG r I a ( Proposed Relocation W. DEXTER BENDER 8c ASSO CIA TES, INC. ili ENVIRONMENTAL & MARINE CONSULTING tti.... _and Mltlgation Areas FORT JIVERS ,239-334-8680 """'� X Packet Pg. 80 9AS RICHARD M. ROGAN 7703 NAPLES HERITAGE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112 0 October 26, 2016 0 -, To: Members of the Collier County Planning Commission Members of the Collier County County Board of Commissioners Re: Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club Planned Unit Development Z Amendment (PUDA) Proposed Tennis Center HM File No.: 2015.055 to The above referenced item was to be on the Board of Commissioners agenda for N October 11, 2016 but was sent back to the Planning Commission for further review of its unanimous favorable recommendation. Presumably this action was in response to z letters written by three residents of Naples Heritage Golf & Country (NHGCC) objecting to the relocation of the community's main tennis courts. While they raise a number of valid concerns, which have been addressed, it is also apparent that a great deal of U perspective has been lost since the original plan was presented at to the Planning Commission meeting held on May 5, 2016. Of particular concern are the interests of the 464 NHGCC homeowners who have voted to approve a club expansion project of which the tennis court relocation is a part. re I am a former President of the NHGCC Board of Trustees and, in 2015, served as the Chair of the Long Range Planning Committee which was responsible for developing the Campus Expansion Plan. I am also past president of the Cypress Pointe Homeowners Association; the single-family neighborhood within Naples Heritage consisting of 101 homes, six of which are located on Colonial Court and face the site slated to house new tennis courts. I live within five homes of the site under consideration. y E a) In 2004 the NHGCC Board of Trustees was approached by a developer who was planning to build some 140 multi-family units on several pieces of property adjacent to Colonial Court. The proposal contemplated providing access to these units through the Naples Heritage main entrance off of Davis Boulevard, down Naples Heritage Drive and though Colonial Court. It was the judgement of the Board that the proposal offered no significant advantages to current residents and, in deed, would place added strain on the community resources already in place. Subsequent to turning down the proposal, the owner of one adjacent five-acre parcel offered to sell it to NHGCC. In light of z Packet Pg.81 9A5 everything that had taken place, it made sense to go ahead and make the purchase, C which was approved in September, 2004. 0 As is documented in the minutes of the Board of Trustees, as early as February, 2005, o discussions concerning potential uses of the newly acquired property were begun. In the intervening years a number conversations were held about possible uses of this site as well as other sites within the NHGCC PUD. A frequently discussed prospect was the c movement of the Club's main tennis courts to a site near the driving range which is dedicated preserve. On several occasions inquiries made of the Corps of Engineers (COE) resulted in strong admonitions about attempting to convert property already designated as preserve; this regardless of any offers to swap other land. Then, in July, 2014 the COE demonstrated its resolve by refusing to issue a permit to Quail West a Country Club to convert dedicated preserve for use as tennis courts; a situation identical to ours. We concluded that going forward with an identical proposal was not likely to succeed. Taking the COE to court would not only be futile, but also expensive. N The suggestion has been made that there has not been a good faith effort to find alternative sites for the tennis courts. The fact is that no fewer than 16 alternative sites N were evaluated and documented in an Alternatives Analysis submitted as part of our application to the Corps of Engineers. The analysis, which goes on for 24 pages, z reduces the practical sites to 3. They are the five-acre site adjacent to Colonial Court, the site near the driving range (discussed above) and a site west of the existing club house parking lot, a portion of which would be used for additional parking spaces. o When these three sites are subjected to further analysis, the five-acre site comes out as being the least environmentally damaging. With respect to wildlife, all three sites contain no known listed species. As to loss of wetlands, development on the five-acre d site is rated as the least dam.ging by a factor of over three times when compared to the cc driving range site and by a factor of 1.25 times when compared to the site west of the existing parking lot. I am not sure exactly how one would go about defining a "good v faith effort," but I am sure that what was done qualifies under any rational definition. .c When NHGCC was planned in 1996, the Collier County Land Development Code dictated that only 185 parking spaces were required at the Clubhouse. Since then, the demographics of the residents have changed increasing the activity and usage of club facilities. Predictably, problems caused by the lack of parking are magnified during season and when Naples Heritage hosts events open to members and their guests as well as when inter-club events take place. The lack of space often leads to overflow parking along nearby roadways and other areas. This creates an unsafe condition for residents and complicates access for emergency vehicles.As far back as 2012, both the Club's insurance carrier and the East Naples Fire District have served notice that parking available to support the main Clubhouse area was inadequate. The plan under Page 2 Packet Pg.82 SAS consideration adds 66 parking spaces, an increase of 35%. To suggest that this is not a problem is to demonstrate total disinterest in the welfare of the community. In addition to responding to a growing problem with parking, the planned expansion addresses the increasing interest in health and wellness by including a new fitness o center and an enlarged main pool. Finally some modification to the clubhouse are being made to accommodate additional activities. 0 In March, 2015, the NHGCC Long Range Planning Committee was charged with the responsibility of developing a plan that would positively impact as many residents of the 799 homes as possible and to do so in a cost effective manner. Between April and October a plan was crafted following a broad-based examination of what other comparable clubs and newer communities were offering their residents. Between early a October and mid-November, 22 neighborhood meetings were conducted to present the initial concept and to gain input that was used to make modifications. Between January and early February, 2016 three town hall meetings were held to present a mostly N finished plan and to gather additional feedback. Approximately 1,000 people attended the small group and town hall meetings. It is inconceivable to suggest that there was insufficient notice given to the community. N ti As a side note, one of the 22 meetings was actually a presentation made to the NHGCC z Tennis Association annual dinner. If, as mentioned in one of the complaining correspondence, "many of the tennis players . . . were opposed to locating the tennis facility as proposed. . .," it was not at all evident at the meeting. In fact there was some 0 concern about having spent a considerable sum to upgrade the existing tennis courts, to address safety concerns, just two years ago (at that time). Otherwise the overwhelming sentiment was favorable. They would finally have a facility worthy of hosting inter club d competitions. But, since there is no objective data supporting either position, I suppose we are left with dueling anecdotes. o U On March 25, 2016 the results of a community-wide vote were published. 464 households voted yes. NHGCC documents require that a project like this must receive d one more than 50% "yes" votes to be approved. Non-votes are counted as "no" votes. Against this stringent standard the project was approved by 58% of the 799 homeowners. Many other clubs require only that a majority of those voting is necessary for approval. Against that standard the project was approved by 64.7%. Within NHGCC there are 9 voting districts based on type of home; single family, terraces, verandas and villas. When the 464 votes are broken down by voting district, every single district, E' including the one composed of the single family homes, voted in favor of the project. The point here is that the Board of Trustees has the responsibility to serve the membership at large invariably leaving some individuals dissatisfied. Nonetheless, the residents in 464 homes have a legitimate expectation that this project will go forward as Page 3 Packet Pg.83 9A5 has been presented to them. After all, their approval included a commitment to fund the project. U One or more of the complaints made some reference to the impact on resale value of the homes on Colonial Court. Keeping pace with the marketplace begins with the 0 community. Prospective buyers are not even going to look at individual homes if the community does not offer the features and amenities that they require. There are 799 homes a NHGCC that all suffer if we cannot keep pace with other communities. o As you are aware from the written exchanges with the residents of Colonial Court, their as concerns have been more than adequately addressed. Giving appropriate ;, consideration to the wishes of the community at large is well overdue. I urge you to conclude your review and to move on. CL RS Thank you for your consideration. ti Since y, Richard M. Rogan z U 0 U U ns L O 0. Na, Ly6 O C.) 'a a, V a> O U N E a, r c a, E V is .r c a, E c, is Page 4 a Packet Pg.84 9A.5 Tel: 239-775-7413 Trevor J. Brown 8016 Kilkenny Way Naples,FL 34112 November 8,2016 Collier County Facilities Management Department v 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101 Naples,FL 34112-5356. Attention-Eric L.Johnson •a Re-Amending Ordinance No.95-74 I am a resident of Naples Heritage GCC but will not be able to attend the meeting on November 17,2016 due to another commitment 4) My concern is that the matter at hand is not being handled in the best possible way. The conditions are being set-up to ensure that one or two parties are going to be unhappy. I'm not sure my comments z should be discussed at the meeting but I would like you to determine if my idea has merit to N_ I would like to see all the involved parties sit down at a table and discuss an idea that could possibly make a everyone happy. ti For example I think that there is another site available for the new tennis courts that would be better for o the environment This site is in an area that is not in a water-shed area and has a substantial buffer to any residential property. This site is the area adjoining the Prestwick Swimming Pool and Tennis Court a It is far removed from the nearest road drain. N HGCC could probably be persuaded to change the zoning of the south 5 acres from Agricultural to Preserve. Far fewer trees would have to be removed but more"fill"would be required to bring the site o. up to grade. cc Army Corp of Engineers would be happy that the area chosen is not a water-shed. Tennis Players would be happy with a better location and no residents would be inconvenienced. -0 Speeding traffic to the south 5 acre site is a problem that would not get worse. °' Access for Emergency Vehicles to the new site would be much quicker. The environment would be the least harmed and Collier County would be pleased with the increased property values. E Choosing this new site is not without precedent Almost similar conditions were approved forco Countryside Golf and Country Club. 4- Sincerely, co J',/r-11--/(Z7Aelirr7" z Trevor J. Brown (M.I. Mech.E.,Chartered. Eng.) E-Mail: trevor8016@centurylink.net Packet Pg.85 9:A.5 Naples Heritage, a golf & county Club ,, ),-t-c ,,, -- (..t. w iD ,�. Volume(No. 8 G 1 200 S 3 egielO .lio -a IL 0 0 Master Board okays $200 dues increase; ,,, ..... golf course renovation goes to members N a, "` eeting Tuesday,Oct. 19,2004, Resurfacing all greens with Champions Board votes to - , the Naples Heritage Master grass,an ultra dwarf Bermuda grass being z `* Association Board of Trustees widely used in Southwest Florida(all Lely buy five-acre voted to accept the Finance courses,Bonita Bay courses,Naples land parcel v rsi ��` r.�Committee budget recommen- National,etc.). At the Sept.21,2004 dations for fiscal 2005.The budget projects •Overhaul of irrigation system,replacing meeting of the Naples revenue of$2,868,000,operating expenses meeting a Trustees,the N existing hardware with Toro controls and g of$2,301,000 and $567,000 for reserves, Board voted to authorize 1; - irrigation heads. • depreciation and capital expenditures.The - President Phil Plessinger > o result is a$200 per year increase in Master •Leveling of all tee bases,enlarging of to pursue negotiations on z Association dues,or$2,900 for each Naples selected tee boxes. - . an adjacent parcel of land L Heritage residence.Some of the increased that recently came on the a MI Extending cart paths(combination of market.The Club now has U operational costs are in anticipation of a golf ' U an agreement to acquire concrete and cochina)throughout course renovation project which must be t. approximately 5 acres of d approved by the membership. ®Enlarging existing practice area. land behind our fifth t green,accessible via o The Finance Committee budget recommen- ■ Renourishment of sand traps. Colonial Court.le ia Plessinger ce dations also anticipate the completion of the ®Contingency of$50,000. said the parcel is t purchase of five acres of adjacent land landlocked and,if a behind the fifth green and accessible via Marlowe explained that the existing Tif possessed by another 0 Colonial Court.The budget does not include Dwarf greens have a common lifespan of party with development the cost of the front nine toilet facility under seven to 10 years and would be due for plans,it is likely that we -a construction.That is expected to trigger a replacement soon.The new Champions ultra would be forced to grant separate assessment of approximately$100 dwarf turfgrass provides a superior playing public access through our m per unit to cover related capital costs. 1 surface and very strong root structure which property.The Board of v Trustees has no immediate will last much longer.Champions is the only plans for this land but Co Golf course renovation new turfgrass which can successfully be anted to protect the E A series of golf course renovations had been grown using a no-till method.The cost is a community now and included in a$5 million Long Range Plan- fraction of the expense of the surface provide for our own needs "' ping proposal that the membership voted rebuilding required for other ultra dwarf in the future.The$205,000 a�ai down in September.The golf course pro- grasses. required for the purchase r of this parcel will come posal that the Board is sending to the a membershi totals$797,900 ora approxi- The Board of Trustees unanimously ap- from reserve funds and = p pp proved the Green Committee proposal and will not require a special a mately$1,000 per residence. agreed to send it to the membership.Due to assessment of the m Green Committee Chairman Bill Marlowe be mailed in late October,ballots will be members.• E detailed the proposal for the Board of counted at a membership meeting called for c Trustees at their October meeting.Some of that purpose on Tuesday,Nov.23,2004.If co the estimates were generated for the approved,the golf course would be closed previous Clubhouse/golf course renovation a the end of April,2005 and would reopen proposal but were updated for the current in September.■ proposal.Highlights include: Packet Pg. 86 9A5 SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO PUD DOCUMENT, SECTION I, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION, ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 95-74, NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PUD SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION ; a) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION a ns The North half(N '/2) of the North half(N 1/2) of Section 10, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, less the easterly 100 feet thereof. AND 0 N The East half(E '/2) of Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. EXCEPT the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of the Southeast Quarter(SE 1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE '/4) of Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. a. U ALSO EXCEPT the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW '/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE '/4) of Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. a. d AND a 0 U The Southerly 1,370 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, lying southerly of Davis Boulevard (S.R. 84). a) AND o U rn The Southeast quarter (SE 1/4) less the southerly 1,370 feet of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, lying southerly of Davis Boulevard (S.R. 84). AND E The North half(N '/2) of the West half(W '/2) of the West half(W '/2) of the Southwest quarter co (SW 1/4) of Section 3, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, lying southerly of Davis Boulevard(S.R. 84). c E z Page 1 of 6 Words underlined are added;words struslc-through are deletions C'\Users\ashton_h\AppDatraocal\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.OUtlook\5MIUSZQB\Naples Heritage PUDA-PL-20150000416(10-11-2016).docx Packet Pg.87 9.A5 AND The East V2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, Section 9, Township 50, Z, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. is 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION c9 The 5-58 563 acre project site is comprised of portions of Sections 3 4, 9 & 10, Township a 50 S, Range 26 E. The irregularly shaped development parcel abuts Davis Boulevard on the north and CR 951 on the east. The primary development objective is an 18 hole regulation golf course and country club, together with a maximum of 799 single and a multiple family dwelling units. Maximum gross project density is -1-43 1.42 units per acre. Co Tr CD 1.6 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE N ti Development of The Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club will comply with the goals and objectives set forth in the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. U a A. The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map as set forth in Objective 1, of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), and the uses contemplated are consistent therewith. e a a, re B. The proposed density of Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club is 1/13 1.42 units per acre and less than the maximum density permitted by the FLUE Density Rating System is therefore consistent with the Future Land Use Element Policy 5.1. The entire subject property qualifies for a base density of four units per acre. Certain parts of the subject property are further subject to density adjustments including a proximity to Activity Center density bonus. U * * * * * * * * * * * * to SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT E * * * 2.4 MAXIMUM PROJECT DENSITY CD E z Page 2 of 6 Words underlined are added;words struck-through are deletions C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.OUtiOOk\SMIUSZQB\Naples Heritage PUDA-PL-20150000416(10-11-2016).docx Packet Pg.88 LA No more than 799 combined single and multiple family dwelling units shall be constructed in the 3�8 563 acre total project area. If all 799 dwelling units are constructed, gross project density will be 1.43 1.42 units per acre. �, P. 0 SECTION III TRACT A DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 3.2 USES PERMITTED a, 0. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land use, in z whole or part, for other than the following: ti A. Principal Uses: 1. Single family detached dwellings. r, ‘- 2. 2. Single family attached dwellings, zero lot-line and patio dwellings and/or multi-family units. U a 3. An 18 hole golf course, clubhouses and related facilities, practice driving v range, and golf course maintenance facility. These facilities will be substantially completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 390t dwelling unit. a m Ir 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. d B. Accessory Uses: 0 1. Accessory uses and structures customary in golf course, single and multiple family residential projects. 2. Project sales and administrative offices, which may occur in a residential or recreational building and/or in the Country Club complex, and/or in a temporary building until such time as permanent structures are available. 3. Model dwellings, in the single family lot are and/or in the single family/ multiple family tracts, during the period of project development and sales. d E Page 3 of 6 Words underlined are added;words strtek-threugh are deletions C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outi00k\5 MIUSZQB\Napies Heritage PUDA-PL-20150000416(10-11-2016).docx Packet Pg.89 9.A.5 Model dwellings shall be converted to permanent residents at the end of a two year period unless otherwise specifically approved by the County. 4. Signs as permitted by the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time permits are requested. co 3.3 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS o 0 A maximum of 799 dwelling units may be constructed in this 558 563 acre project. TC1 3.6 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS Co * * x N F. Recreation area, labeled RA on the Master Plan 0 Principal structures: Front yard: 50 feet Side yard: 25 feet Rear yard: 25 feet 0 U Preserve: 25 feet U Lighting shall be limited to that necessary for public safety and security. All lighting shall have full cut-off shields to prevent glare and spillage on adjacent a residential development, shall utilize motion sensor for activation, and shall be limited to a maximum 10 feet in height. 0 U .0 Maximum height shall be limited to one story not to exceed 12 Feet Zoned and 15 o feet Actual Height. d Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 AM to dusk. d Amplified sound of any type shall not be permitted. to * * x * a) m E 3.11 REQUIRED BUFFERS Buffers shall be installed along the rear yard of multi-family sites or recreational facilities which abut off-site single family zoned or vacant agriculturally zoned lands. Buffers shall Page 4 of 6 Words underlined are added;words 4p:talk-through are deletions C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microso8\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.OUtlook\5MIUSZCZB\Naples Heritage PUDA-PL-20150000416(10-11-2016).docx Packet Pg.90 9.A.5 separate the single family and multi-family development areas unless the necessity for a such buffers is waived due to a common architectural theme housing project. Buffers 0 shall meet the criteria set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code. Buffering v requirements may be met with existing natural vegetation, installed vegetation, structural c screening, or any combination thereof. Buffering plans shall be submitted to and o approved by the Collier County Development Services Director prior to issuance of . permits for the facility required to be buffered. a 0 a a) R SECTION VI t TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS N o o. m 6.2 IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS N * * * * * * * * * * * * io P 0 N G. Commitment is hereby made that the southerly 100 feet of that portion of the Naples N. IIeritage Golf and Country Club project which abuts the south line of Section 9, z -. - - - . . .. . . .. -- right of way acquisition. a. U * * * * * * * * * * * * Y R L a> t 0 o. SECTION VIII Ce WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS t c 0 0 * * * * * * * * * * * * >, Ts 8.2 THE WATER MANGEMENT PLAN CONCEPT ad 0 354.1 acres of the 5-5-g 563 acre project is planned as a stormwater catchment basin. 68.7 V co acres of lakes and 91.9 acres of natural/preserve area are included in this area. E Stormwater originating on lands to the north of the project will flow through the project = by using culverts, swales, and preserved areas of the site in a manner intended to La r duplicate predevelopment conditions. c E Flood protection will be provided to the project by raising buildings, roads, etc. in conformance with South Florida Water Management District criteria for building pad a elevation is the 100-yr./zero-discharge storm elevation and the minimum road elevation is c based on the 25 year storm event. After heavy rainfall events, surface waters stored in the £ ca Z Page 5 of 6 Q Words underlined are added;words 4x-tisk-through are deletions C:\Userstashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\SMIUSZQB\Naples Heritage PUDA-PL-20150000416(10-11-2016).docx Packet Pg. 91 9A5 catchment areas will be slowly discharged through small bleed down structures into the existing preserved wetland slough. Off-site outfalls which receive stormwater discharge from the property will likely undergo modification in the future due to development/modification, at which time modifications to the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club water management plan may be required. v v as C9 Exhibit"A", PUD Master Development Plan, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 95-74, is deleted in its entirety and is hereby replaced by the new Exhibit"A", PUD Master Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein. o. co co ti t0 T O ti O 0- 0 U C6 O NNd 1.L O m U CO V Page 6 of 6 Words underlined are added;words stfusk-through are deletions C:\Userslashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.OUtlook\5MIUSZQB\Naples Heritage PUDA-PL-20150000416(10-11-2016).docx Packet Pg.92 9.A.6 Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Eric Johnson,AICP, CFM,Principal Planner U Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section Z' From: Sue Faulkner,Principal Planner Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section . Date: October 19, 2016 Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review a) a PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ-PL20150001416 -REV 3 PETITION NAME: Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club PUD Rezone a) ca REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting to add a±5.21 acre parcel to the ±558 acres Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club Planned Unit Development (PUD). The rezone of the ±5.21 acres zoned "A" (Rural Agricultural v District)to PUD will allow for the development of additional recreational facilities and a portion of the parcel would be added to the preserve. The petitioner is also requesting to change the southerly 100' of the PUD (totaling±3.0 acres),from"possible future public thoroughfare right-of-way acquisition"to preserve in the PUD. •-• LOCATION: The subject site (±5.21-acre addition) is located ±1/2 mile east of Santa Barbara Blvd., ±1 mile south of Davis Blvd(SR 84) in Section 9,Township 50 South, Range 26 East. c d COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject site is identified as Urban Designation, Urban .y Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). U Policy 5.1 in the Future Land Use Element states, in part, "All rezonings must be consistent with the Growth a. Management Plan." 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 c of this acreage for preserve are both non-residential uses listed(#2-Parks,open space and recreational uses)in the Urban Designation of the FLUE; and therefore are consistent with the GMP. The Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD is located within the Urban Designated Area and therefore is reviewed for consistency with the Density Rating System of the FLUE. A base density of 4 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be allowed in the Urban Designated Area,though this is not an entitlement.This base level of density may be adjusted depending upon the location and characteristics of the project.The Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD(Ordinance 95-74)was approved December 12, 1995 for 799 dwelling units on 558 acres; which is an approved density of approximately 1.43 dwelling units per acre. By adding±5.21 acres (Agricultural parcel)to the±558 acres of the PUD,the PUD would then have a total of 563.21 acres. The density would then be recalculated to a slight reduction to1.42 dwelling units per gross acre (799 dwelling units± 563.21 acres); which Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 93 according to the Density Rating System is well below the base density of 4 dwelling units per gross acre in the Urban Designation. The re-calculated density with the additional acreage is consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. FLUE Policy 5.4(shown below in italics)followed by staff analysis in bold text. FLUE Policy 5.4:New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition.] As the existing PUD is at or near buildout, the proposed addition is small and only proposed for recreation uses, and the other use change is for preserve area, staff deemed it unnecessary to review FLUE Objective 7 and related Policies regarding Smart Growth principles. CONCLUSION This rezone petition may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth c Management Plan. 0 cc: Michael Bosi,AICP,Director,Zoning Division R David Weeks,AICP,Growth Management Manager,Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond V.Bellows,Manager,Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section G:\CDES Planning Services\Consistencv Reviews\2016\PUDZ\PUDZ-PL2015-1416 Naples Heritage R3.docx a) a as z Co ti N N a) a) a: U N r-. N N O U w J U. C a) E t) ns a.+ a) E L C) asPage 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 94 ti;uno3 pue 11o0 e6e;IaeH SeldeN : 9 j, ) luewase3 uol;enaasuo3I0 uO14e3en- L;uewi eny :;uewgoeBy 10 „: a) Q . 0) n: \ EXHIBIT 77A” Y 1.3 SKETCH OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION03 a. LOT 39 1 NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & BLACK B COUNTRY CLUB PHASE TWO—A TRACT C5PB 28, PG 11 CONSERVATION AND BUFFER EASEMENT LOT 6 BLOCK F _______)___________—• S89'35'44"E 24.89' _ "' N89'35'44"W 326.70' R=530,00 A=24.45 CH=S00'34'24"W 24.45' o LOT 5 BLOCK F 10771 SQ. FT. OR O 0.247 ACRES +/-- vi ► /o LOT 4 O BLACK F c rri LS: N N 9' Z Al E-1 1 NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & o / o LOT 3 ', COUNTRY CLUB, INC. w / PARCEL No. 00407440001 0 BLOCK F ,' 1. I 4 O l r a~ - /o r! w41 IAT 2 1 o Ln BLOCK F 1 "1 LOT 1 / 10' CCCBE AS SHOWN co ca BLOCK F �. ON PLAT OF NAPLES C11 to PI HERITAGE GOLF & 0 ( �,'. COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE PB 26, PG 80 !( P.O.B. , L„ ' NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & 589'16'53"W 24.55' COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE Z PB 26, PG 73 b p w TRACT C5 61 Q CONSERVATION AND BUFFER EASEMENT j7 z (( cs SEGN£� a `` 7!t G 4 w TRACT RW4 ut0 100' FUTURE RIGHT—OF—WAY RESERVATION William C. McAnly, P.S.M. #1543 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON SHEET 1 OF 2 _SKETCH OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION McANLY ENGINEERING VACATION OF EASEMENT AND DESIGN INC. IIIN NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF&COUNTRY CLUB ENGINEERING, PLANNING, AND LAND SURVEYING Ink PHASE TWO-A 2025 Jac BOULEVARD-slur!5 NAPLES,FLORIDA 34109 1111111k 1 ADD£0 CCCBE TO VACATION AREA 06/17/16 SCALE: 1..1001019N.:R.N. ICHK.;N.K.RJDATE:1/15/16 (234)693-3299 FAX(239)593-3298 NO. REVISIONS DATE COPYRIGHT,2016 ST WANLY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN,91C.AU.RIONTS RESERVED PROJECT: 130209 ) SHEET; 2 OF 2 ti;uno3 pue 1100 e6e;IJaH seldeN : 9LpZ) ;uawase3 uol;eAiasuo310 uol;eoeA-L :;uawgoe;;b fs: topi McANLY ENGINEERING ak AND DESIGN INC. 011111111, CIVIL ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LL.' EXHIBIT " A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PORTION OF THE CONSERVATION BUFFER EASEMENT TRACT C5 AND A PORTION OF THE 10' CCCBE EASEMENT CONTAINED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION TO BE VACATED LOCATED IN NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF&COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AUGUST 17,2016 BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT I,BLOCK F OF NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF&COUNTRY CLUB PHASE TWO A,AS RECORDED IN THE LAND RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY IN PLAT BOOK 28 PAGE 11 AND RUNNING THENCE,CROSSING THE EXISTING CONSERVATION BUFFER EASEMENT(TRACT C5)AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF&COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE, AS RECORDED IN SAID LAND RECORDS IN PLAT BOOK 26 PAGES 73 THROUGH 80 ; S89°16'53"W 24.55' TO THE OUTLINE OF THE LANDS CONVEYED TO NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB IN O.R BOOK 3690 PAGE 2610;THENCE BINDING THEREON N00°43'07"W 440.82' TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL;THENCE CROSSING THE EXISTING CONSERVATION BUFFER EASEMENT,AFORESAID S89°35'44"E 24.89' TO THE WESTERLY OUTLINE OF COLONIAL COURT AS SHOWN ON THE AFORESAID PLAT OF PHASE TWO A; THENCE BINDING THEREON BY A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT IN A SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION OF RADIUS 530.00' AN ARC DISTANCE OF 24.45', SAID ARC BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING S00°34'24"W 24.45';THENCE S00°44'53"E 222.24' TO THE NORTHWES IERLY CORNER OF LOT 1 AFORESAID;THENCE BINDING ON THE WESTERLY OUTLINE OF LOT 1, S00°44'53"E 193.65' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 10771 SQ.FT OR 0.247 ACRES MORE OR LESS PREPARED BY: 'Atc,(1:{qfr-ly e--/(71; I � WILLIAM C. McANLYP.S.M. FLORIDA REGISTRATION NO. 1543 McANLY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC. 2025 J&C BLVD. SUITE 5 NAPLES FL 34109 2025 J&C BOULEVARD-SUITE 5 NAPLES,FLORIDA 34109-6204 PHONE(239)693-3299 FAX(239)593-3298 9.A.S \apLrø Baiill rWø NaplesNews.com Published Daily Naples,FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee 0 Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Daniel McDermott who on oath says that 0 he serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples,in Collier Coun- c ty,Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published 5 at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida,and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published 0 in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as rn second class mail matter at the post office in Naples,in said Collier County,Florida,for a period of one year next pre- N ceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid r. nor promised any person,or corporation any discount,rebate,commission or refund for the purpose of securing this z advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. d rn Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.# ca BCC/ZONING DEPARTMENT 1324933 PUBLIC HEARING 45-172052 z Co I.- Tr •Tr (.1 Pub Dates October 28,2016 c 0 ca w 0 z 0) 0 J 01 C d E .00 R 4+ Qr r+ C 0 E s to RMit� �',,Ya Q (Sign ture of affiant) Ilbillhollwillhodirillirdhidlrialbriandire Sworn to and subscribed before me I J;VP4'4, IVONNE GOBI ` �` Notary Public-State of Florida • This Novemb 04,2016 I Commission s FF 900870 ..4 ,� �- T' My Comm.Expires Jul 16,2019 I ��' .� ", Bonded through National Notary Assn, (Signatur of affiant) ' Packet Pg. 97 Naples Daily News Friday,October 28.2016 23. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE , Notice is herebygiven that apublic hearing will be held bythe Collier CountyPlanning 9 Commission at 9:00 A.M.,on Thursday,November 17,2016,in the Board of Count) 6..a s Commissioner's Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiam C i Trail East,Naples FL.,to consider: EC lee#4 '1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GOLLIEF y,A. 4004 COUNTY,FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE N0.2004-41,AS AMENDED,THE V ne COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE RS wS COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF a . "'# # COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS CB (.9 MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY(RSF-1)FOR PROPERTY LOCATES 0) ON THE WEST SIDE OF MORGAN ROAD,APPROXIMATELY 750 FEET NORTH OF C SABAL PALM ROAD IN SECTION 23,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST Q COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,CONSISTING OF 5.70 ACRES;AND BY PROVIDING C W AN EFFECTIVE DATE-]RZ PL20165001132] O = <0 = 0 \ ../ Eg `, - - „..,„0„, Q N W I Qtarget PABLOM F2 MONSNAILAe m Rattlesnake Hammock CO to e M 'Modem criminals targetAmnio s bath from inside our borders and from abroad Assistant 5 Z z < n. Attorney General lathe Caldwell says. Feds charge dozens in IRS �,, P o en t agent immigration scam U C All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposec O KEVIN JOHNSON living abroad-The court documents also ORDINANCE will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office. N USA TODAY outlined charges against five call center fourth floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 401. Cb operations. Naples,FL,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be floc WASHINGTON-Federal authorities "This is a transnational problem,and with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prior to Thursday,November 17• co . c, unsealed an indictment Thursday charg- demonstrates that modern criminals tar- 2016. C tar- ing 56 people in a vast scheme in which get Americans both from inside our bor- J (1) 0_ O suspects posed as Internal Revenue Ser- dere and from abroad,"Assistant Atter- If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning a to t •"r vice agents and immigration authorities ney General Leslie Caldwell said of the Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he wil U i >` CQ- to siphon more than$300 million from three-year investigation. need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that e U thousands of unwitting victims. The co-conspirators, according to verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony anc ZC C) C +-' U The scheme,which employed a net- federal authorities,used so-called"ha- evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. g 0 work of telephone call centers based in wala transfers"in which money is trans- If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order tc U C)) N India,relied on personal information ob- ferred internationally outside of the for- participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision o T Q < (I) 0 tamed from data brokers to target at mal banking system to direct extorted certain assistance.Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Divisionis least 15,000 victims with threats of fines, funds to accounts belonging to U.S: located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-c deportation or imprisonment if they did based individuals. 8380,at least two days prior to the meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing 0 not pay fees to clear fictitious deporla- In the case of a San Diego victim, impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. X don warrants and phony tax debts. prosecutors allege that a call center ex- In the thousands of cases where sic- torted$12,300 from the 85-year-old wom- '0 tiros did agree to settle the fictitious ac- an after threatening her with arrest if Collier County Planning Commission counts,the money allegedly was laun- she did not settle phony tax violations. Mark Strain,Chairmanw I derail through groups of U.S.co-conspir- The same day that the payment was 1 C ators using wire transfers and debit made,a US.-based suspect allegedly g '— cards, loaded a debit card in the amount of the Id) Twenty of the 24 U.S.suspects have payment to purchase money orders in N been arrested,officials said Thursday. Frisco,Texas. October 28,2016 Ne.1324914 Thirty-two suspects were believed to be b.>r«a X M w M X ° NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING C 0 NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE Y N < V < Notice is hereby given that a pubic hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning e s- Z M Z Commission at 9:00 AM.,on Thursday,November 17,2016,In the Board of County Notice is hereby given that a puSic boring we be held by Me new County Planning Commission stuns as in,Z Commissioner's Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami loom niannlng agemy and as the E,Vnonmentel Advisory Council,.se AM.,on ma,November 17,201e,it v Trail East,Naples FL,to consider. r County commissioners ot,Meeting Room,Tnnd HoColder Government Center,vase Tamami nag East 3 a) AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COWER "edea F".* a Q COUNTY FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.95-74,THE NAPLES HERITAGE c E GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND AMENDING AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.2004-41,THE COWER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ORDINANCE NUMBER 69-19 COMMONLY MOWN AS THE REGENCY AUTOHAUS PLANNED owl L s- •• BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING DEVELOPMENT,BY DELETING PROVISIONS RELATING To RESTORA-ION of WETLAND SITE AND ALOwa a) QTIE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL 5.213 ACRES OF LAND ZONED OFFSITE PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION TO ACCOMMODATE ADJn10NAL PARKING ON TRACT 0;B1 a E C > RURAL AGRICULTURAL(A)TO NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PUD; ADOINOTWOACCuosrviNTSONHAZEL ROAD:BYDELEeisC OUTDATED PROVISIONS:9YADOING DEVIATION; I O_ I— BY REVISING THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION;BY ADDING A RECREATION AREA TO RELATING To OFFsmE PRESERVES,USABLE OPEN SPACE AND ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS:BY REVISING u i TRACT A;BY REVISING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS;BY AMENDING THE MASTER THE MASTER PLAN To RECONFIGURE THE WILDLIFE AND RETENTION AREA AND DEPICT THE PARKING. E Z N N 0 PLAN;BY ADDING A TENNIS CENTER CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND A LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT 00Ev,BY DELETING FIGURES AND ATTACHMENTS,BY CORREClNG ACREAGE of THE u -a [O N p BUFFER EXHIBIT;AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, PROJECT FROM,e.o ACRES To 15.44 ACRES AND eY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE THE PROPERTY u < C U CONSISTING OF 563vACRES,IS LOCATED SOUTH OF DAMS BOULEVARD AND WEST LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AIRPonf-PULLING ROAD,NORTH OF HAZEL ROAD AND SOUTH OFwESTVIEs t OF COLDER BOULEVARD IN SECTIONS 3,4,9 AND 10,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE DRIVE N SECTION 1,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY.FLORIDA CONSISTING Of 26 EAST,COWER COUNTY,FLORIDA]PUDZ-PL20150001416] 16.04:ACRES.[PETITION PUDA-Pcvviuv001ese1 - �° \r- � J t m'°' n s § PROJECT 1—! °'moI i PROJECTS. e 1LOCATION S' t /4.' —P 1 gig, All interested parties am invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE All interested parties we invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed will be made available for inspection at the Collar County Clerk's office,fourth floor,Collier Count tea (0 ORDINANCE will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office, Government Caere,.3299 East Tamiami Trail,sues 401,Naples,FL,one week peer to the scheduler Litt r fourth floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 401, hearing.Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prior n 4...4 0 Naples,FL one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be fled Thursday,November 17,2016. 0 0 with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prior to Thursday,November 17, ^4.4, -i Al` 2016- If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Calker County Planning Commission win �I .j`jyjl}rr \ If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hean g,he will need a record of that proceeding COCommission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will and for such purpose he may meed to ensure that a verbatim recon or the proceedings is made,whirr ♦'/�,L�/, co W need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Z N verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon U On which the sal la to be based. a you area person with a disabico who needs arty accommodation in order to participate in Ma thepry u) P PPproceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance.Please contact the !"� d�� If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to Collar County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335Tamiemi Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,Ft Iet W participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of 34112-5356,12391202-8300,at least two days prior to the meeting.Assisted hemming devices for the 11� Q lacertain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, hearing impaired are avalaNe in the Board of County Commissioners Office. t;issl+f 2 0 located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252- 8380,at least two days prior to the meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing Collier County Planning Commission N+♦.)1 impaired are available In the Board of County Commissioner's Office. Mark Shan,Chairman V Collier County Planning Commission lret O Mark Strain,Chairman LsuOctober 28,2016 ND-1324933 October 28,2016 Ne.132495E / CO tt 1.5 4 A 1, Packet Pg.98 9.x.9.. Petition No. PUDZ-PL20150001416 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE FOR PROVIDING INDIVIDUAL MAIL NOTICE TO AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS 1. I hereby certify that pursuant to Subsections 10.03.05.B.8 and 10.03.05.B.10 of the Collier County Land Development Code. I did give v notice of the public hearing before the Collier County Planning c 0 Commission scheduled for November 17, 2016 by U.S. mail to the -0 affected property owners at the addresses provided to me by the Collier „° 0 County Property Appraiser's Office on October 28, 2016. A copy of the 0 m a list of addresses from the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office is in •L attached to this Affidavit. 1 cn a, a co 2. Copies of the letters mailed to the affected property owners are attached to Z co this Affidavit. N Dated this dayof 4 A ' 16. o 'TT's w r 0 Z 1 a d J Sign.,ttre a 11. 5 c. c. Pnn' Name Eyr_____ .1i 12 con , c Print Title IS r a 1 of 2 Packet Pg.99 9A9 STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) ss COUNTY OF COLLIER) BEFORE ME, a duly authorized notary of the State of Florida, personally appeared [y�� t 1 -ip t s , who is personally known to me or produced rt VLC 1 � as identification, and under oath stated that the above is true and con•ect v and to the best of his/her knowledge. C O 11.,ov C DATED this 3 day of 2016. t R O \``\' t DIAM� i �'. is&oN 04, Notary, State of Florida L : ��Noa,?oaf• t i C,( otry)cYc, s �kfFgg8i1q "� Notary Printed Name �09 o o��'' ` 9` ° I�tState�°.;,\f‘ 44.1.��Q CNI My commission expires: to 47.C O to V 'rr O Z C) d J Cr) C tU E t C) R z C d E C.) to 2of2 Packet Pg. 100 COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department October 19, 2016 Dear Property Owner: This is to advise you that because you may have interest in the proceedings or you own property located within 500 feet (urban areas) or 1,000 feet (rural areas) of the following described property, that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission at 9:00 A.M., on November 17, 2016, in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL., to consider: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 95-74, the V Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Planned Unit Development, and amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, the Collier 8 County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning U classification of an additional 5.21± acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club ,a 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 o an effective date. The subject property, consisting of 563± acres, is located south of Davis Boulevard and west of Collier C9 Boulevard in Sections 3, 4, 9 And 10, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [PUDZ- PL20150001416] You are invited to appear and be heard at the public hearing. You may also submit your comments in writing. a NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO z SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE ti WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL N A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS w INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY STAFF MEMBER NOTED c BELOW, A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. 0 z Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the E, proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. o) If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are m entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management £ Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days 5 prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. a 4- This petition, and other pertinent information related to this petition, is kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Department building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Please contact the s staff member noted below at (239)-252-2931 to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file. Sincerely, Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM,LEED Green Associate Principal Planner Packet Pg. 101 1 '' 9.A.9 gi J AI /III% � [ < i Pi it <° I l 61' _ i P7121.----minr, `II►/l�ll�llll�lllllllllllllll„/; `,.` I -i i. �Sr fsii.,,,,,,,, rr �``♦O E ``I ' „/ p\1111 11 •. ` II f- \\\\11111111111p\ \I — ��Iliii..----� II 1 ♦O`,\g111111111111\ 111111111111 ��)1 � E 111111►►�,��� a 1111[111,LilirillilliW E 911r�o% R� m o 4RI lp it 111 `O���ttm Q \111111///1�1111�1og 111111\”'\`\ --1 • u �IIII/lllllllllllllllll\\\\ 4, Ihiliiiiiiiii..,..?. Ls//Itlasslo t\ 1\ r I"1 V \1�\t111i11s1// `/ 3 4.,.. zhi. Eill 7:, II%I, , Airigi i,.......d'it. Y � 1..., ., ,�ilkas/►pnluII/-t 1 �� I �� O t , lanumm. a \ 0 i \1►, _ �i �//lllllf� I �j y 175 w� O qi4 v�IIIIINIIIi1vv�vvIIIIIIII►� �11W — a1 i��G`�1\\\\O ��i���i�� CIII111111110., ./11 il . 10 1s '*1/11° \\ 11111111111111111►�'� ,NIIIltiB6b lttl/$10-11KEIS/t%ttsons i •ti' i I i ,, itt%\\\ J 981 .:� \ LI/11111►I//IIIIIIIIIIID♦ 11111Mragsgam, IIIco_ 111111:11 y #4i#,.... 11uu1uu1111�11111iW1uu..... (71S1 1g c■ 111 1 - •.1 <1 a' ozs _i.`i.�44, i/nu wo z ba mumurt,.. ■11nIWl _�== I 1.1 L— 1 I N Z d cfl 3NOS 0110N a, N D N a = t O_ — z CU Wa S 5 g o o 1— Z N x o a og 1 1 W g. t b z1J U p a rcz a C51 U N O 2 UG 15°-. N w= Q = ^ Q J 1ss'a'a J 8 2183 EL_ il f,1 1`z I /'1 d aaVA3lfloa a3llloa U W Q - ', aaVA3lfloS x311100 1.S6 210I L.L I W� g `s wii SN gi Ur n g� i �S dz I- om c g i�*5 1II iv 61 li �g 3 44 illgii . 32 gg w . g ! tai < w �ig 3 0 5 1 : z w^ NOIL____ mi. B= IL<6 31:4 o F F TA /l db = owns-mos � O i <� 5$ _ _ Vatl9atl9 V1NVS aaVA3lflo I VaVsave So m $gp m W ii <a p m m =5� m w<= wi 6 .10 E ; � i i 'L' 3`-' 2x '980 r ¢ << po Wm W V m N N 2 m p K Z N m4 dN N t<.Y MI Q 2 Z ❑ 17, 01021 NaVB Al NNO0 dSWIM� 111=111 I '"'" PIS 'r 'lig Packet Pg. 102 c t V9a36N3L1IHM S Qu S 3LNIOd WHOm� � � J. 9.A.10 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday,December 13,2016, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Floor, Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples FL, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will consider the enactment of a County Ordinance. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M.The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows: The purpose of the hearing is to consider: _3 U AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Z' AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.95-74,THE NAPLES HERITAGE c GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, c AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, THE COLLIER O COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,BY AMENDING THE U APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING N '0 THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL O 5.21± ACRES OF LAND ZONED RURAL AGRICULTURAL *ca - (A) TO NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB O PUD; BY REVISING THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION; BY ti.o ADDING A RECREATION AREA TO TRACT A; BY REVISING n V, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; BY AMENDING THE MASTER ;° d PLAN; BY ADDING A TENNIS CENTER CONCEPTUAL a SITE PLAN AND A LANDSCAPE BUFFER EXHIBIT; AND K* a PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, z w CONSISTING OF 563± ACRES, IS LOCATED SOUTH OF o I DAVIS BOULEVARD AND WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD IN m in SECTIONS 3,4,9 AND 10,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 26 y EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA.[PUDZ-PL201500014161 c a co A copy of the proposed Ordinance is on file with the Clerk to the w Z Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are iv invited to attend and be heard. ca ca o, r` NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must Z N register with the County manager prior to presentation of aa, the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be 13 ch limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of any individual w e� to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. M a If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. 4"• _ Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in m 'c the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered bythe Board shall c) Q be submitted to thea appropriate County staff a minimum of , seven days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in 'a presentations before the Board will become a permanent part ca of the record. Ta Any person who decides to a a ppeal any decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and J therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the ,i.; proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and c evidence upon which the appeal is based. m If you are a person with a disability who needsany accommodation t in order to participate in this proceeding.you are entitled, at co no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please = contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, <Q located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101.Naples,FL 34112- 5356, (239) 252.8380. at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA CHAIRMAN DONNA FIALA DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK By: Martha Vergara,Deputy Clerk (SEAL) November 23,2016 No.1364071 Packet Pg. 103 ry 01/10/2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ***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 9A and 9C). OBJECTIVE: To adopt a Resolution to 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,being more specifically shown in Exhibit A. CONSIDERATIONS: Petition VAC-PL20160001403 has been received by the Development Review Division,Growth Management Department,from Gina R. Green,P.E.,of Gina R.Green,P.A.,as agent for the applicant,Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club,Inc.,to vacate 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, as further described in Exhibit A to the attached Resolution. The Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club, Inc., is proposing to vacate Tract RW4 of the Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club Phase One Plat. Tract RW4 was dedicated to Collier County as a"road right-of-way" with responsibility for maintenance, and is labeled as"100' Future Right-of-Way Reservation" on the plat. It is approximately 100 feet wide and 1,307 feet long, and is undeveloped. According to the Quit-Claim Deed dated December 30, 2002, recorded in O.R. Book 3187, Page 106, the Petitioner, Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club,Inc.,is fee simple owner of Tract RW4. Tract RW4 was platted as a future right-of-way for the County in the Phase One plat in order to provide for a portion of a possible future right-of-way corridor between County Barn Road and Collier Boulevard. According to County staff, this right-of-way tract is no longer necessary, as the right-of-way corridor can no longer be developed because land to the east of the tract(to Collier Boulevard) are wetlands encumbered by conservation easements. Moreover, the applicant intends to place a conservation easement in favor of the County over Tract RW4 and will provide the conservation easement once the South Florida Water Management District and Army Corps of Engineers complete their review of the SDP for the adjacent Tennis Center to the west. Placing this tract under a conservation easement will allow for expansion of the larger adjacent preserve area to the north(Tract C5 of the Phase One plat). For these reasons,the proposed request will not result in public detriment. A Resolution to set this hearing date (Resolution No. 2016-243) was approved by the Board of County Commissioners(Board)on November 15,2016. Staff has reviewed this petition and found no reason for objection. A Letter of No Objection was received from Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club, Inc. Moreover, a letter of objection has been received from the adjacent owner of lot 1 to the east(See attached letters). FISCAL IMPACT: The Growth Management Department,Development Review Division staff has collected a $2,000 "Petition to Vacate" fee from the petitioner which covers the County's cost of recording and processing the Petition. 01/10/2017 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management plan impact associated with this Executive Summary. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Petitioner is requesting the vacation 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. Pursuant to Resolution 2013-166 and Florida Statutes Sections 336.09 and 336.10, the Board, with respect to property under their control,upon petition of any person or persons,may adopt a resolution to vacate, abandon, discontinue and close any existing public or private street, alleyway, road, highway, or other place used for travel, or any portion thereof, other than a state or federal highway, and to renounce and disclaim any right of the County and the public in and to any land in connection therewith,when the following criteria are met: 1. The request is in the interest of the general public welfare,or no public detriment is established. 2. The request does not invade or violate individual property rights. Moreover, pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 177.101, the Board may adopt resolutions vacating plats in whole or in part of subdivisions when the following criteria are met: 1. The request will not affect the ownership or right of convenient access of persons owning other parts of the subdivision. 2. The Petitioner owns the fee simple title to the whole or that part of the parcel sought to be vacated. This item has been approved as to form and legality and requires a majority vote for Board approval. -SAS RECOMMENDATION: To approve the attached Resolution, relating to Petition VAC-PL20160001403, which will vacate 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,being more specifically shown in Exhibit A.Direct the Clerk of Courts to record a certified copy of the Resolution in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and to make proper notation of this Resolution on the plat of Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club, Phase One, as recorded in Plat Book 26,Page 73,of the public records of Collier County,Florida. Prepared By: Marcus L. Berman, P.S.M., County Land Surveyor, Development Review Division, Growth Management Department ATTACHMENT(S) 1.LONO Naples Heritage CC (PDF) 2.Resolution- 121416 (PDF) 3. Objection Letter from Joe Huber (PDF) 4.Email from Joe Huber Tract RW4 (PDF) 5.Legal ad-Agenda ID 2199 (PDF) 01/10/2017 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.B Item Summary: ***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). Meeting Date: 01/10/2017 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst, Senior—Administrative Services Department Name: Bendisa Marku 12/13/2016 1:58 PM Submitted by: Title:Project Manager,Principal—Growth Management Department Name: Matthew McLean 12/13/2016 1:58 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Division Reviewer Completed 12/13/2016 2:08 PM Growth Management Development Review John Houldsworth Additional Reviewer Completed Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees,and Program Management Trinity Scott Additional Reviewer Completed Growth Management Department Matthew McLean Additional Reviewer Completed 12/14/2016 2:35 PM Growth Management Department James French Additional Reviewer Completed 12/14/2016 6:58 PM County Attorneys Office Scott Stone Level 2 Attorney Review Completed 12/15/2016 9:33 AM Growth Management Department David Wilkison Level 2 Division Administrator Completed 12/15/2016 11:14 AM Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 12/15/2016 2:29 PM County Attorneys Office Jeffrey A.Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 12/15/2016 4:41 PM Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 12/20/2016 3:15 PM County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 12/27/2016 3:56 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 01/10/2017 9:00 AM .fig•.. ((Z)lenoJddd PMb it a6e;ueH seldeN-OVA : LLVZ) OO e6e1uaH saideN ONO1 :;ueuly3e4V Oi NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB� d' il August 15,2016 To Whom It May Concern: The Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club, Inc.submits this letter as acknowledgement that we are the applicant for the Vacation of Right-of-way for Tract RW4 of Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club, Phase One and have no objection to the vacation of this right-of-way, Sincerely, ,6f) (7,) 0 , i t Iiild 1,2 David Beiser, President Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club,Inc. 8150 Heritage Club Way.Naples,Florida 34112 239-437-2555 •Fax239-417-1717 RESOLUTION NO.2017- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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 o PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE EAST OF a SANTA BARBARA BLVD, AND 1 MILE SOUTH OF DAVIS BLVD, IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, cc COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PETITION VAC-PL20160001403) WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2013-166, Gina R. Green, P.E., of Gina R. Green, P.A., on behalf of the Petitioner, has requested the vacation of the County and the Public interest in Tract RW4, an approximately 100-foot wide, 1,300-foot long tract a 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, being more specifically described in Exhibit A,attached hereto; and WHEREAS, at its November 15, 2016 regular meeting, the Board of Commissioners, via Resolution No. 2016-243, approved the scheduling of a public hearing on December 13,2016, pursuant to Resolution 2013-166; and N WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, on this day, held a public hearing to consider the petitioner's request and notice of said public hearing was given as required by law; and 0 a) WHEREAS, the granting of the Petitioner's request will not adversely affect the ownership or right of convenient access of the property owners. E NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY a COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that 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, being more specifically shown in Exhibit A, is hereby vacated, extinguished, renounced and disclaimed, and this action is declared to be in the Public interest and for the Public benefit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Clerk to the Board is hereby directed to record a certified copy of the Resolution in the Public Records of Collier 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 108 9.B.2 County, Florida and to make proper notation of this Resolution on the plat of Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Phase One, Plat Book 26, Page 73 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same, this the day of , 2017. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 0 L 0. By: , Deputy Clerk DONNA FIALA, Chairman ceApproved as to form and legality: vcs By: IA I8- tt-t//Lo Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney ti h • Attachments: 1. Exhibit A 2. Location-Site Map 0 0 m cc 4- E V -. 4- 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 109 IMcANLY ENGINEERING 9.B.2 _ AND DESIGN INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING EXHIBIT "A " LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRACT RW4 TO BE VACATED LOCATED IN NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF& COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA FEBRUARY 3,2016 N COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50S, RANGE 26E, To AND RUNNING THENCE BINDING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 9, S89°24'20"E 2 3268.58' TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT RW4 OF NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & a COUN 1RY CLUB PHASE ONE,AS RECORDED IN THE LAND RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY IN PLAT BOOK 26 PAGES 73 THROUGH 80,AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; iri THENCE BINDING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT RW4,NO0°43'07"W 100.03'; THENCE it BINDING ON THE NORTHERLY OUTLINE THEREOF, S89°24'00"E 1307.42' TO THE CD EAS I'ERLY OUTLINE THEREOF; THENCE BINDING ON THE EASTERLY OUTLINE, co S00°41'08"E 100.03' TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL AND THE _ SOUTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 9; THENCE BINDING THEREON N89°24'00"W 1307.36' TO m THE POINT OF BEGINNING. z CONTAINING 130,789 SQ.FT OR 3.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS F N. 1. PREPARED BY: ," / i (Cs7r r 1 lF c x Q WILLIAM C. McATNLY P.S.M. FLORIDA REGISTRATION NO. 1543 6 0 ce McANLY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC. c 2025 J& C BLVD. SUITE 5 E NAPLES FL 34109 co z a Pt 20160001 4 03 REV 1 2025 J&C BOULEVARD-SUITE 5 NAPLES,FLORIDA 34109-6204 PHONE(239)593-3299 FAX(239)593-3298 ^ Packet Pg 110 9.B.2 EXHIBIT "A" SKETCH OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & ili COUNTRY CLUB PHASE TWO—A PB 28. PG it LOT 9 BLOCK F LAT 8 ,T39 LAT7BLACK F CK B BLOCK F N LAT 8 ca BLOCK F 2 a a ., Q LOT 5 et BLACK F re LAT a NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & H LI BLOCK F COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE 4) 1 - PB 26, PGS. 73-80 co 0 Z 1, z i 0 z a 0 0 O BLOCKLOT 3F TRACT C5 o z w m o w CONSERVATION AND BUFFER EASEMENT x _. o cc y E E"O O 0 al O F a t LAT 2 * GD g C Z x C4 z 0f BLACK F tD LAT 1 O U C Q m 0 W . BLOCK O v c P,,PA . � - 'a ^ W � ti zl. 0 0 N p 0 a) N00'43'07"W a 100.03' 58924'00"E 1307.42' %j //////////////////////////130,780 SO. FT. OR 3.00 ACRES / /"Y% / W4/ / //./I/7*' '- —40 S89'24'20"E N89'24'00"W 1307.36' ' ` " m 3268.58' (U) P.O B. S004108E P.O.C. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT RW4 100.03' ce SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 9 c S.D. CORPORATION OF NAPLES, INC. COUNTY PARCEL No. 00418640007 0 f- UNPLATTED CO a 6 SIGNED._' � F' "� % /3�� William C. McAnly, P.S.M. #1543 PI 20Th 0 0 0 14 0 3 REV 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON SHEET 1 OF 2 SKETCH OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION McANLY ENGINEERING — VACATION OF EASEMENT AND DESIGN INC. III 111 N ENGINEERING,SURVEYING NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB AM)LAND St1RVE`AD►C PHASE TWO-A 2025 J&C BOULEVARD -SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109 Elk• SCALE:1'"200'I OWN.:R.H. ICHK.:M.K.RIDATE: 1/15/16 (239)593-3299 FAX(239)593-3298 N0. REVISIONS DWN DATE COPYRIGHT, 2016 BY MEANLY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN. INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT: 130209 Packet Pg. 111 9.B.2 ',,.,..!_...,,,.._f °loyal \1 Z a t__...N_______Th___N__ W U Irki mQ WU Ctj 9.8.3 Marcus L. Berman, P.S. M. County Land Surveyor Development Review Division Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples Florida 34104 September 20.2016 c`i 0 RE: Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club a Vacation of Easement Petition VAC-PL20160001406 ce Dear Mr. Berman, I- We are the owners of Lot 1 in the Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club plan of lots show as ca Folio 61870001621 on the site plan for vacation submitted by Gina R. Green, P.A. Per my conversationL. with Scoot Stone and Eric Johnson objecting to this vacation,this letter is to express our written objection t to the vacation of this easement. In support of this we cite the following reasons: a R 1. Vacation of this easement would eliminate the quiet and peaceful enjoyment by us and Z other residents of Colonial Court a totally single family residential neighbor. 2. We paid a premium for this property location because of the charartistics of the neigh hood and the unique nature of this area in Naples Heritage.The easement enhanced these ti characteristics of Colonial Court. 3. The single family homes on Colonial Court are the only single family homes not on Naples ea Heritage Drive the main thoroughfare in the Naples Heritage Community which makes the 3 street unique. _ 4. Development of the adjacent parcel will substantially increase traffic on Colonial Court and the intersection at Naples Heritage drive.The addition of an entrance to this development E close to this intersection will create a hazardous and unsafe condition. I 5. Colonia Court cul de sac is used by all residents of Naples Heritage for walking jogging and bicycle riding both by adults and children.The resultant increased traffic and intersection J will result in a safety hazard for these individuals. 6. The easement provides a buffer for our property from any development including the proposed in this plan. The proposed landscape buffer is insufficient to prevent the .o� disruption and attendant noise and activity associated with a recreational area 0 7. At the time of our purchase of our lot,the property sought to be developed for the tennis courts was not owned by the PUD. It was purchased to prevent further development with the objective of preventing additional traffic in this neighborhood and the community. c Development of this site is inconsistent with this objective, and imposes a development never contemplated by the original developers or the purchasers of Colonial Court. Q 8. All of land to the south east and west is currently either wooded, conservation or preserve. Except for the six single family homes.Vacation this easement and the subsequent development of a recreational area on the adjacent property will have a negative environmental impact on birds and wildlife as well the residents of Colonial Court. 9. Vacation of this property and adding fill, and changing the contours of the land could negatively impact the water flow drainage and potential for standing water in the area Packet Pg.113 9.B.3 thereby impacting adjacent property owners. 10. There are no other recreational areas in the single family residential portion of Naples Heritage PUD:yet this plan seeks to prose one on these residents. 11. Vacation of this easement will negatively impact the property values of residents of Colonial Court. The letter submitted with this with this vacation request states and I quote "there is an indirect public benefit of vacating this conservation easement". We see no public benefit and a lot of adverse impact on us,the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent property owners. 0 The Naples Heritage PUD has available property that could be utilized to develop this tennis facility near a the existing clubhouse,golf club, swing pool and restaurant. Adding this existing tract rather than a developing it would add to the preserve and conservation area in the PUD. In our view and many others there has not been a good faith attempt to pursue another location for the tennis courts. If this were a new development, no developer would propose to put a recreation facility a) such as proposed here in the midst of a single family residential area nor would a municipality in my `o view approve such a plan without serious review and questioning. In the instant case,they seek to impose such a Plan on residents some of whom have resided in the community for decades, and have done so with misrepresentations and half-truths. ca We ask that you reject the application for Vacation of this conservation Easement. Respectfully Submitted, N d a) Joseph h V. Huber Barbara M. Huber E 3645 SR 982 Latrobe, Pa 15650 w -J 0 77,v a) .�� 0 r C a) E C) R Packet Pg.114 9.B.4 BermanMarcus From: Huber,Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 1:53 PM To: BermanMarcus Subject: Objection to Petition for Vacation of Road Right of Way Petition VAC PL 2016-0001403 Dear Mr. Berman, I writing to formally object to the Petition of Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club to Vacate a Road Right of Way set ra forth above as this is a companion to Petition for Vacation with VAC PL 2016-1406 for which I have filed written 2 objections. I object for the same reasons set forth in my objections VAC PL 2016-1406 Q- a Q Tr cc it, a) al co a) 2 N O a ca Z U > ti ti N Tr re 2 i I— B G) I d O E O I- Fi E W w C O E r U ca Q 1 Packet Pg. 115 9.B.5 Other Public Notices " , Other,Public NjNo NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Notice is hereby given that on December 13, 2016. in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples FL.. N the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will consider the enactment of a County Resolution. The meeting will commenceas at 9:00 A.M.The title of the proposed Resolution is as follows: > L RESOLUTION NO.2016- O- a ARESOLUTIONOFTHEBOARDOFCOUNTYCOMMISSIONERS Q OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,TO DISCLAIM,RENOUNCE, AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN TRACT RW4, AN APPROXIMATELY 100-FOOT WIDE, zCX 1,300-FOOT LONG TRACT DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY I': FORFUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCORDING TO NAPLES la HERITAGE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE, PLAT N �w BOOK 26,PAGE 73 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER G r CCD OUNTY,FLORIDA.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED y APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE EAST OF SANTA BARBARA K y BLVD,AND 1 MILE SOUTH OF DAVIS BLVD,iN SECTION 9, 2 = TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, to FLORIDA.(PETITION VAC-PL20160001403) aNi N A copy of the proposed Resolution is on file with the Clerk to the `' to Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are m invited to attend and be heard. m Q NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County manager prior to presentation of a the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of any individual o to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. m Tr if recognized by the Chairman,a spokesperson for a group or 3 csi organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. cr cu co Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in w N the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum w N of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case. IV 0 o written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall Cr) ca be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in ru presentations before the Board will become a permanent part p w of the record. Q Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board I will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and a therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and R evidence upon which the appeal is based. a J if you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation .l..1in order to participate in this proceeding. you are entitled, at c no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please m contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division. E located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East.Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112- c 5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available r in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Q BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA DONNA FIALA,CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK By: Martha Vergara,Deputy Clerk (SEAL) No.1364106 November 23,2016 Packet Pg. 116 01/10/2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ***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). OBJECTIVE: To adopt a Resolution to 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, located in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, being more specifically shown in Exhibit A. CONSIDERATIONS: Petition VAC-PL20160001406 has been received by the Development Review Division, Growth Management Department, from Gina R. Green, P.E., of Gina R. Green, P.A., as agent for the applicant, Naples Heritage Community Development District, to 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, as further described in Exhibit A to the attached Resolution. According to the plat, the Tract C5 Conservation Area and the Collier County Conservation Buffer Easement were both dedicated to the County without maintenance responsibility, and dedicated to Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club, Inc., with maintenance responsibility. According to the Quit- Claim Deed dated January 8, 1999, recorded in O.R. Book 2507, Page 2235, Naples Heritage Community Development District is fee simple owner of the subject property. The Petitioner is proposing to vacate a portion of Tract C5 and a portion of the 10-foot Collier County Conservation Buffer Easement within Tract C5 in order to develop an adjacent tract of land owned by the Country Club for a new tennis center.The proposed tennis center is currently under SDP review.This portion of the Tract C5 Conservation Area is approximately 0.25 acres (25 feet wide and 440 feet long). It is located between the proposed tennis center tract (to the west) and a 50' private right-of-way and individual lot(to the east). The subject area is within the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD, Ordinance No. 95-74, as amended. This request will not result in public detriment because staff has determined that the preserve acreage for this property would still remain above the minimum required preserve area. The Land Development Code requires 35% native vegetation retention for this property. The total PUD acreage is approximately 563 acres, of which 248.9 acres(44%)are designated as preserve,which exceeds the 35% requirement. The proposed vacation would reduce the total existing preserve acreage by approximately 0.25 acres to approximately 248.65, so the remaining preserve acreage would still exceed the minimum requirement under the LDC. Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club, Inc., has provided a letter of no objection to this request. Moreover, letters of objection have been received from multiple property owners of adjacent lots to the east. The vacation will not affect access to any properties within the subject plat. 01/10/2017 The Development Review Division has reviewed this petition and found no reason for objection. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff has collected a $2,000 "Petition to Vacate" fee from the petitioner which covers the County's cost of recording and processing the Petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management plan impact associated with this Executive Summary. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Petitioner is requesting the vacation of a portion of Tract C5 Conservation Area and a portion of the 10-foot Collier County Conservation Buffer Easement within Tract C5, according to Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Phase One, Plat Book 26, Page 73 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Pursuant to Resolution 2013-166 and Florida Statutes Section 177.101, the Board may adopt resolutions vacating plats in whole or in part of subdivisions in Collier County, returning the property covered by such plats either in whole or in part into acreage,when the following criteria are met: 1. The request is in the interest of the general public welfare,or no public detriment is established; 2. The request does not invade or violate individual property rights; 3. The Petitioner owns the fee simple title to the whole or that part of the parcel sought to be vacated; 4. The vacation will not affect the ownership or right of convenient access of persons owning other parts of the subdivision. Moreover, this request to vacate a conservation easement is consistent with the County's vacation procedures under Resolution 2013-166, and Section 704.06(4), Florida Statutes, which states that "A conservation easement may be released by the holder of the easement to the holder of the fee even though the holder of the fee may not be a governmental body or a charitable corporation or trust." This item has been approved as to form and legality and requires a majority vote for Board approval. - SAS RECOMMENDATION: To approve the attached Resolution,relating to Petition VAC-PL20160001406, which will 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, located in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, being more specifically shown in Exhibit A, Direct the Clerk of Courts to record a certified copy of the Resolution in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and to make proper notation of this Resolution on the plat of Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club, Phase One, as recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 73, of the public records of Collier County, Florida. Prepared By: Marcus L.Berman,P.S.M., County Land Surveyor,Development Review Division, Growth Management Department ATTACHMENT(S) 1.LONO Naples Heritage CC (PDF) 2.Resolution- 121416(1) (PDF) 3.Naples Heritage CDD owner-LONO (PDF) 4. email from Joe Huber-Lot 1 (PDF) 5. Objection Letter Lot 1 Huber (PDF) 01/10/2017 6. Objection Letter Lot 2 Boissonneault (PDF) 7. Objection Letter Lot 3 Case (PDF) 8. Objection Letter Lot 4 Leonard (PDF) 9.Objection Letter Lot 5 Kulbacki(PDF) 10. Objection Letter-Email Rechter (PDF) 11. Legal ad-Agenda ID 2200 (PDF) 01/10/2017 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.0 Item Summary: ***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). Meeting Date: 01/10/2017 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst, Senior—Administrative Services Department Name: Bendisa Marku 12/13/2016 1:55 PM Submitted by: Title:Project Manager,Principal—Growth Management Department Name:Matthew McLean 12/13/2016 1:55 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Division Reviewer Completed 12/13/2016 2:10 PM Growth Management Development Review John Houldsworth Additional Reviewer Completed Growth Management Department Matthew McLean Additional Reviewer Completed 12/14/2016 2:36 PM Growth Management Department James French Additional Reviewer Completed 12/14/2016 6:59 PM County Attorneys Office Scott Stone Level 2 Attorney Review Completed 12/15/2016 9:30 AM Growth Management Department David Wilkison Level 2 Division Administrator Completed 12/15/2016 11:31 AM Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 12/15/2016 2:48 PM County Attorneys Office Jeffrey A.Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorneys Office Review Completed 12/15/2016 4:41 PM Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 12/20/2016 3:15 PM County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 12/27/2016 3:56 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 01/10/2017 9:00 AM ((Z)90 it a6el!JaH seldeN-OVA: BLP ) 00 efe;!JOH seldeN ONOI :luewy3e1Iy NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF 8 COUNTRY CLUB 3 . q) 1 August 15,2016 To Whom It May Concern: The Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club, Inc.submits this letter as acknowledgement that we are the applicant for the Vacation of Right-of-way for Tract RW4 of Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club, Phase One and have no objection to the vacation of this right-of-way. Sincerely, J U 0 d 64,96,..) David Beiser, President Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club,Inc. 8150 Heritage Club Way+Naples.Florida 34112 • 239-417-2555 •Fax 239-417-1717 9.C.2 RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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. (PETITION VAC- d ca PL20160001406) WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2013-166, Gina R. Green, P.E., of Gina R. Green, P.A., on behalf of Petitioner, Naples Heritage Community Development District, has requested the vacation of a portion of Tract C5 Conservation Area, and a portion of ci 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 o0 Records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, being more specifically described in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and to— WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, on this day, held a public hearing to consider the petitioner's request and notice of said public hearing was given as required by law. 0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY ce COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that a portion of Tract C5 u 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, located in co Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, being more specifically shown in Exhibit A, is hereby vacated, extinguished, renounced and disclaimed, and this action is declared to be in the Public interest and for the Public benefit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Clerk to the Board is hereby directed to record a certified copy of the Resolution in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and to make proper notation of this Resolution on the plat of Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Phase One, Plat Book 26, Page 73 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. t of 2 Packet Pg. 122 9.C.2 THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote favoring same, this the day of , 2017. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: U , Deputy Clerk DONNA FIALA, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: °' a By: 1. 1/14/)(4, Scott A. Stone ro Assistant County Attorney N Attachments: (r)-- 1. Location-Site Map v 2. Exhibit A 0 0 N d a, E C) r 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 123 McANLY DESIGN ENGINEERINGINC9 C 2 _ . CIVIL ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING EXHIBIT " A " LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PORTION OF THE CONSERVATION BUFFER EASEMENT TRACT CS AND A PORTION OF THE 10' CCCBE EASEMENT CONTAINED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION TO BE VACATED LOCATED IN NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF& COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA N AUGUST 17,2016 v it BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK F OF NAPLES HERITAGE rn GOLF& COUNTRY CLUB PHASE TWO A, AS RECORDED IN THE LAND RECORDS OF w COLLIER COUNTY IN PLAT BOOK 28 PAGE 11 AND RUNNING THENCE , CROSSING THE 16 EXISTING CONSERVATION BUFFER EASEMENT(TRACT C5)AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF d NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE, AS RECORDED IN SAID LAND oa RECORDS IN PLAT BOOK 26 PAGES 73 THROUGH 80 ; S89°16'53"W 24.55' TO THE OUTLINE ? OF THE LANDS CONVEYED TO NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF &COUNTRY CLUB IN O.R. v a BOOK 3690 PAGE 2610; THENCE BINDING THEREON N00°43'07"W 440.82' TO THE > NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL;THENCE CROSSING THE EXISTING CONSERVATION BUFFER EASEMENT,AFORESAID S89°35'44"E 24.89' TO THE WES I'ERLY N OUTLINE OF COLONIAL COURT AS SHOWN ON THE AFORESAID PLAT OF PHASE TWO A; THENCE BINDING THEREON BY A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT IN A �o SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION OF RADIUS 530.00' AN ARC DISTANCE OF 24.45', SAID ARC BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING S00°34'24"W 24.45'; THENCE S00°44'53"E 222.24' TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1 AFORESAID; THENCE BINDING ON c THE WESTERLY OUTLINE OF LOT 1, S00°44'53"E 193.65' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 0 w CONTAINING 10771 SQ.FT OR 0.247 ACRES MORE OR LESS ccc d PREPARED BY: u Aj� ,.. .7,.. 44,14,11/ (*I ht.* WILLIAM C. McANLY P.S.M. FLORIDA REGISTRATION NO. 1543 McANLY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC. 2025 J&C BLVD. SUITE 5 NAPLES FL 34109 2025 J&C BOULEVARD-SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109-6204 PHONE(239)593-3299 FAX(239)593-3298 raf Packet Pg. 124 9.C.2 \ EXHIBIT "A" SKETCH OF LEGAL' DESCRIPTION LOT 39 NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & BLOCK B COUNTRY CLUB PHASE TWO-A TRACT C5 PB 28, PG 11 CONSERVATION AND BUFFER EASEMENT LOT BLOCK6 F S89'35'44"E 24.89' R=530.00 A=24.45 N89'35'44"14/ 326.70' CH=S00'34'24"W 24.45' o LOT 5 BLOCK F 10771 SQ. FT. OR o 0.247 ACRES + - N N o _ / 4 n L0T 4 0 ', c' H 0 BLOCK F O , ".a_m Z zo /N�= "C NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF' & 0 LOT 3 COUNTRY CLUB, INC. " C BLOCK F x co PARCEL No. 00407440001 / z o 1 ? Q a > $ oD rN N. o N N. O O Tr 9 7/ LOT 2 o i Z5 /' u, BLOCK F yrn 10' CCCBE AS SHOWN v % LOT 1 �/" rn / BLOCK F ON PLAT OF NAPLES N co " ,' HERITAGE GOLF & ,- rn C0 'NTRY CLUB PHASE ' 'cn / C u' ONE PB 26, PG 80 O � P.O.B. - NAPLES HERITAGE COLE & 6 S89'16'53"W 24.55' COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE PB 26, PG 73 ; z ; C 0 Ul TRACT C5 E CA LA CONSERVATION AND BUFFER EASEMENT f.,Q,o tor f a ri 11) Z O fy c Cq I�, o W TRACT RW4 SIGNED J`tj ( 0 0 100' FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION Wil iam C, McAnly, F.S.M. #1543 "1--' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEE LEGAL ;1,t.SCP.IPTION ON SHEET 1 OF 2 MINIM- SKETH Of LEGAL 7:3770:1;11119 McANLY ENGINEERING _ II El VACATrON Or EA Eisi NT AND DESIGN INC. k = ENGINEERING, PLANNING, IlkNAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB AM)LAND SURVEYING NM 11111MBEll PHASE TWO-A 2025 JkC BOULEVARD - SUITE 5 NAPLES,FLORIDA 34109 ADDED CCCBE TO VACATION AREA 08/1 7/16 SCALE: 1'-100 DNN.:R.H. CHK.:I/ /15/1 .K.R DATE: 16 (239)593-3299 FAX(239)593-3298 NO. REVISIONS Packet Pg. 125 (COPYRIGHT, 2016 BY McANLY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT: 130209 9.C.2 8 a 1JYN1 V ° t.,,N,...... .. .....,.> g t> g E 0 V < R i R V (11 V D g W & N N 0 00 4.3v41 1-00 lural ic Al I Kai aitraa!V- 0 412 -1441 I 474 ECRU CD 8 ii 8 <0 a oa. ca er-i SJ 1�Ma1 SO IOWA. g g L1� > x U O . .a� 'a_a S .. CO 3lHOS OIION a.y 0 o h i•-7 CV ;Z °30y ._ CLI +moi_/ �' • o m li ��°�'c c Z M = I I mll J Imm.a ,1 V O 9683 ulli <2 Riiuirn = ar k 4 `Y! 1 W �— �1 lam, cUivoN c cep - z y_� �_ -7 Q L . o O yp �_j ;HAIR y t 3 _ za Wej� U ZV < W G7S m `` 1 88 • .J - > iiiiiv,>. A'gA , N „ oto/ 3 S; 2 }}{ n g° IP7(31-1rIO : Ilk0.d - t i0a ° E ,01_ 1 " if1 i � z u NIn 1111 i .1 ' u,,i......,,,..,,,,,,, 4 \........immiumiii• ; () 'a a . )...c- I ,6" —' ,(�j�� <_ " - U I§ Tj' Ira I : wlll sa> 1i'1í_i L - ISO I ..`, i vera v1wv5 *".‘ V9N1NV���_ �: 3 �. o E ...�31n08 .VBif B •• nall oZ<Z<,<Ni L r r ..„,„, K r _ �lia: W " " n LA f • oa Nage A1Nnoo 11 1 1 c r " J Packet Pg. 126 ((Z)93 al 06e1lJaH seldeN-OVA : 81iZ) ONO1-JeuMo daO e6elP0H saideN :;uawyoef}y vo r4 NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB -41 ? M �. ,,.„, , ..:,,,,-„,-„, September 12,2016 To Whom It May Concern: The Naples Heritage Community Development District submits this letter as acknowledgement that we are the applicant for the Vacation of a portion of the Conservation Easement for Tract C5 of Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club, Phase one and have no objection to the vacation of this Conservation Easement. Sincerely, R-ks. r , Peter J. Lombardi,Chairman t i Naples Heritage Community Development District ( 1 fr 1 i k.i 1 1 7.1 i i if 2 i i J i E x 8150 Heritage Club Way•Naples,Florida 34112 x 239-417-2555 •Fax 239-417-1717 1 ((Z)so it e6elpaH soldeN-OVA : 8LPZ) ONO1-JauMo aao e6ePJeH soldeN :luawgoeBd m MINUTES OF MEETING NAPLES HERITAGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Naples Heritage Community Development District was held on Tuesday,April 5, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. at the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Clubhouse, 8150 Club Way,Naples,Florida. Present and constituting a quorum were: Peter J.Lombardi Chairman Peter Ramundo Vice Chairman Kenneth R.Gaynor Assistant Secretary Gerald James Assistant Secretary Richard Leonhard Assistant Secretary Also present were: Calvin Teague District Manager Patrick Dorbad NHCA General Manager Chad Montgomery HOA Grounds Superintendent The followingis a summaryofthe discussions and actions taken at the April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors meeting FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call The meeting was called to order and all Supervisors were present. SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Comment on Agenda Items There not being any,the next item followed. THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the March 1,2016 Meeting Mr. Lombardi stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the March 1,2016 meeting and requested any corrections,additions or deletions. There not being any, On MOTION by Mr. Ramundo seconded by Mr. Gaynor with all in favor the minutes of the March 1,2016 meeting were approved. ) ((Z)90 a6e;iJeH seldeN-OVA : BLiZ) ONO1-J9uMO aao aBe;UaH seldeN :;uawgoe4y N' U of 0 April 5, 2016 Naples Heritage CDD FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS OId Business A. Update on Lake Fountain • Mr. Gaynor provided an update on the new fountain. White lights were installed as opposed to color lights;which would cost an additional$5,100. • Discussion ensued with regard to installing color lights and it was agreed to leave the white lights as installed. Staff was authorized to pay the remaining invoice balance of$12,078 to the contractor. B. Lake Quality Analysis/Aerator Discussion • Mr. Chad Montgomery reviewed the analysis received from Superior Waterway regarding Lakes 7 and 16. D Dissolved oxygen levels were all above 5.5 ppm. D Organic sedimentation at the bottom of the lakes was less than 8 inches. • Discussion ensued with regard to the analysis and the cost of aerators. It was determined aeration on these two lakes was not needed. • Mr. Montgomery will see how the biological treatments he applied work before any decision on aerators is made. • Additional testing of Lakes was discussed. On MOTION by Mr. Gaynor seconded by Mr. Leonhard with all in favor to continue with analysis of Lakes 11 and 17 in an amount not to exceed$1,500 was approved. FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS New Business A. West Boundary Tree Trimming • Mr. Gaynor addressed the Code Enforcement Notice of Violation received from Collier County for a potential violation regarding the Ficus trees overhanging onto lots on the Firano development which prevent sunlight from penetrating their required plantings. • Discussion ensued with regard to this issue and responsibility for maintaining the area. The CDD owns the property. 2 ((Z)53 al e6e ue-j seIdeN-OVA : 8LvZ) ONO1-aaumo aa0 e6e;laaH seldeN :Imamg3efd 0 ai .11 April 5, 2016 Naples Heritage CDD • District Counsel has noted that the ultimate obligation to maintain this property is with the owner of the property. • Three proposals to have this area cleaned were obtained. Expert Lawn Care,LLC provided the lowest bid in the amount of$5,000. On MOTION by Mr. James seconded by Mr. Leonhard with all in favor the proposal from Expert Lawn Care, LLC in an amount not to exceed$5,500 was approved. • Mr. Gaynor will notify the County that the District is cleaning up the area. SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager's Report A. Approval of Financial Statements • The financial statements for the period ending February 29,2016 were reviewed. > Fountain expense will be reclassified to Field Misc.-Contingency. On MOTION by Mr. James seconded by Mr. Gaynor with all in favor the February 29, 2016 financials were accepted. B. FY 2017 Budget Review • No changes were made to the tentative budget. • It was noted lake levels are still high; but Landshore should be able to return in two weeks to work on structure F10. • The annual Field Inspection Report will be available for the next meeting. • Information for the general election and the tentative fiscal year 2017 budget has been posted on the District website. SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney's Report There not being any,the next item followed. EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's Requests • Supervisor James commented on the five acres the HOA was purchasing and if the CDD would be required to include this area in their preserve obligations. 3 ((Z)90 al e6e;haH saldeN-OyA : 8LPZ) ONO1-JeuMo 000 e6eliaaH saldeN :;ueuayoepd 0 April 5, 2016 Naples Heritage CDD • Discussion ensued with regard to the five acre area and maintenance obligations. • Mr. Teague commented that if it was included in the CDD's responsibilities it would have to be included in the permit which the Board would have to accept. In addition they would have to be given an ownership or land interest position in this area through title or an easement. The CDD would not be forced to accept any new responsibilities they did not want to accept. They could not be forced to accept responsibility or spend funds on private property. NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience Comments There not being any,the next item followed. TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment There being no further business, On MOTION by Mr. Gaynor seconded by Mr.James with all in favor the meeting was adjourned. PA Cal Teague Peter L�bar Secretary Chairman 4 Gina Green From: Huber,Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:45 PM To: 'Gina Green'; chusee@wpa.net Cc: 'Patrick Dorbad' Subject: RE: Patrick Gina. Thank for providing me with the information on the vacation of the conservation easement I have had a busy week and have just had the opportunity to reviewed the material. I do have some questions for you .If you could please give me a call Monday morning. I have some meetings beginning at 9:30. My cell number is 412-680-0509.If we agree to the send ci a letter vacating the easement I propose the language listed below. I look forward to speaking with you. Mr. & Mrs.Joseph V Huber., as owners of Lot 1, Block F, Naples Heritage Phase 2-A, the lot located to the east and m adjacent to the Conservation Easement C5 of the Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club, has no objection to the vacation . of that portion of Tract C5, a Conservation Easement in Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club, Phase One that lies adjacent to their property on the condition that Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club shall erect at a minimum an uu Enhanced Type B Landscape Buffer as set forth in Exhibit "A-2" attached hereto in the above described Conservation o. Easement. U co ti From: Gina Green [mailto:ggreeneng@aol.com] N Sent:Wednesday, August 17, 2016 1:46 PM To: Huber,Joe; chusee@wpa.net J Cc: 'Patrick Dorbad' • Subject: RE: Patrick 2 Good Afternoon Mr. & Mrs. Huber: Please find attached 3 drawings. Two that show the aerial view of your house. One is taken from the property o appraisers website. I have highlighted in yellow,the Conservation Easement that is presently located on the north and west sides of your property. The second is the engineering plan for the tennis facility along with the approximate location of your house on your lot so you can see the proximity of your house to the proposed improvements. The third .. is the Landscape buffer that is part of the PUD Amendment that is required in the 25' along the side of your property aa4 where the Conservation Easement is presently located. as Please be aware that the Property Appraiser's aerial is slightly off with the parcel lines. This unfortunately cannot be changed to be depicted correctly on this plan due to the rectification and alignment of their overlay on the aerials by the County. But it does give a representation of your house and the lands around it. The proposed tennis courts will be approximately 100'west of your house. The amenities building will be located to the north of your house and due west of the cul-de-sac, approximately 75'from your property west property line(approx. 100'from the northwest corner your house). The area between your house and these proposed improvements will be natural area maintaining the native vegetation, except for exotic tree removal (which is Brazilian pepper hedge, melaleuca, and any other vegetation that is deemed exotic by Collier County and SFWMD). All of the pines, palms,etc. will remain. There will also be a 25' landscape buffer with 80%opacity required along all of Colonial Court and adjacent to your house located in the 25' conservation easement that we are proposing to vacate. This buffer is required by Collier County and will be installed and maintained by Naples Heritage. This requirement is an enhanced standard over Packet Pg.132 -9 CA the County minimum for residential parcels adjacent to recreation facilities that was required during the hearings for the PUD Amendment for the tennis site to be added to the PUD for Naples Heritage. The county minimum for recreational structures adjacent to residential lot lines is 50'. We have placed these facilities twice this amount to accommodate the neighboring properties. On the engineering plan,there is a hatched area to the west of your lot, in the current Conservation easement,that shows fill and sod that is located in the conservation easement. These improvements to the Conservation easement area violation of code and if the County and the South Florida Water Management District chose to pursue, could require the removal of the fill and vegetative improvements and the area restored to natural grade with native plantings as restoration to return this area to its previous natural state. As part of the permitting with SFWMD and the vacation of this easement,this will allow for the fill and vegetation to remain as it is and also allows for additional landscape improvements to be placed in this area without it being a violation of code. If we do not vacate the conservation easement,then SFWMD will require that this area be restored to its natural state which would mean that the existing vegetation and fill would be removed and scraped down to match the natural grade of the parcel where the tennis N center is proposed. This would impact your side yard and may require some sort of slope restraint such as a retaining wall, landscape timbers or stacked interlocking paver brick wall. m It is the intent of Naples Heritage to work with you on this vegetative buffer and see that you are shielded from the tennis center. Please review these plans and feel free to call me with any questions you may have. My cell number is 239-229-6238. My office number is listed below. a If this is agreeable to you, we ask that you provide a Letter of No Objection to the vacation of the easement. You can copy and paste the language below into a letter, sign and email it back to myself or Patrick Dorbad at Naples Heritage. Mr. & Mrs.Joseph Huber., as owners of Lot 1, Block F, Naples Heritage Phase 2-A, the lot located to the east and adjacent to the Conservation Easement C5 of the Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club, has no objection to the vacation N of that portion of Tract C5, a Conservation Easement in Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club, Phase One that lies T adjacent to their property. p Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to speaking to you if you have any questions. Gina R. Green, P.E. 3310 1st Avenue NW c Naples, FL 34120 239-348-0500 866-720-4823- FAX m r m From: Patrick Dorbad [mailto:gm@nhgcc.com] Sent:Wednesday,August 17, 2016 12:24 PM To: Gina Green <ggreeneng@aol.com> Cc: Huber,Joe<huber@CCAPGH.org>; chusee@wpa.net Subject: Patrick Gina, Can you please forward on to Mr. & Mrs. Huber what we spoke of? Here is their email. Thank you, Patrick J. forbad, CAM General Manager/COO Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club gm( nhgcc.com 2 Packet Pg.133 '' 9.C.4 (239)417-2555 Office (239)417-1717 Fax ` s cws CM5> MANAceRs .illDuBON '''�"+1 A A' AassOcIATr1®a AMRRICA FLORtI ACOMM JNmES ATER\tTltl§ I OP EXCELLENCE . ,..,s„"w„, , Mission Statement "Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club is a casually elegant golf club with a commitment to provide friendly and sincere personal service driven by a well trained and quality oriented staff with hands on management working as a team to meet and exceed our members and guests expectations" Zr) U I- H m cC d cn IV a co z U co ti O -J d 2 d O 7 E O i E d 4- d E v cC 3 Packet Pg.134 9.C.5 .,..: Marcus L. Berman, P.S. M. County Land Surveyor Development Review Division Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples Florida 34104 September 20.2016 RE: Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club Vacation of Easement ui Petition VAC-PL20160001406 H a) Dear Mr. Berman, cc We are the owners of Lot 1 in the Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club plan of lots show as Folio 61870001621 on the site plan for vacation submitted by Gina R. Green, P.A. Per my conversation = with Scoot Stone and Eric Johnson objecting to this vacation,this letter is to express our written objection t to the vacation of this easement. In support of this we cite the following reasons: U 1. Vacation of this easement would eliminate the quiet and peaceful enjoyment by us and other residents of Colonial Court a totally single family residential neighbor. co 2. We paid a premium for this property location because of the charartistics of the neigh hood r- and and the unique nature of this area in Naples Heritage.The easement enhanced these N characteristics of Colonial Court. 3. The single family homes on Colonial Court are the only single family homes not on Naples Heritage Drive the main thoroughfare in the Naples Heritage Community which makes the street unique. 4. Development of the adjacent parcel will substantially increase traffic on Colonial Court and the intersection at Naples Heritage drive.The addition of an entrance to this developmentCD close to this intersection will create a hazardous and unsafe condition. I 5. Colonia Court cul de sac is used by all residents of Naples Heritage for walking jogging andtic bicycle riding both by adults and children.The resultant increased traffic and intersection 6.)_ will result in a safety hazard for these individuals. 0 O 6. The easement provides a buffer for our property from any development including the c proposed in this plan. The proposed landscape buffer is insufficient to prevent the E disruption and attendant noise and activity associated with a recreational area c 7. At the time of our purchase of our lot,the property sought to be developed for the tennis r courts was not owned by the PUD. It was purchased to prevent further development with the objective of preventing additional traffic in this neighborhood and the community. Development of this site is inconsistent with this objective, and imposes a development never contemplated by the original developers or the purchasers of Colonial Court. 8. All of land to the south east and west is currently either wooded, conservation or preserve. Except for the six single family homes.Vacation this easement and the subsequent development of a recreational area on the adjacent property will have a negative environmental impact on birds and wildlife as well the residents of Colonial Court. 9. Vacation of this property and adding fill, and changing the contours of the land could negatively impact the water flow drainage and potential for standing water in the area Packet Pg. 135 '' 9.C,5 thereby impacting adjacent property owners. 10. There are no other recreational areas in the single family residential portion of Naples Heritage PUD:yet this plan seeks to prose one on these residents. 11. Vacation of this easement will negatively impact the property values of residents of Colonial Court. The letter submitted with this with this vacation request states and I quote "there is an indirect public benefit of vacating this conservation easement". We see no public benefit and a lot of adverse impact on us,the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent property owners. The Naples Heritage PUD has available property that could be utilized to develop this tennis facility near the existing clubhouse, golf club, swing pool and restaurant. Adding this existing tract rather than N developing it would add to the preserve and conservation area in the PUD. a) In our view and many others there has not been a good faith attempt to pursue another location for the tennis courts. If this were a new development, no developer would propose to put a recreation facility y such as proposed here in the midst of a single family residential area nor would a municipality in my = view approve such a plan without serious review and questioning. In the instant case,they seek to impose such a Plan on residents some of whom have resided in the community for decades, and have Z done so with misrepresentations and half-truths. (.) We ask that you reject the application for Vacation of this conservation Easement. .• ti csu Respectfully Submitted, Joseph h V. Huber Barbara M. Huber 3645 SR 982 Latrobe, Pa 15650 m 0 m E r c, ca Packet Pg. 136 9.C6 Marcus L Berman,P.S.M County Land Surveyor Development Review Division Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples Florida 34104 Re: Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club Vacation of Easement Petition VAC-PL20160001406 U L I- Dear Mr. Berman m I am the owner of Lot#2 in the Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club at 7689 Colonial Court, Naples Florida 34112, please consider this communication as my written objection to the vacation of this easement. m o. It is my understanding you have been in receipt of a similar written objection from several other property owners on Colonial Court, most notable from Mr. Joeseph Huber which definitively identifies and captures many valid reasons for your office > to reject the application for Vacation of this conservation Easement. op N Without rehashing that communication, I would add the following emphasis to some of his points of contention. 1. The proposed vacation of this easement and subsequent proposed N alterations to the Naples Heritage PUD are substantially different than what was represented to the residents of Colonial Court as recent as six months ago. This is very concerning. 2. When I purchased this residential property in 2014, It was largely because of a`) the characteristics of the property, including the minimal amount of traffic, and environmental make up of the neighborhood. -J 3. There is no doubt that this will negatively impact the values of the properties in this neighborhood,. 4. I am particularly concerned about the impact on drainage and water p collection on lots that are adjacent or nearly adjacent to the proposed c recreational area as a result of changes to the landscaping and contour of said area. Please consider the above as your office carefully considers the vacation of this conservation Easement. I respectfully ask that you consider the negative impact on the environment as well as the unfavorable effects on the residents of the Colonial Court Neighborhood. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this matter. Packet Pg. 137 Respectfully Submitted. Bart Boissonneault Herminia Muche 7689 Colonial Court Csi Naples Florida 34112 U F- a> Co La) 2 N O. CD Z U co r N cc O N N_ O N O J I- a) as J C 0 V d 0 r.: C d E t C1 Packet Pg. 138 9.C.7 September 29, 2016 Marcus L. Berman, P.S.M. County Land Surveyor Development Review Division Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 N 4t) U RE: Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Vacation of Easement a) Petition VAC-PL20160001406 Dear Mr, Berman, We are the owners of Lot#3 (7685 Colonial Ct) and have resided here for 16 years. Our lot is Q Folio 61870001663 on the site plan.This letter is to state our objection to the vacation of the above easement. # co We are in complete agreement with letters submitted by our neighbors Joseph and Barbara Huber, Walter and Catherine Kulbacki, Bart Boissonneault and Herminia Muche.They have R detailed all of our concerns. o M We see absolutely no reason for this beautiful conservation area to be disturbed.There are many other options that have not been thoroughly investigated. Locating the tennis courts a; closer to the other amenities makes more sense. We ask that you reject the application for the vacation of this conservation easement.Your thoughtful consideration will be deeply appreciated. 0 Respectfully Submitted, Leon and Barbara Case 7685 Colonial Court Naples, FL 34112 Packet Pg. 139 9.C.8 Dear Mr. Berman, October 6, 2016 We are the owners of Lot 4,7681 Colonial Ct. in Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club, Folio#6187001689. We are very concerned about the expansion plan in our neighborhood of the proposed tennis court complex. Mr. Huber has expressed our concerns regarding the expansion in his letter to you dated September 20, 2016. He expresses our feelings, as well as all residents who live on Colonial Ct. N This is a secluded street in NHGCC.We all bought on Colonial Ct.for the peace and quiet it provides us. Also it is a safe haven for my young grandchildren to ride their bikes and play their games. a) The addition of the tennis complex, along with the increased traffic greatly affects the above. I hope you take this and all the reasons that Mr. Huber expressed in his letter to you and reject the application for vacation of the conservation easement. R Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, co ct N Thomas Leonard Lois Leonard I c 0 m Marcus L. Berman, P.S. M. County Land Surveyor 3 Development Review Division Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples Florida 34104 September 20.2016 RE: Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club 0 Vacation of Easement Petition VAC-PL20160001406 E s C) Dear Mr. Berman, We are the owners of Lot 1 in the Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club plan of lots show as Folio 61870001621 on the site plan for vacation submitted by Gina R.Green, P.A. Per my conversation with Scoot Stone and Eric Johnson objecting to this vacation,this letter is to express our written objection t to the vacation of this easement. In support of this we cite the following reasons: 1. Vacation of this easement would eliminate the quiet and peaceful enjoyment by us and other residents of Colonial Court a totally single family residential neighbor. Packet Pg. 140 9.C.8 2. We paid a premium for this property location because of the charartistics of the neigh hood and the unique nature of this area in Naples Heritage.The easement enhanced these characteristics of Colonial Court. 3. The single family homes on Colonial Court are the only single family homes not on Naples Heritage Drive the main thoroughfare in the Naples Heritage Community which makes the street unique. 4. Development of the adjacent parcel will substantially increase traffic on Colonial Court and the intersection at Naples Heritage drive.The addition of an entrance to this development close to this intersection will create a hazardous and unsafe condition. I 5. Colonia Court cul de sac is used by all residents of Naples Heritage for walking jogging and bicycle riding both by adults and children.The resultant increased traffic and intersection will result in a safety hazard for these individuals. 6. The easement provides a buffer for our property from any development including the proposed in this plan.The proposed landscape buffer is insufficient to prevent the disruption and attendant noise and activity associated with a recreational area 7. At the time of our purchase of our lot,the property sought to be developed for the tennis courts was not owned by the PUD. It was purchased to prevent further development with the objective of preventing additional traffic in this neighborhood and the community. o. Development of this site is inconsistent with this objective,and imposes a development never contemplated by the original developers or the purchasers of Colonial Court. 8. All of land to the south east and west is currently either wooded, conservation or preserve. Except for the six single family homes.Vacation this easement and the subsequent o0 development of a recreational area on the adjacent property will have a negative N environmental impact on birds and wildlife as well the residents of Colonial Court. 9. Vacation of this property and adding fill, and changing the contours of the land could negatively impact the water flow drainage and potential for standing water in the area thereby impacting adjacent property owners. 10. There are no other recreational areas in the single family residential portion of Naples o Heritage PUD:yet this plan seeks to prose one on these residents. -J 11. Vacation of this easement will negatively impact the property values of residents of Colonial m Court. . 0 The letter submitted with this with this vacation request states and I quote"there is an indirect public t benefit of vacating this conservation easement".We see no public benefit and a lot of adverse impact on us,the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent property owners. 0 w c a) The Naples Heritage PUD has available property that could be utilized to develop this tennis facility near E the existing clubhouse,golf club,swing pool and restaurant.Adding this existing tract rather than ca developing it would add to the preserve and conservation area in the PUD. In our view and many others there has not been a good faith attempt to pursue another location for the tennis courts. If this were a new development, no developer would propose to put a recreation facility such as proposed here in the midst of a single family residential area nor would a municipality in my view approve such a plan without serious review and questioning. In the instant case,they seek to impose such a Plan on residents some of whom have resided in the community for decades, and have done so with misrepresentations and half-truths. We ask that you reject the application for Vacation of this conservation Easement. Packet Pg. 141 9.C.8 Respectfully Submitted, Joseph h V. Huber Barbara M. Huber 3645 SR 982 Latrobe, Pa 15650 N U) 0 H a) a) ca r ,L a) 2 0. Z 0 co ti N ctsO a) J .h+ O J L a) t+ 4- J O r U a) 0 C d E U f0 Packet Pg. 142 9.C.9 WALTER S. KULBACKI • 7677 Colonial Court. Naples Florida, 34112 703-894-8934 September 25, 2016 Marcus L. Berman, P.S. M. County Land Surveyor Development Review Division Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples Florida 34104 RE: Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club a) Vacation of Easement •L Petition VAC-PL20160001406 °' d Dear Mr. Berman; a My wife and I are full time residents and live at 7677 Colonial Court, Naples FL 34112 in the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Community.We are the owners of Lot 5 shown as Folio 61870001702 as shown on the site plan for vacation submitted by Gina Green, P.A. In addition I have been discussing this proposed relocation of a recreation area...specifically 6 tennis courts rr° and associated additional infrastructure elements with Bob Mulhere( Planning Engineer Hole Montes), Eric Johnson(Collier County Planning Engineer), and Pat Dorbad, the GM of NHGCC. This letter expresses my strong objection to the vacation easement as outlined with the significant reasons below: U, • Safety and Traffic Flow—Putting the 6 courts in this residential area would greatly and dramatically increase traffic and create a safety hazard for not only the residents of Colonial Court..but a safety issue for all those that use this quiet residential area for walking and jogging.The road network on Colonial Court was not designed for this level -� of traffic ...as well as the feeder roads to Colonial Court. This is why the courts are o currently located in a central location with the appropriate road network ...as all Country Clubs in Naples have done. a" • The Residential Environmnet -Vacation of this easement would completely change the peaceful environment of a completely single family home environment....as well as destroying an essential preserve and conservation area that needs to be maintained in our residential community. Owners paid a premium for the Colonial Court location and were told the land across from their homes would remain a preserve and conservation area. • Buffer for Colonial Court Residents-The easement provides a buffer for our property from any development including the proposed relocation of courts in this plan. The proposed landscape buffer is insufficient to prevent the disruption and attendant noise and activity associated with a tennis recreational area. • Bird and Wildlife Impact-All of land to the south east and west is currently either wooded, conservation or preserve, except for the six single family homes. Vacation of this easement and the subsequent development of a recreational area on the adjacent Packet Pg. 143 9:C.9 property will have a negative environmental impact on birds and wildlife as well the residents of Colonial Court. • Topographcat Concerns to Include Water Flow—Because of the low level and topographical contour of the land, water flow, containment and contour of the land will require significant fill ..which when completed would not satisfy the efficient flow of water out of the area...and would cause a good deal of standing water which would not be good for health reasons.The SW Florida Water Authority is currently evaluating this for approval and more than likely will not be able and should not approve the plan for this area. The Collier County planning Board also has raised concerns of water flow and associated issues for this plan. • Purchase of Land—The purchase of this land was to prevent any further development N in this area and to maintain the preserve and conservation areas not only for the Colonial v Court resident..but for all the residents of NHGCC who use the Colonial Court as a walking and jogging area. as • No Good Faith Effort for Central Location—The 6 Tennis courts were initially planned As in a central location near in the area of the golf driving range. For some reason there was no application developed and sent to the Corps of Engineers(COE)for this site. Approval could have been attained since once the 5 acres near Colonial Ct were traded o. for the proposed driving range location it would be a"zero plus"swap for preserve area. `° The Project Manager COE responsible for this effort was not sure why this was not done. ci • Buffers—Adequate buffering for the residents on Colonial Ct, as well as all residents bordering this proposed recreation area cannot be done if this easement is vacated. This co again was a concern for the County Planning Board..in particular its Chairmen as noted in the planning board minutes. • Summary and Conclusion—There is no public benefit as highlighted in the letter requesting vacation. As outlined above, it is a public negative to not only the Colonial Court residents, but all NGCC residents(almost 50%voted against this plan).As highlighted above, safety, the preserve, and conservation environment are critical factors, 3 along with the imminent water issues idenitified for vacating the easement.The Naples Heritage PUD has available property that could be utilized to develop this tennis facility near the existing clubhouse, golf club, swimming pool and restaurant.Adding this existing tract rather than developing it would add to the preserve and conservation area in the PUD. In our view and many other residents, there has not been a good faith attempt to m pursue another location for the tennis courts. If this were a new development, no 0 O developer would propose to put a recreation facility such as proposed here in the midst of a single family residential area nor would a municipality in my view approve such a plan. In this instance, NHGCC seek to impose such a plan on residents some of whom have c resided in the community for decades, and have done so with misrepresentations and half-truths. We respectfully and strongly request that you reject the application for Vacation of this conservation Easement. Should you need any additional information or clarification please do not hesitate o call me. 4_i . / C _'!` , Walter and Catherine Kulbacki Packet Pg. 144 9.C.10 BermanMarcus From: Stephen Rechter <srechter@outlook.com> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 4:54 PM To: HenningTom; BermanMarcus Cc: Walt; huber@ccapgh.org Subject: Tennis Courts on Colonial Court at Naples Heritage - Request for reconsideration Dear Misters Henning and Berman, My wife, Pamela, and I are residents of 7680 Naples Heritage Drive. Our property is not immediately adjacent to the proposed tennis courts as are those on Colonial Court. However, our property will be affected by the construction of the tennis courts at least as much as the other homes. Our home faces Colonial Court directly. Our property will be affected by the increased traffic and associated noise.When there are evening events, we will have rn a steady stream of headlights shining into our living room as people leave. '4.)" As Walter Kulbacki has stated, all residents of Colonial Court(plus my wife and I)voted against the construction of the ai tennis courts on this site.We all moved to this area because of its peace. We like that it is removed from all the tumult a associated with sports activities and large gatherings of people.We are the most affected,yet we apparently have the least voice in the decision. U Also,the land being considered for the tennis facility was purchased not for active use, but rather to ensure that the co property remained unused and under the control of Naples Heritage.There was a concern at the time that a third party N would purchase it and then demand the right of way to use it. m To my knowledge,tennis and other sports venues associated with other country clubs are located within easy access to the clubhouse and dining facilities.The Colonial Court location is over a mile from the Naples Heritage clubhouse—a considerable inconvenience for its users. w The Alternatives Analysis I've seen shows that site 10 meets the requirements, has a smaller wetland impact and the loss in wetland function is only marginally larger than site 6. Additionally, it has the true advantage of proximity to club facilities. It appears to me that site 10 will address the needs of Naples Heritage in a far greater way than the Colonial Court site, both now and in the distant future. We stand united with the other residents of Colonial Court in requesting that you consider the alternate site and avoid o the disruption to a peaceful neighborhood. E Thank you for your consideration. 03 With best regards, Stephen Rechter Pamela Rechter 1 Packet Pg. 145 9......C.11 26D Wednesday,November 23,2016 Naples Daily News Other Public Notices Other Public Notices NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Notice is hereby given that on December 13, 2016, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples FL., the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will consider the enactment of a County Resolution. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M.The title of the proposed Resolution is as follows: RESOLUTION NO.2016-____ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO DISCLAIM,RENOUNCE AND VACATE A PORTION OF TRACT a) C5 CONSERVATION AREA,AND A PORTION OF THE 10 FOOT COLLIER COUNTY CONSERVATION BUFFER EASEMENT L 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. N 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, to RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PETITION VAC-PL20160001406) () A copy of the proposed Resolution is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. 00 r` NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County manager prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be c limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of any individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. N If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or p organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. ca Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. jp I) Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board J will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. £ If you are a person with adisability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at ra no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please Q contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112- 5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA DONNA FIALA,CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK By: Martha Vergara,Deputy Clerk (SEAL) November 23&30,2016 No.1364130 Packet Pg. 146 9.C.11 gfa "''A_,,v,-V- $N<' Otle PublicNotices , Other Public Notices NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Notice is hereby given that on December 13, 2016, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples FL., the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will consider the enactment of a County Resolution. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M.The title of the proposed Resolution is as follows:: RESOLUTION NO.2016-___ °' fi A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY._`.. COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO ,I DISCLAIM,RENOUNCE AND VACATE A PORTION OF TRACT; C5 CONSERVATION AREA,AND A PORTION OF THE 10 FOOT . COLLIER COUNTY CONSERVATION BUFFER EASEMENT .F WITHIN TRACT C5,AS SHOWN ON NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF : AND COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE,PLAT BOOK 26,PAGE 73 CZ OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. '' THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1/2 " 0 MILE EAST OF SANTA BARBARA BLVD,AND 1 MILE SOUTH 11-- OF DAVIS BLVD, IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, ' y RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PETITION . rn VAC-PL20160001406) cc A copy of the proposed Resolution is on file with the Clerk to the rli 2 Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are co Q. invited to attend and be heard.. y o i NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item mint as co register with the County manager prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be U z limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of any individual Q to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. > If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group Or 3 organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. ' °r° • Tr csr k.„ Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included iP P the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum o N.)0 of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, N written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall (N1 cr) be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of Z seven days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in m presentations before the Board will become a permanent part cts 'aof the record. c co a, t7 Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Boar4/4 d Q ar will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and iZ therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the -a proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and ca to evidence upon which the appeal is based. as If you area person with a disability who needs anyaccommodatiop J in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please c contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, a) located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112- E 5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are availableas in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Z t BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA DONNA FIALA,CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK By: Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk - (SEAL) November 23&30,2016 No. 1364130 Packet Pg. 147 9° 01/10/2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve 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. [PUDZ-PL20150002737] OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review staff's findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition, render a decision regarding this rezoning petition, and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The 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. The petitioner is requesting that the Board consider an application to rezone the property from the 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. FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element(CIE) of the Growth Management Plan(GMP) as needed to maintain an adopted Level of Service(LOS)for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the CCPC to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: 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. 01/10/2017 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. 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 01/10/2017 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: 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: Packet Pg. 150 01/10/2017 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. 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. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC reviewed this petition at their December 1,2016,meeting. One(1)member of the public came forward to speak in opposition. Commissioner Schmitt made a motion to approve, which was seconded by Commissioner Dearborn. The vote to approve was unanimous (5-0), contingent upon the application returning to the consent agenda after making the changes in the PUD Document and subject to the following: 1. Limit building height in Tracts B and C to a maximum of 50 feet. 2. Accept deviations#2 and#3,which were presented today. 3. The applicant will explore reducing off-hour lighting. Notwithstanding the unanimous recommendation to approve by the CCPC, there was opposition to this petition; therefore, the petition will be placed on the Advertised Public Hearings section of the Board agenda. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site specific rezone from a Rural Agricultural Zoning District to an IPUD Zoning District for a project to be known as the Collier County Resource and Recovery Business Park IPUD. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board, should it consider denying the rezone,to determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below. Criteria for IPUD Rezones Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not. 1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas,traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed IPUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. 01/10/2017 4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development(as proposed)for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities,both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with IPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. 9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan? 10. Will the proposed IPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested IPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? 12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 01/10/2017 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a"core"question...) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed IPUD rezone 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 [Code Ch. 106, Art. II], as amended. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the IPUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? The Board must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the Board hearing as these items relate to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney's Office. This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendation of the CCPC, which is reflected in the attached Ordinance and recommends that the Board approve the applicant's request to rezone to the IPUD zoning district. Prepared by: Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner, Zoning Division, Growth Management Department ATTACHMENT(S) 1.Attachment 1 -Staff Report (PDF) 2.Attachment 2-Proposed Ordinance (PDF) 3. [Linked] Attachment 3 -Applicaton and Support Material (PDF) 4.Attachment 4-FLUE Consistency Review (PDF) 5.Attachment 5 -Legal Notifications (PDF) 6.Attachment 6-Emails_Letters from Public (PDF) 7. legal ad-Agenda ID 2436 (PDF) 01/10/2017 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.D Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve 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. [PUDZ-PL20150002737] Meeting Date: 01/10/2017 Prepared by: Title:Planner,Principal—Zoning Name: Eric Johnson 12/06/2016 2:47 PM Submitted by: Title: Division Director-Planning and Zoning—Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 12/06/2016 2:47 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Division Reviewer Completed 12/07/2016 8:53 AM Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 12/07/2016 7:25 PM Zoning Michael Bosi Additional Reviewer Completed 12/14/2016 4:21 PM Growth Management Department David Wilkison Level 2 Division Administrator Completed 12/19/2016 10:41 AM Growth Management Department James French Additional Reviewer Completed 12/19/2016 11:21 AM County Attorneys Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 12/19/2016 1:36 PM Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 12/19/2016 2:01 PM County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A.Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorneys Office Review Completed 12/20/2016 11:11 AM Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 12/20/2016 3:08 PM County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 12/27/2016 1:47 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 01/10/2017 9:00 AM 9.D.1 Coter County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT f0 HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2016 a SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL201500002737 COLLIER COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY c BUSINESS PARK m as PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT &AGENT: o Owner/Applicant: Agent: d Collier County Tim Hancock,AICP c/o Dan Rodriguez, Solid and Hazardous Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Waste Management Division Director 3200 Bailey Lane, #200cc 3339 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 302 Naples, FL 34105 Naples, FL 34112 U REQUESTED ACTION: 0 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 M (IPUD) zoning district to allow solid waste and resource recovery facilities and public vehicle and N equipment storage/repair facilities for a project on 344+ acres to be known as Collier County Resource . Recovery Business Park IPUD. cc GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located within the North Belle Meade Overlay (NBMO) and the Rural Mixed-Use v? 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 5 the property to IPUD to allow for more flexibility with respect to future site design and development 2 standards, including proposed access to the site. The list of uses in the proposed ordinance for this IPUD Q 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 November21, 2016 Packet Pg. 155 Ned sseuisn8 i(.ienooab eainoseti A uno0.iewo0 : 9£PZ) podej}fie}g- .;uewyoenb:;uewy3elld to Lo MIIIMII IIa emismi a'aiaa�aaaaega A0111 @IIIIIIkIIIIIIIIIIoPIEaaoo0oaool1saa 1.111 ti 1Illllll1l IuIIllill oi w o saoa ••••••••••••••••• cz ai � � s a ioeaaas °° CL iiiiuiiiiiiiol I1.11110�.oe...... a is000loGEEQ:oug1 C ���® '' oEQQEQQ�QQEQ®E000QE mr. momsa QIEEEQEQQB N 1161111.EEQQEQQE000QQEmQ QE�EEEQQEQQQQE® ai ■ EQQEE•000QQQEQE... . , co EQE000QQQEQEQEm___ . MI .� le e°e°eiiee�m. IIIII) 1111 �— c va s `�'. 4 :/A(1III O 'se's. .. 1Z'. El INI k,, volmt - - .... ingt„. ninnoompraurnminimme .......... . ....., . Oral _ii I® ®®MMI®NIM®®®® sg ®`'. N. iia®I®E®�L...,�mm.®®® p, , �wL'� i�®I���min ��...-=..=="...`... ®mmlimormorms d'3 1117,1# III job= 1.0 ®�!®®tea® ®®e �0F , ,s IZ tAri ,......w.mmiErma•gmEmmounn.=z 111, QI®®®s®®®��..w=2 5 w� a MI . mon .=!,,,,,,, moi`` Nc)` -- / z L.E n Z c F Z O o V a. a1-1 0- i j CO Lo 0 I N. , , j, LLQ=`'_,, , al so _,,,,___iDA 19.111103 '` R. 9.D.1 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. 2 vz a_ East: A mix of vacant residential lands and parcels with single-family dwellings, N zoned A within the RFMUO-Sending Lands Overlay and the NBMO. The c subject property also has frontage on Garland Road. There are three (3) 0 parcels east of Garland Road, which are comprised of a vacant residential m parcel, a parcel with a single-family dwelling, and another vacant parcel a) owned by Collier County, all zoned A within the RFMUO-Sending Lands o and the NBMO. cc 2:)' South: Land owned by Collier County, zoned A, including the Collier County o Landfill Site, which is located within the RFMUO-Sending Lands and the 0 NBMO. c4 West: Canal, then farther west, are a mix of vacant residential lands and parcels o with single-family dwellings zoned Estates (E). L m 0 U �,.� P t CD .z , nve sw (V 0 . 0. _ d VE W ^ ^u.VL S1'k — { i r a) E 2 Zi ,,��}} k4, •7 .... v °-*/ a) - - i MerkleV AVE - Zi )NEMO SENDING ` Aerial(County GIS) PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 3 of 18 November21, 2016 Packet Pg. 157 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. a. The Sending Lands have been identified as being least appropriate for development within the RFMUD. N Based on the evaluation of available data, these lands have a greater degree of environmental or listed m species habitat value than Receiving Lands or Neutral Lands and generally have avoided being disturbed through previous development or agricultural operations. c d 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 g 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) o. 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 November21, 2016 Packet Pg.158 9.D.1 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 a 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; cc b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to �o or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and 1d3 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. M 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 a all roadways. 4- la la The proposed rezoning was reviewed based on the then applicable 2015 AUIR. The TIS submitted in the cit application indicates that the proposed development will generate approximately ninety-one (91) PM peak hour trips, on the adjacent roadway links, as follows: E Cs 4- E PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 5 of 18 November 21, 2016 Packet Pg. 159 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) a Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Main B 3,600/North 2,054 (C.R. 951) Canal to I-75 (8- lane divided) Collier Boulevard I-75 to Davis D 3,600/North 764 00 (C.R. 951) Boulevard (8- lane d divided) 0 Collier Boulevard Davis Boulevard to C 3,000/North 1,012 (C.R. 951) Rattlesnake Hammock Road o (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): a Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Lt Management Element(CCME). c c Policy 6.1.2 requires eighty percent (80%) preservation of native habitat outside the Natural Resources +,7,..)Protection Area (NRPA) Sending Lands. The land preservation requirement is reduced where lands d 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 a native vegetation retention and site preservation requirements may be reduced to 50% if the E 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 Packet Pg. 160 9.0.1 GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. ANALYSIS: Applications to rezone to or amend IPUDs shall be in the form of an IPUD Master Plan of development, Y 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 c 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). v The document Recent Preserve Monitoring & Status Report has been provided to summarize the habitat N 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 a Borealis),Florida Bonneted Bat(Eumopsfloridanus),Big Cypress Fox Squirrel(Sciurus Niger Avicennia), g Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon Corais Couperi), and Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus Polyphemus). The project has obtained the Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)Environmental Resource c"n 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 R 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: E 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 a 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 Packet Pg. 161 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 a 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 m preserve area located just south of the aforementioned utility easement. a) Along much of the IPUD's southern property line,a Type"A"Buffer(on the subject site)would be installed cc 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 cc 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 v Collier County. a> 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 co (20)-foot wide Type "C" Buffer requirement, would separate the IPUD from the canal and E-zoned properties to the west. 0 Transportation Review: Approved. ca ca Utilities Review: The proposed IPUD Document contains commitments regarding future water and cin 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. C6 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 E 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 Y use (as itemized in Exhibit A of the IPUD Document): a 1. Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Facilities. PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 8 of 18 November 21,2016 Packet Pg. 162 9.D.1 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, a oil, cleaners and solvents, computers,monitors,printers and peripherals, fluorescent bulbs, N batteries, and the like. N iv. Storm Debris includes vegetative materials that are typically collected after a storm m event. ) 0 v. Tires includes any and all,tires. L. vi. White Goods predominately includes common household appliances, such as o washing machines, dryers, refrigerators, air-conditioning/heating units, and the like. cu vii. Yard Waste includes but is not limited to vegetative materials from households, such as lawn/yard trimmings and the like. �o 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 c� they can be potential sources of energy, such as a system similar to the Landfill Gas-to- energy facility at the Landfill, etc. N ix. Leachate Management is the management of the liquid bi-products derived from the a decomposing of organic materials that typically drains from a landfill. This may involve the use of pipes,tanks, deep injection wells, and similar infrastructure. (15 x. Recycled Materials Processing Facility may process typical recyclables such as, but not limited to, glass,plastic, paper, Styrofoam, or cardboard. d E xi. Brown Goods includes but is not limited to furniture, mattresses, and the like. I 2. Public Utilities Department Buildings/Solid Waste Administration Building Complex buildings may include but are not limited to Wastewater Collections, Water Distribution, Utility a) Billing and Customer Service, Solid Waste and Compliance Laboratory facilities, and off-street parking areas and other appurtenances. 03 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 Packet Pg. 163 9.D.1 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 Si- ,.. 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 N locations of the preserve and the native vegetation buffer tract. These areas are located to the interior of the c aforementioned easements and would effectively separate the developable lands of the IPUD from the u) adjacent residential properties outside the IPUD. As shown on the Master Plan,the preserve along the east m property line would be a minimum of 160 feet in width. The native vegetation buffer tract along the west a) property line would be a minimum of 200 feet in width. It should be noted that the majority of the IPUD's o 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 a) tracts. The western periphery of Tract B would be located over 500 feet from the IPUD's west property o line. The eastern edge of Tract C would be located over 460 feet from the IPUD's east property line. a X The applicant is requesting to rezone to IPUD, in part,to allow for flexibility with respect to site design and c development standards. The following table compares the proposed IPUD's design and development o standards with the same in the A and Industrial (I)zoning districts. L. Table 2. Design and Development Standards v Design Standard A I IPUD Tr Tract A Tract B Tract C Tract D Minimum Floor Area of Buildings 550 1,000 550 550 550 550 c (square feet) o. Minimum Lot Area(square feet) 217,800 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 cc Minimum Lot Width(linear feet) 165 100 100 100 100 100 as Maximum Building Height-Zoned 35 feet 50 35 50 50 35 N (feet) Maximum Building Height-Actual N/A 50 47 62 62 47 E (feet) Minimum Yards (feet) Front Yard 50 feet 25 25 25 25 25 a Side Yard 30 feet * 15 15 15 15 c Rear Yard 50 feet 50 25 25 25 25 s CIS * The total of all side yard setbacks shall equal twenty percent(20%)of the lot width,with a maximum a 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 Packet Pg. 164 9.D.1 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 a 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 to within the project." Staff was concerned with how the requested height would be viewed from the adjacent m 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 cc 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. v DEVIATION DISCUSSION: N This petitioner is requesting one(1) deviation,which is itemized in Exhibit E in the IPUD Document. The a petitioner's justification and staff analysis/recommendation is as follows: ce co Proposed Deviation #1 c`n A deviation from LDC Section 6.6.02.A.2, which requires that a five (5)-foot wide sidewalk be provided 6* 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 c 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 co 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 Packet Pg. 165 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 a physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water,and other utilities. a) .N 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, cugn or other instruments,or for amendments in those proposed,particularly as they may relate to re 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. v Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, d 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). t County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant a goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report ce (or within an accompanying memorandum). co 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 co parcels to the east and west. The Collier County Landfill abuts this project to the south. c.) to 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 Packet Pg. 166 9.D.1 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 a complete prior to the approval of any certificate of occupancy for any buildings on this site. as 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. m 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 a when development approvals are sought. cc 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. T 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. N Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and cc recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the 03 planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable": ' as 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. 03 03 Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, . r objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. E 2. The existing land use pattern. as 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 Packet Pg. 167 9.D.1 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 a necessary. u, a> The proposed change is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC •y provisions to seek such changes. m 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 cu 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: ce 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 c� eliminates a route that runs in front of hotels and commercial convenience establishments where truck traffic is co-mingled with passenger vehicles. t The applicant further responded as follows: a 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 co 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 E 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 Packet Pg. 168 9.D.1 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. m 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. N 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. 0 Staff does not anticipate the proposed IPUD would be a deterrent to the improvement of surrounding cL land. °' 0 U 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. N If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then thato. constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said ce 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 (15 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 a) 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 proposedcu access to the site. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. Q 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. PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 15 of 18 November 21, 2016 Packet Pg. 169 9.D.1 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 a 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 N Adequate Public Facilities(APF), and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals re 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 v 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 v amendment will have no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities. CD18. 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. o. 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. Q NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): a The applicant conducted a NIM on September 21, 2016 at the Collier County South Regional Library E located at 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway in Naples, FL. The meeting commenced at 5:30 p.m. and ended cts 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 a 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 November21, 2016 Packet Pg. 170 9.D.1 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. a� CD Attachments: 5 1) Proposed Ordinance m 2) Application& Support Material 3) Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review 4) Legal Notifications 5) Emails/Letters from Public re Na) U a) U cc O O. O ce to co 16 r O co z PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 17 of 18 November 21, 2016 Packet Pg. 171 PREPARED BY: 1 ©/l 3// ERIC JOHNSON,AICP, CFM,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION I- L 0 NN REVIEWED BY: N / KV/3 /6 RAYM D V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE cc ZON DIVISION N d �U' 1) -/ L MIKE BOSI, AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION 0 U m APPROVED BY: N t 0 0. S FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT r a, kft i, ttA0A .«.;c DAVID . WILKISON DATE E DEPARTMENT HEAD R GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 18 of 18 Packet Pg. 172 9.D.2 ORDINANCE NO. 17- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE L UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY a 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 00 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 v RESOLUTION NO. 09-275; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE a) DATE. (PUDZ-PL20150002737) 0 co M WHEREAS, Tim Hancock, AICP of Stantec Consulting Services, representing Collier Tr County, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the c herein described property. 0 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY N COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: a 2 L a. SECTION ONE: Zoning Classification. N The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to an Industrial Planned Unit Development (IPUD) for a 344± acre parcel to be known as Collier County Resource and Recovery Business Park IPUD in accordance with a :.o Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. [16-CPS-01525] 119 Page 1 of 2 Collier County Recourse Recovery Business Park-PUDZ-PL20150002737 12/22/16 Packet Pg. 173 9.D.2 SECTION TWO: Repeal of Resolution 09-275 is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Y Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,this day of , 2017. a N a) N ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS m DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA a, 0 0 a1 By: By: cc Deputy Clerk , Chairman a) 0 Approved as to form and legality: d 0 Heidi Ashton-Cicko aA Managing Assistant County Attorney a> co Attachments: Exhibit A—Permitted Uses f. Exhibit B—Development Standards 0 Exhibit C—Master Plan y Exhibit D—Legal Description Exhibit E—Deviations 0 ` Exhibit F—List of Developer Commitments C) 0 t6 Q iC.i of t6 [16-CPS-01525] 119 Page 2 of 2 Collier County Recourse Recovery Business Park-PUDZ-PL20150002737 12/22/16 Packet Pg. 174 9D-2. .: EXHIBIT A FOR COLLIER COUNTY RESOURCE AND RECOVERY BUSINESS PARK IPUD PERMITTED USES: This ±344.3 acre resource recovery project shall be developed for solid waste and resource recovery facilities and public vehicle and equipment storage and repair facilities. The property lies within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD), Sending a Lands and the North Belle Meade overlay as designated in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Section B.1 .C)8.a)(2) under the Agriculture/Rural Designation of the Future Land Use Element addresses this property specifically, permitting the uses outlined in this document. as The Master Concept Plan is designed to provide suitable buffering and development 0 limitations to achieve compatibility with adjacent properties. cc d DEVELOPMENT TRACTS A-D to d No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following primary uses: U A. Principal Uses as 1 . Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Facilities, including but not limited to; a. Collection and Processing of: i. Construction and Demolition Debris N ii. Dirty MRF (Materials Recovery Facility) CD Household Hazardous Waste iv. Storm Debris c v. Tires o vi. White Goods 0 vii. Yard Waste viii. Landfill Gas Management c ix. Leachate Management a x. Recycled Materials Processing Facility N xi. Brown Goods 2. Administration Buildings 3. Equipment Maintenance Buildings 4. Vehicle and Equipment Storage and Repair 5. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. c 6. Permitted Uses are allowed in development Tracts identified on the approved Master Concept Plan as follows: Page l of 11 Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD December 16, 2016 Packet Pg. 175 Development Areas3 Permitted Uses Tract A Tract B Tract C Tract D Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Facility Collection and Processing of: Construction and Demolition Debris P P a a Dirty MRF (Materials Recovery Facility) P P N Household Hazardous Waste P P Storm Debris P P P m Tires P P a)' White Goods P P P 00 Yard Waste P P Pre Landfill Gas Management P P Leachate Management P P 0 Recycled Materials Processing Facility P P re Brown Goods P P 0 Administration Buildings P P P P v CD Equipment Maintenance Buildings P P P P o Vehicle and Equipment Storage and Repair P P P P co B. Temporary Uses as 1. Temporary storage of materials associated with storm debris or recovery operations associated with natural disasters. 2. Temporary storage of equipment and materials in support of landfill operations. p 3. Construction administrative offices for the County and authorized contractors 0 and consultants, including temporary access ways and parking areas. 0 0 C. Accessory Uses and Structures a r 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this District. 2. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of R permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. c m E u m r Page 2 of 11 Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD December 16, 2016 Packet Pg. 176 9.0.2 PRESERVE TRACT No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following primary uses: A. Principal Use ca a Preserve 0 B. Accessory Uses .N All other uses as permitted in LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1 .h 0 NATIVE VEGETATION BUFFER TRACT ce a) No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following primary uses: A. Principal Use 0 Native Vegetation Landscape Buffer c.) B. Accessory Uses to Stormwater Management Outfall All other uses as permitted by LDC Section 04.06.02 `" 0 c c f. 0 0 0 0. 0 L a N c 0 E L C 0 E L V tp Q Page 3 of 11 Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD December 16, 2016 Packet Pg. 177 9.D.2 EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the proposed Industrial Planned Unit Development (IPUD), Standards not specifically set forth within L this application shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of a the date of approval of the SDP or Subdivision plot, co CD C TABLE I ; DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 00 Development Areas c Property Development Regulations' Tract A Tract B Tract C Tract D re Minimum Floor Area of Buildings (Sq.Ft.) 550 550 550 550 c Minimum Lot Width (Feet) 100 100 100 100 0 Minimum Lot Area (Sq.Ft.) 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 cc Maximum Building Height in Feet (Zoned) 35 50 50 35 0 Maximum Building Height in Feet (Actual) 47 62 62 47 ci Minimum Distance Between Buildings (Feet) 15 15 15 15 'o Principal Structure Minimum Yard Req.: c.� up Front 2 25 25 25 25 N Side 15 15 15 15 d Rear4 25 25 25 25 = al Preserve Setback: a Principal Structures (Feet) 25 25 25 25 0 Accessory Structures (Feet) 10 10 10 10 o 0. 2 L 1 . Minimum Open Space shall be 50% for the entire project, totaling a minimum of °' 172.2 acres, exclusive of wellfield easements. Open Space Calculated based on N Open Space provided for the entire project. 2. If the parcel is directly accessed by a public or private road right-of-way, as setback is measured from the adjacent road right-of-way and or easement line a per the LDC. c d E 3. All individual sites within developed area shall be designed as drive-thru as much as as possible to minimize backup movements by vehicles. a 4. All L.M.E's shall be platted as separate tracts or shown as separate tracts on the SDP. The rear yard setback from an L.M.E. shall be minimum of 5 feet. Page 4 of 11 Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD December 16, 2016 Packet Pg. 178 9.D.2 LI ..........-I.-* 0 IJ t Z 0 NZ) S WM.= Ib. I 0 b 36ni-inoi6ov — 0 N I N.:Z .0!) j ocgr 1 -'L-.4 rp __.) c-cc;, Lo N W F— X 0 cNj b A e, 4.-...;,,,iii•—#'..kw,... .-. .,-... .‘., . - :T:,... LIJ LLJ c, Z >IJ- w C:4 1.2-:;,:•:.'.''.''••.--:-'''''''',":''<'..L' '-''' ''. CVO ONY18V9 eT, — Ui L__.-----11,:.-:,:-..:•:•-,: 1 IC). < re = , a-,--:,.--,•.•••:::: -1 g p 8 , , c , tai v.) z :-.5.,,q5,-;-. • m La , SZ z 0 0 4-4,..?•: > u, --' ui z Li . • ,-.. ..„•:.•.-:‘,,, : •••:,--;--•• •::--:-• .: ili 0 WI='i IZC LV2i 0 I- -, .'2 -•.::::'. ..-.•:-..-.--S-, .:..-,....--: ..: ••,§--'.. ce 1.:•••,...:•,,:-:,.:::-.••:,::-:,•- •,. .._:::2-',.:,:::- :1 kr1 a. ,,,,k,•, >' ---77 •ti,iiQ: a_ '.."-:-...',. Iv., ,., '.`-•• >•:-.1 '44.1, CO -J z ,... :::":::".,;,:r.-;,...:-1,2-...:••:',,,;..,.....".'•:',-::',-.:::-••••.-;.',-,•..,.‘-• .1.P;• 203 Lo E Li" 'Lij V.•,::----„•;:'.7"---•;,,- ;::`<`;:-‘<::'',',-s:',--,::;,_ '•:E::' L, ,., .::::-,,-.;,:.,..1-„..-•,•,...::...-:-.,.--....-._::: :,•,,,,,:::: -, ......,.., ce 8 6 '2 2 Lii 2 :-:•----....--------.:-. ..:.:: :::::-.:. •--..,--:-.....::-,," •;..-.-•-:,:--„,:- ,\.,-- < N,:,-..Til,,s.:.,.,•:::::;:i --'r) - -I I-- , < 0 4, CL. ix L-1.3 7 • .4, . T.: '''' :. .:• ':•:.'•••:•-• ' • :zix,,,..,.:, ..• (..r) w . .„ o it'w 1..u\:,•::•-,-1:-..--::-,:,--•.1 c.). cr) 2 - -, • , , .. „ '..,t ea T z :::,-,-;--: ::-1 P ' Z LLI = cLai--N9N z g ,,,.i::"..1..:. ' 1::,:‘:.•:,::•,•:.. .:„.;:-.:-.::::.:-...---- ---,-•„,H-2..,,•,---...:,•:-. 0 F_1--tx\::: ---,-,,•:,,••• • -- • . .:`:,.,-. :•-•',--.2:-:-.,:':-..• •-:" I o . _J D :-.:::.• -,,..•::•:-.:::-.--;‘. ..-,, z 1,4 cc_J III LT_ CO Z' F.— Vt- :'.. • 7‘:'',.•,':',.',.:‘,..;::-•','‘.:.:•.:'.'''.-•.:-.',--:.'-',",:.-'7:'.-:' ,‘' \ N ., ., ',--•:„'-:.--:' Ti.7 1-- ••'• ::'.'.; --: .2':::-.'. l'..,:`,.-',..;•:-:,-,-.;-..:...-,--,-':i ,..1. ,:-.''',-.--_ ------z.::-.:.....,: -•--- ,::7-:•::21) iii 1..:::::-.-,::' •; ---..,-:.:-:::, -..,,::: .:-_.2-:•..-.:-..:-•.*: :•-..:....--.--:.:,-w :--.::‘. :::::::-...:,-.12-1. ' --:--=> •,,,,,,,,,, , :7•:.::' LLI g ::::',:,:l.:1:.: :''',-:'.'::.::::.- 7‘:::2'.:•7:-•.'''::' :21*:::1:,:-::,--T-II,`,6415:.•::S: ''': .'-. (- I( 0 Z 1..:-.:': • :•-:-:: :. •-2,':7•••:::•:::••••"''''..••,:.""'-''---':-'-'•,:‘L-',N-.,'S=.''-':'-'=-::::: 1! I or; (.) Z C). 1, :•.:. ...::::.',1,:,:.::::.i:',::::::: :;: *,• :‘: i 1141,....-Aift ILI iS to. i. ..7,,t• " . .. . - -. ... . .... . . . . . : ,.„ . -... ...... .. .. - , Is-r; i• ; b : .-:,'-..:'-:,:',,:.1-`'. ..- :2:S-''' - -:::•F- 771 :. :"'::::'7''',.-,' *. ' '--:: 7 I i L 4;','.. N ' LU CC- • If 1 t''-..' Lu •--., 0 iCri 0 ! ,'';,;1.• ::•:-,,• -':-, •. : 4-: - -• • ---:• : •-•-...:::-, 1 ; ig••••,-',4 0 .4...,„ V) „, ,.. LU 0 s2-,-5 . ; - . - 2: :.• .:*::‘:. :.:: ; ,.. ;,-g.`i, ,__J11,-,‘..-,-.,: . -..;-,2.1,:-.1::.,:.,--. ; ;':,,,41,; ,-- -,, CZ v t (*it)0 I. .:'...: . `..-.....':- • -..- ',.-:.;.''.--;,:.;:bs: .4;;,.r,•, .: . Z Lj ›— M . -:-,: ,' •:.. ,:: i,- :: ::-, ,T.t,-.:.--.: -. ; w , DL, 0 CL z a i ,- , -:= ,,m <0 ' .f"'Tk' 0 0 D ._.. :: ::.. : .: 1.:::: .,.-2.-:,:-:,,,':-::..:::.- -.'-:.::::: Li::-. i,,, < 1 z x< 0 8 .,..,:-:•,, .::::::::•:.: .:: ' .:,.l'-: - .- *-.::.'T : l'-,••••.:,:l '', 0- :.:, 1.1.3 LC) e 1 NI l'- :1 .-.- . :::17L.I.::::,'':'''':::...•:';',::-.•'.:: i:' r-- -' . - - ' • '-'1 :CID i!...,i; 3 r9) (.) C44., ? . , --. - -. - , . .. :-,:,•;:- .. . :..- - : PA o 1- ! wz 1 :,it, x4,1:: Li -c i 0 !, ....i to 1,--7,::-.:-•• :',.,Ift.,‘: ‘.-,:,.:--7...;-...::,:-. :::.:::-.::-..-,:,..,::,,:. '- I .-< 1 <o I E '.': 0 Z i 1:::•.:-:.:z...:7:::•--I--::•-: ---:' , ---'.--.:, . --:-.-:'..---.•.---,-..1 i z , ...,-,. U „.. .•;:::-•:::-:::::::.:, c,:.-.:‘,-:-: .-.: :::.::-.-,:::-.-.-.::.--;::::..-:2-,,•,-..=:S',.:,.:::1‘: < , :„. ,..., -„.. m ; *C...• 1 :'-:::..:•:.,::::::. ::.':-..::„:`:.::::::','' ,,...r.:.„ E 1 .....:::' '.',..‘,,'::.:.:...:::::::::.'..„11-::,z--.•:.':.7', .-= ',---- ---------711 .c • 1 --: I' . • . ::: . o :?, , U co ,- i,,,: : ..- ; c,w ! r . L-•.•• ... .. --.•-,— ----. .=-- . -- L-•--,'-- 1 !L ,,,:*41:'-t,.; ,',.. ,s.7..:'.--1-... .:7'' -- .,...„ d -15', 471, IIINJ 1 .,i ' 1 n u, Lo. ..;.--.1,:q-:::,:::.-:,,,•::.. ,-..,.,-.„...,)-,-.., :-_,,,,, .i....4,', . '....._ V) ; g 1- ,..-:,,,-..-:_...,...:,, ,:,....-:::::: w. g m !:-• :-, ,,: :-..,,...„,2-...„-,-000,• .4...i...ilk__, .„..—...•_ _ 1 , , :,:,---, .: :-,..• -:: .., _1.---4__ 'N L-1-=-1,-,'• ', - '. ..:_::::_-.._ _ _...... ._....7. __7_ _________ ...... z ........._._. _....._ - savis3 - ONINOZ g B b 2 i Packet Pg. 179 1 9.D.2 i r Z7 0 0 0 c c 0 (N0, N. co N O O) 0 C V- 0 Cn O')Lo CN+) M c` Q U QO U si CtriU O .- O c» O O (h (0 O w. O a N N O r- .-- O r ) NO w 0 Q m (D V• CO O CO O F- (0 (p 3 - Cp CO ti O N , L (0) 0 0 (ii Q (f) (D O CD C() (`) CO Ccr) N D) (D CO N- 0) N Y C N Q O) - -- V' (C Ca E .o c - v a Nvw a3 3 . I- NO W , a O, h - s > z 0ccs L D Q) z - r w I- = 4) Q) J E (0 L1- cr co N Q O cu a m W aN ZU y y N 1- m m taUW ca co u, >- O QU a_ C4 C O c N w d' I` a V) w a m u o ` g w Q W I- V) � w ro (o c e° a) > P w Q I-- w c v cz ) ro z u=i U > - 2 z a0 .� C L > o w a a `n Ce W (n `° ° o d 4- o cn Ili _j m �' c� o P- 0 o a) o = o ' J z Z W ¢ = z © o z .3 O 4 z 3 W o cc ce U LU > t o 0 ' w U U ; I momw ,, , w (O w c , 0.1 on = J 1 ycw d-W OW t,) el CC 3 = o G , IYI CC 0_ Oa �S 1NObdoo 0 � : LI rz cn cn N - o NIW,SZ 'a CC W p W CL v c5'4 Z U--I W •- U '0 . _ yf0Q 'F- C - a-> 0 U Y ce a) 1 w J .a > J v ' = s �0mt- FAQ U r , � d L__� L 1- I E z Nn I t Lg NYN ``� o U u > ---1 W W L__Y I w (n D- -(:)- , O a S IN al d p 3 W < �� ) L z 00 z NIW,SZ �) of i o Z d O a L_ L — z IQ _1 W p Fmisiio) ZV i w I e._— _.. n m r N ., Packet Pg. 18 3 9.13.2 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Begin at the Southeast corner of Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, thence N 89°•51'00"W, along the South line of said Section 25, a distance of 2647.83 feet to the a j South 1/4 corner of said Section 25; thence continue N 89°49'19" W, along the South line of said Section 25, a distance of 2648.20 feet to the Southwest corner of said Section 25; thence N 00° 21'14" W, along the West line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 25, a 7/3 distance of 2015.67 feet to the northwest corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the northwest 00 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of said Section 25; a' thence N 89°49'22"£ along the north line of the Southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of said Section 25, a distance of 660.99 feet to the northeast corner ofre the Southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of said Section 25; a thence N 00°28'59" W along the east line of the northwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of said Section 25, a distance of 673.16 feet to the northeast corner of the northwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of said section 25; ce thence S 89°41'21"W along the north line of the northwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of said Section 25, a distance of 660.40 feet to the West 1/4 corner of said Section 25; thence N 00°28'49" W along the west line of the north half of said Section 25, a distance of 672.15 feet to the Northwest corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 25; thence N 89°33'49" E along the north line of the south 1 /2 of the south 1 /2 of the north 1 N /2 of said Section 25, a distance of 3962.01 feet to the northeast corner of the south half of the southwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of said section 25; c thence S 00°3777" E along the east line of the west 1/2 of the east 1/2 of said Section 25 c a distance of 1360.54 feet to the northeast corner of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said section 25 ; 0 thence S 89°.47'54" W, a distance of 661 .01 feet along the north line of the southeast 1/4 N of the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said section 25 to the northwest corner of ° a the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said section 25; 0 thence S 00°36'32" E along the west line of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said section 25 a distance of 678.67 feet to the southwest corner of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said section 25; a) thence N 89°56' 16" E along the south line of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said section 25, a distance of 661. 17 feet to the southeast corner of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said section 25; thence N 00°3717" W along the east line of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said section 25, a distance of 680.28 to the northeast corner of the E southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said section 25; co thence N 89°47'54" E along the north line of the south half of the northeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said Section 25, a distance of 991 .51 feet to the northeast corner of the west 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said Section 25; Page 6 of 11 Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD December 16, 2016 Packet Pg. 181 thence South 00°39'35" East along the east line of the west half of the southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said Section 25, a distance of 682.32 feet to the southeast corner of the west half of the southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said Section 25; thence N 89°54 '57" E along the north line of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said Section 25, a distance of 330.66 feet to the northeast corner of the southeast 1/4 of Y the southeast 1/4 of said Section 25; thence S 00°40'20" E along the southeast 1/4 of said Section 25, a distance of 1365.99 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to easements, restrictions and reservations of record. Parcel Contains 344.3 Acres more or less m I > 0 CI) cc m c, 3 I 0 w a, re � I 0 U a`1 0 U tD N a1 V !C C_ 0 a, CA 0. 6. a N C a, E t� t4 C a E Page 7 of 11 Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD December 16, 2016 Packet Pg. 182 91/2 EXHIBIT E DEVIATIONS: Nothing in this PUD Document shall approve a deviation to the LDC unless it is listed in this Exhibit E. 1 . A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02 A.2 which requires a 5-foot wide sidewalk a to be provided on either side of public and private right-of-ways or easements which are internal to the site, to instead provide a 6-foot sidewalk on one side of c the private right-of-ways or easements which are internal to the site. 2. A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.05 which requires a 5-foot buffer between m Industrially zoned lots or tracts to require no internal buffers between tracts a owned by Collier County. All perimeter buffers shall be required regardless of 0 ownership. re 3. A deviation from LDC Section 5.05.08.B.2.c. which requires all non-residential buildings within 300 feet of the boundary of a residentially zoned district to c comply with the provisions of section 5.05.08, Architectural and Site Design d Standards, to not require compliance with 5.05.08 for any tracts within the development. U CD 0 co M i N CO d1 O 0 O a` N d co G1 f0 Page 8 of 11 Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD December 16, 2016 Packet Pg. 183 EXHIBIT F DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS: ENVIRONMENTAL 1 . Preserve Area Calculation is based on LDC Section 3.05.07,C.4.b. which requires that 50% of the site be subject to Native Retention and site preservation a requirements. With a total site area of ±344.3 acres, this requires a minimum of N ±172.15 acres of on-site preservation 0 2. Outdoor lighting fixtures will be 'flat panel' type fixtures to avoid unnecessary 0° light spill. Fixtures near the preserve areas will utilize LED light sources and cut-off >' shields to reduce light spill into the preserves and native vegetation buffer tract. 0 re 3. Based on the approved USFWS Biological Opinion, the preserves on the subject property are being managed for the following listed species: RED COCKADED o WOODPECKER (Picoides borealis), FLORIDA BONNETED BAT (Eumops floridanus), BIG CYPRESS FOX SQUIRREL (Sciurus niger avicennia), EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE r (Drymarchon corais couperi), and GOPHER TORTOISE (Gopherus polyphemus). 0 4. A minimum 200' wide native vegetation buffer tract shall be provided as shown141 on the MCP. Preserves and the Native Vegetation Buffer Tract may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirement after exotic removal in accordance with LDC section 4.06.02 and LDC section 4.06.05.E.1; supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07. For areas along the east and west side of the project that will require the establishment of a Type C Buffer, these areas shall reach the 80% opacity requirement as specified in the LDC within 6 months of the first building Certificate of Occupancy (CO) being issued for the development. 12 PUBLIC UTILITIES o a o a` Water and wastewater connections will be made at locations approved at the time of N SDP review and final approval. E TRANSPORTATION The development of the land within this PUD shall be subject to and governed by the a following conditions: 1. Primary access to this site is subject to a Developer Contribution Agreement dated July 8, 2014 or its successor document as approved by the Board of a County Commissioners. 2. Additional site and offsite improvements, as required by the LDC, shall be addressed by the Owner at the time of Site Development Plans permitting. Page 9 of 11 Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD December 16, 2016 Packet Pg.184 9.112 3. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways and sidewalks, as well as pedestrian interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by the property owner. 4. If it is judicially determined or otherwise agreed to by the County, then the Scs County shall provide access to the outparcels identified on the Boundary Survey a as #40, #41, and #42 (all of which are located within the easternmost tract identified on the site plan as "Out Parcel 10.20 Ac Zoned-A"). Said access shall be to Garland Road or other public or private road. Preserve area calculations shall not be affected by such access. °D 5. No permanent access onto 31St Street SW shall be granted as part of this 0 approval; however, this condition shall not be construed to preclude any ce temporary emergency access that may be required by any other government agency. 0 0 6. No access shall be permitted on Garland Road. LANDSCAPE o U 1. The Native Vegetation Buffer Tract shall only be supplemented with native 0 vegetation. CD 2. After exotic vegetation removal, the Native Vegetation Buffer Tract shall be v Csi planted to meet opacity of the Type C landscape buffer and shall be treated as a Preserve for plantings and maintenance. A wall may also be used on the development tract in lieu of planting. These areas shall reach the 80% opacity c requirement as specified in the LDC within 6 months of the first building CO being =o issued for the development. 0 U) LIGHTING a 0 Project lighting shall be reduced to security level lighting outside of the hours of a operation and shall be the minimum lighting level needed for safety and security. a) GENERAL ca 1. Processing of yard waste shall be on the south side of the property as much as possible with staging to the north. E 2. At the time of SDP application for any future land uses, Collier County Pollution 03 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 Page 10 of 11 Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD December 16, 2016 Packet Pg. 185 9112 best management 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. HOURS OF OPERATION 2 Hours of daily operation will be the same as that of the landfill. Some operations may 0- require require service and monitoring outside of daily hours of operation, including leachate management, deep injection wells and utility operations. These uses however will be limited to employees travelling to and from the site unless responding to emergency conditions. 00 a, > 0 MONITORING REPORT One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD 0 commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managingcc Entity is Collier County. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a c) successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs °' to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. N As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its o` responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 0 a N C G1 E II • C d E t V Page 11 of 11 Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD December 16, 2016 Packet Pg. 186 9.D.4 tirf o e Go.14:t it ► GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION Y cou. CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM . o Ml a, To: Eric Johnson, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section w c From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section m Z' m Date: November 1, 2016 0 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review of Proposed County Resource re Recovery Business Park Industrial Planned Unit Development (1st memo) 0 u) a> cc PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ-PL20150002737 [REV: 1] Z', c PETITION NAME: County Resource Recovery Business Park Industrial Planned Unit Development o (IPUD) v `m REQUEST: This petition requests a rezone to PUD, within the A, Rural Agricultural Zoning District v within the North Belle Meade Overlay and Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) District Overlay Sending m Lands (A-RFMUO-Sending Lands-NBMO to convert the existing Conditional Use allowing 1) a "Collection and Transfer Site for Resource Recovery," pursuant to Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 2.03.01.A.1.c.12; and 2) "Public Facilities, including Solid Waste and Resource m Recovery Facility" and "Public Vehicle and Equipment Storage and Repair Facilities" pursuant to LDC a', Section 2.03.08.A.4.a.(3)(b) of the RFMU District to an Industrial Planned Unit Development �, (Planned Unit Development). c On the basis of the existing Conditional Use, this petition updates the approved Master Plan, c including the listing and identification of uses; increases the building height in the central portion o of the property from 35 ft. to 50 ft.; and, relocates access points to allow better interconnection to w the County-owned 305 acre parcel to the south. LL Master Plan changes generally replace specifically delineated use areas with larger development v tracts for siting flexibility, controlled by specific land use and development (text) regulations.; and, d illustrate new points of interconnection. r c.) LOCATION: The proposed Resource Recovery Business Park is located adjacent to the Collier a County Landfill site. The subject property, consisting of approximately ±344 acres, is located •• approximately 1.5 miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and one mile north of White Lake E Boulevard, in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East. as COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is located within the a Agricultural/Rural designated area, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands, as identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map 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 -1 - Packet Pg. 187 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. .71 The Sending Lands designation allows participation in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) a program, including Rural Villages and residential clustering, single-family residences at a density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres or legally nonconforming parcel, agricultural uses, and other non- 'w"" residential uses including facilities for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of o0 solid waste. The RFMUD allows for resource recovery activities within Sending Lands, stating, Z• 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, CC Range 26E, on lands adjacent to the existing County landfill. This shall not be interpreted to a) allow for the expansion of the landfill into Section 25 for the purpose of solid waste disposal. 'o The existing County Resource Recovery Business Park was approved as a Conditional Use on June 23, 2009, by Resolution No. 09-275, allowing yard waste and storm debris processing (72 acres), construction and debris processing (14 acres), a recycled material processing facility (14 acres), a v household hazardous waste facility (5 acres), an administration and equipment maintenance facility (9 acres), and tire processing (3 acres) and white goods (old appliances) processing (3 acres). This petition would provide for the same type uses within PUD zoning. Applicable FLUE policies were v evaluated by staff as part of the original (2009) CU request. The proposed changes do not co necessitate new re-evaluation of applicable FLUE policies under Objective 7. Future Land Use Element (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. c) Based upon the above analysis, the proposed Planned Unit Development Rezone may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. 0 U w —J LL 4 C E t () tC PETITION ON CITYVIEW m E L cc: Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section CO David Weeks,AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Michael Bosi,AICP, Director,Zoning Division G: ComplConsistency Reviews12016 G:\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews\2016\PUDZ\PUDZ-PL2015-2737 Cnty Resource Recovery Prk R2.docx -2- Packet Pg.188 4 4 apLci �JaiLu ? rw6 NaplesNews.com Published Daily L2 Naples,FL 34110 ii to to Affidavit of Publication CD State of Florida m Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Daniel McDermott who on oath says that 0 he serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples,in Collier Coun- a ty,Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published it in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published c°', at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published z in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as N second class mail matter at the post office in Naples,in said Collier County,Florida,for a period of one year next pre- to ceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person,or corporation any discount,rebate,commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. c 0 Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.# v u. BCC/ZONING DEPARTMENT 1307446 PUBLIC HEARING -SOLI m 0 C.) Pub Dates co M October 14,2016 N U) C O 'rte is V w O Z Ts O) a) J in C a) E V ra r Q 211‘ (Sign ure of .ir affiant) (.) Z a Sworn to and subscribed before me 4 ,) n;,"•., tVONNE GM This October ,2016 4 ��`�, Notary Public-State o1 Florida ' Commission�FF 900570 -.&i My Comm.Expires Jul 16.2019 O ( 4C:00 Bonded though National Notary Asad. (Signatur of affiant) ' Packet Pg. 189 9.D.5 IBA Friday,Ortober 14,70th Naples Daily News Florida, Georgia NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning prepare for federal Commission,at 9:00 A.M.,on Thursday,November ard,2016,in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Rowe,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples FL,to consider- (111 water wars' trial AN ORDINANCE LIER COUNTY, LF ORIDAFAMENDINTHE NGRO ORDINANCE O,D OF COUNTY 20044-1,AS AME DED,NERS OF L THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABUSHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF States continue toFlorida wants Georgia's water use to COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS be capped annually,with additional cut- MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICA"ION OF THE HEREIN squabble over backs during drought years,so that DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM AN AGRICULTURAL(A)ZONING DISTRICT Florida's oyster industry gets the bal- TO AN INDUSTRIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(IPUD)ZONING DISTRICT shared watershed ance of fresh and salt water it needs to TO ALLOW SOLID WASTE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES AND PUBLIC survive. Federal authorities have VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITIES FORA PROJECT TO blamed low flows from freshwater riv- KATHLEEN FOODY ars for throwing off that balance, BE KNOWN AS COLLIER COUNTY RESOURCE AND RECOVERY BUSINESS PARK ASSOCtATon miss which"will be catastrophic and irre- IPUD ON PROPERTY LOCATED 1.5 MILES EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD MID ONE versible"for the industry and environ. MILE NORTH OF WHITE LAKE BOULEVARD IN SECTION 25,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, tw ca ATLANTA-A decades-long fight be- meat without change,Florida argues in RANGE 28 EAST. COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 344*ACRES: a tween Florida and Georgia over the its brief. PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF RESOLUTION NO.09-275;AND BY PROVIDING AN supply of water in the states'shared Georgia's water consumption is"ex- EFFECTIVE DATE.(PUDZ-PL20150002737) In watershed is headed to trial,despite treme"and significantly worsens al- In the pleas of a special master appointed ready reduced flows,the brief said. , I y by the U.S.Supreme Court to reach a "Equity requires that Georgia share settlement instead, the pain with Florida,not avoid it at i C Florida's attorneys say water use Florida's expense." • >—a.o 4 eaoa.pr U) has grown dramatically in the booming Florida also argues that Georgia aam0 metropolitan Atlanta area and in south- hasn't done enough to require water m west Georgia'stheenvironment vrinentala idd own- agrservuis s..[Geor ia's ttorneis perming the tiesin luand down- agricultural uses.Georgia's attorneys q Z1 stream industries including oyster deny this,saying the state has taken fishing. steps to conserve water,both by farms ' Georgia's lawyers say the state's wa- and by metro Atlanta's 5 million con- - ter use isn't to blame for lower flows sumers. I i 0 into Florida's Apalachicola Bay,and Georgia attorneys hope to convince •'m a -$ V that capping its use of the Chattahoo- a court that Florida has failed to show I CD chee and Flint rivers will jeopardize that Georgia's water use directly CC Georgia's economy. harms the downstream environment or MI interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed 0) The arguments filed this week sag- industries.The brief says that Florida's ORDINANCE will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office, gest neither state is backing down "own mismanagement"of the fishery Fourth Flow,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Suite 401, i ahead of a trial beginning on Oct.3l that has diminished the bay's oysterpopula• could af fact how the watershed serving tion and blames lower downstream Naples,FL.one week prior to the scheduled nearing.Written comments must bellied with Alabama,Florida and Georgia is used. flows on drought and the management the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,poor to Thursday,November 9rd,2018. 0 "I hope I live long enough to see it of dams by the U.S.Army Corps of En- W happen,"said Special Master Ralph gineers.Attorneys for Georgia also Sr. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning G) Lancaster,who was appointed by the gue that Florida hasn't shown that its Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hewing,he wit LZ U.S.Supreme Court to review Florida's proposed annual cap and added need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a 2013 lawsuit."When this matter is con- drought limits will have any positive in. verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and ,w eluded,at least one and probably both fluence downstream,but will harm in- evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. C of the parties will be unhappy with the dustries that contribute almost 618 mil- M court's Order,"he warned attorneys lion annually to Georgia's economy. g you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate 0 last year in a conference call. "Florida proposes draconian reduc• in this ion proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain The dispute focuses on the Apalachi- tions in Georgia's water use—cuts that Distance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management n,located V cola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, willcost hundreds of millions(if not bil- i which drains nearly 20,000 square lions)of dollars and will generate a at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least miles in western Georgia,eastern Ala- mere fraction of the water that Florida two days poor to the meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are barna and the Florida Panhandle.The suggests,"the brief said. available in the Board of County Commissioners Office, Chattahoochee and Flint rivers meet at Both states indicated this month that 0 the Georgia-Florida border to form the a settlement is unlikely before the trial Collier County Planning Commission U Apalachicola,which flows into the bay begins in Portland,Maine,where Lan- Mark Strain.Chairman , and the Gulf of Mexico beyond. caster is based. October 14,2018 No.1307448 Cl NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE V Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Notice is hereby given that a pubic hearing loll be:"end by the Collier County Planning Commission at N Commission at 9:00 AM.,on Thursday,November 3rd,2018,in the Board of County 0;00 AM„pp Thueedey,Novamberard,2016,In the Board of County Co hrmeeioners Meeing Room. _ Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Floor.Collier Government Center,3299 East Third Floor,Colter Government Center,3299 Fast Tam'.ami rail,Naples FL,to consider: 0 Tamiami Trail,Naples FL,to consider AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLUER COUNTY, a.+ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-09,THE couRTHOusE SHADOWS PLANNED 0 FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 22004"41,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE V sig COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE SHOPPING CENTER AND OUTPARCELS BY 16,000 SQUARE FEET FOR A TOTAL OF 165,000 ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY. GROSS SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA:BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004441,THE 0 FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL. COLLIERLASMAP OR APS DYE CHANGING TTHE CODE NAMLADING THE AP PF AN AD ZONING Z PROPERTY FROM A COMMUNITY FACIUTY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN ATLAS OR MAPA BY CHANGING ZONING DISTRICTTION OF AN ADDITIONAL AS NEW HOPE MINISTRIES CFPUD ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANNED /-ACRES OF LAND ZONED COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE IN THE MIXED USE fO UNIT DEVELOPMENT(MPUD)ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY10tUD- 0) AS THE NEW HOPE MPUD,TO ALLOW AN BOD SEAT CHURCH,A MULTI-PURPOSE MXIA TO THE COURTHOUSE SHADOWS PUD;BY ADDINGWAREH A MEMBERSHIP WAREHOUSE a) FACILITY,AND CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 319 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING CLUB WITH ASSOCIATED LIQUOR STORE USE AND ANCILLARY FACILITY WITH FUEL PUMPS J UNITS ON 39.89*/-ACRES,BY PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER AS A PERMITTED USE;BV REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS;BY AMENDING THE l MASTER PLAN; 08.07,THE NEW HOPE MINISTRIES CFPUD;AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AND ADDING DEVIATIONS.THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE L0 THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD Of US a1 AND OPPOSITE AIRPORT PUWNG ROAD N SECTIONS 71,72 AND 13,TOWNSHIP 50 tea EAST OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD IN SECTION 4,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,COLDER COUNTY.FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 20.36N•ACRES;AND • RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA (?UDR-PL20150002519] BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE,IPUDZ-PL201200015151 Eaat Collier County,%Rds. 0) a „C E T g' Davis BLVD ���i'p is .d i4 B c — yi F 'E mower Q cm evo !a Lxaner o I re \ i i $ i '+. s v All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed At interested parties are Inked to appear and be heard, Copies or the proposed ORDINANCE wN aC ORDINANCE wit be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office, be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office,Fourth Floor,Collier County 4.+ Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Tral,Suite 401, Government Cerxer,3299 Fest Tamiami T n,Suite 401,Naples,FL,one week prior to the scheduled a Naples,FL,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be filed with hewing.Wrrcen comments must be fled with the Zoning Division.Zoning Services Section.p5or to the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prior to Thursday,November 3rd.2018. Thursday,November ab,2010. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning B a person daodee to appeal any dedaion made by the CONer County Planning Commission with CommioSiOn with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he wA aspect W any menet considered at such meeting or hearing,he win need a record of that proceeding, need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which reoord includes the testimony and record inductee the testimony and BNdarws upon which the appal is to be based. evidenceupon which the appeal i5 t0 be based. Ifyou me a parson with a disability who needs any accommodation in ostler to participate in this If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to partidpate proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision ofoedaln assistance.Please contact Me in this prOCeeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain Colter County Facilities ManagementDivision,located at 3335 Tamamiltak bast,suite 101,Naples,FL assistance. Please Contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located 34112-5356,(239)252-9380.at least two oars ono,to the meeting.Assisted listening devices rot the at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples.FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least nearing impaired are available in the Board or County Commissioners Ounce. two days prior to the meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County CommLss.oners Office. Colter County Planning Commission Mark Strain,Charmer Collier County Planning Commission Mark Strain,Chairman ' October 14,2018 No.1307437 October14,2016 No./3081401 'v , Packet Pg. 190 9.D.5 Petition No. CU-PL20120002737 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE FOR PROVIDING INDIVIDUAL MAIL NOTICE TO AFFEC fED PROPERTY OWNERS 1. I hereby certify that pursuant to Subsections 10.03.05.B.8 and N 10.03.05.8.10 of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did give notice of the public hearing before the Collier County Planning Commission scheduled for November 3,2016 by U.S. mail to the affected property owners at the addresses provided to me by the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office on October 14, 2016. A copy of the list of addresses from the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office is attached to this Affidavit. cc, 2. Copies of the letters mailed to the affected property owners are attached to this Affidavit. Dated this ig day of , ,Iia 2016. N O . 4 r ° Z Sign.0 e ff � Print Name/1-CC644,1-- At/109.e 4 t E Print Title ( c as ° z 1 of2 Packet Pg. 191 9S,; STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) ss COUNTY OF COLLIER) BEFORE ME, a duly authorized notary of the State of Florida, personally appeared I Y ) ISS ( T11- , who is personally known to me or produced t`/ S a i i re{')Sc, as identification, and under oath stated that the above is true and correct • and to the best of his/her knowledge. m DATED this / -5 day of •t 'r , 2016. ce oottillatioN, a )1‘ ptAMO/v Noy o '% Notary, State of Florida • :4-) -.A° • E rd c) icarcx-)ca 40 .4.:4 ���4 Notary Printed Name • •A * yG •Pee rhiough 1...• �� • O d My commission expires:(p( / D :1:1 a) J d w G1 Cg t0 2 of 2 Packet Pg 192 :., 9 .s COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Departments October 05, 2016 Dear Property Owner: This is to advise you that because you may have interest in the proceedings or you own property located within 500 feet (urban areas) or 1,000 feet (rural areas) of the following described property, that a public hearing will be held by m the Collier County Planning Commission at 9:00 A.M., on October 05, 2016,in the Board of County Commissioners a meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL., to consider: a, _ An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, g as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations m for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by w changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to an 8 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 And Recovery Business Park IPUD on property located 1.5 miles east of Collier Boulevard and one mile north of White c Lake Boulevard in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 344± acres; ai providing for repeal of Resolution No. 09-275; and by providing an effective date. [PUDZ-PL20150002737] NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 cL MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE .°' WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID v MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, .. WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE M COUNTY STAFF MEMBER NOTED BELOW, A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. N ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF N THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY c COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of c the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is Z made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. a, m J If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities c Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, m at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board s of County Commissioners Office. This petition, and other pertinent information related to this petition, is kept on file and may be reviewed at the . Growth Management Department building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Please m contact the staff member noted below at (239)-252-2931 to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file. ns Sincerely, Eric L. Johnson,AICP,CFM,LEED Green Associate Principal Planner Packet Pg. 193 Ned sseuisn8 tianooaa eamoseN A}unoa Jaipo3 : 9£pZ) suoneogRoN ie6ei-g;uauayoend :;ueullyoe d u, a) rn 1111111111minsminsimmimmingnimmensmwoaeaiava00aaa O01a. �Ei i; 11111 uuM a�ZEaaoal0oa000aa �� 11�1�E1o��I1II11Il of W ° vaoa iooasav o 1111asO. ai 5 1 •s v i0aaaas� simimmmmilmmi, 111 Nxt,,, �o�ooa0000s000000�uum aoI��ooE NTNG a oENNgCamocuminaca� imcmmumsaMI 111 EOs0mme 0 `. . 0 a s QQQ ccomoe1 0 kcO ■®ate ` � '11111e11�11111 �' ; � .c 0 ` ;ml e ):kuit_III ,i��;� 1111111 i 9.D.5 Petition No. PUDZ-PL20150002737 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE FOR PROVIDING INDIVIDUAL MAIL NOTICE TO AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS i fd 0 1. I hereby certify that pursuant to Subsections 10.03.05.B.8 and N a) 10.03.05.B.10 of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did give •N notice of the public hearing before the Collier County Planning 00 z Commission scheduled for November 3, 2016 by U.S. mail to the affected o property owners at the addresses provided to me by the Collier Countycc Property Appraiser's Office on October 18, 2016. A copy of the list of addresses from the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office is attached to this Affidavit. 0 U 2. Copies of the letters mailed to the affected property owners are attached to d this Affidavit. v Dated this day of DC 'oe"T 2016. 0 0 _ z PQitt� %uiev(- 76 Signature t c CSC•- uACX-- Print Name D pet��'j.ri onS C�d4vA r Print itle E ns a I of 2 Packet Pg. 195 STATE OF FLORIDA ) ss COUNTY OF COLLIER) BEFORE //ME, a duly authorized notary of the State of Florida, personally appeared 4rGQ fes 1 44 A , who is personally known to me or produced a F2Or dot .e'iMQIS hurt e as identification. and under oath stated that the above is true and correct d .N and to the best of his/her knowledge. DATED thisU'be✓ , 2016. 'O o?D�' day of CD Ailibminwr YE CARZO Notary, S :hof F srida d ��;USA MY COMMISSION I FF 021201 EXPIRES:May 23,2017 / iQ C. ear Z O d":16V170. want an etage Naar Swot z Notary P nted Name My commission expires: 5;;3, v M (NI tlf C +C i a) a) ca 2 oft Packet Pg. 196 9 .'S COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department Zoning Division October 18, 2016 RE: PUDZ-PL20150002737 Collier County Resource and Recovery Business Park Industrial Planned Unit Development (IPUD) N Dear Property Owner: N Please be advised the public notification letter sent to your address dated October 5, 2016 regarding PUDZ- PL20150002737 contained an incorrect hearing date and official name of the requested zoning district. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)will review the above referenced rezoning petition at 9:00 A.M., on November 3, 2016, in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center, m 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL. The subject request is to consider the following: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive y zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning c atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural 0 Agricultural (A) zoning district to an Industrial Planned Unit Development (IPUD) zoning district to allow solid m waste and resource recovery facilities and public vehicle and equipment storage and repair facilities for a v project to be known as Collier County Resource and 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. (PUDZ-PL20150002737) 0 If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are Zi entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities E Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, z at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board a of County Commissioners Office. m This petition, and other pertinent information related to this petition, is kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Lo Management Department building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Please contact m the staff member noted below at (239) 252-2931 to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file. E Sincerely, a - aci E as Eric L. Johnson,AICP,CFM,LEED Green Associate Principal Planner Packet Pg. 197 JohnsonEric From: Madeline Giofrida <madelineg42@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 10:41 AM To: JohnsonEric Subject: proposed PUDZ-PL-20150002737 L a N d Eric Johnson, CO I'm writing to request a*map showing the exact location *of the proposed rezoning in Golden Gate. v PUDZ-PL-20150002737 ao re Thank You d v Philip Giofrida O N -- y Madeline Giofrida, Accounting Old Town Restoration,LLC 3840 31st Ave. SW o Naples, Fl. 34117 as 0 Email: madelineg42@gmail.com �? Phone/Fax: 239-455-2697 co M c' N a E L yd N I cc W co a) co co Packet Pg.198 9.0.6 JohnsonEric From: Kevin Fitzgerald <kfitzgerald@naiswfl.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 1:59 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: RE: Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD I- ca a Thank you very much. If I can ever be of any service please use my contact info below. Thx again fitz a) .N Have a Red Letter Day+ 00 Kevin M. Fitzgerald,CSE President/CEO NAI Southwest Florida, Inc. a, ° 13120 Westlinks Ter.,#2 Fort Myers, FL 33913 780 5th Avenue South,Ste.200 Naples, FL 34102 L d Tel: 239-437-3330 Ext. 201 Fax:239-437-3220 Cel:239-281-4955 Csi Web:www.naiswfl.com Skype:fitz.nai •—' Licensed in IA, IL& FL Will l POWER 2 Follow us on Twitter twitter.com/NAISWFL BROKER '~ a) NA! Southwest Florida,Inc. col Build on the power of our network.TM NAI Global is one of the world's leading providers of commercial real estate services. NAI manages a network (o with 6,700 professionals, 375 offices in 55 countries worldwide and providing management services to more than 380 million square feet of properties. We bring together people and resources wherever needed to deliver E outstanding results for our clients, and complete over $45 billion in transactions annually. Our clients come to v us for our deep local knowledge. They build their businesses on the power of our global managed network. Please consider the environment before printing this email. a=i ca From:JohnsonEric [mailto:EricJohnson@colliergov.net] Sent:Wednesday, November 2, 2016 1:52 PM To: kfitzgerald@naiswfl.com Subject: Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD Packet Pg.199 Kevin, It was a pleasure speaking to you today. Attached is a PDF depicting the location of the subject property. Please be advised the CCPC will review this petition at their meeting on December 1, 2016. Respectfully, L a Eric L.Johnson,AICP, CFM N Principal Planner Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division —Zoning Services Section 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Z' a> Naples, FL 34104 0 (239) 252-2931 office a, (239) 252-6503 fax L O TM LEED I c O GREEN ASSOCIATE .72 U m M N V 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. n' O L N w a) d J i N E w to E t V cC rC-; a> E t C.) t0 r 2 Packet Pg. 200 9.D. . JohnsonEric From: Tina <nvprincezz@aol.com> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 6:40 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Re: 2390 Markley Ave. (2nd email) co a. Thank you for prompt response. y Tina W. �. On Oct 20, 2016, at 1 :43 PM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> wrote: <image002.gif> i Ms. Warren, 'o N Please be advised that I was just told this afternoon that this petition will not be reviewed by the CCPC on November 3. 0 U Respectfully, d 0 Eric L.Johnson,AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associateco Principal Planner From:JohnsonEric • Sent:Thursday, October 20, 2016 3:10 PM a To: 'nvprincezz@aol.com'<nvprincezz@aol.com> E Cc: BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; KurtzGerald <GeraldKurtz@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: 2390 Markley Ave. 112 w Ms. Warren, N I read your email and wanted to respond. The letter you received indicated the incorrect hearing date. This item will be reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission on November 3. You should be receiving the attached follow up letter in the mail any day now. With respect tO to your question about access,I attached a drawing that shows vehicles would eventually access E the site via City Gate Boulevard North extension. ca I am copying Jerry Kurtz, who has better knowledge of drainage issues/solutions. r c Respectfully, Eric L.Johnson,AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner From: BosiMichael Sent:Thursday, October 20, 2016 9:12 AM Packet Pg.201 To:JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: 2390 Markley Ave. Eric, Can you reach out to the e-mailer to let them know the location of the access road? (see e-mail below) Thanks, mike !0 From: Yang Beth a co Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 8:53 AM To: BosiMichael Subject: FW: 2390 Markley Ave. m Mike, 0 Would you please help her or direct her to the right person? & Thanks a lot, a) Beth tx From:Tina.Wvers@HCAHealthcare.com [mailto:Tina.Wyers@HCAHealthcare.com] Sent:Tuesday, October 18, 2016 6:21 PM To:YangBeth<BethYang@colliergov.net> Cc: nvprincezz@aol.com;gmartv40@cox.net U Subject: 2390 Markley Ave. co Tr N Hi Beth, Martin Gaut and I own a house there in Collier County. We got a letter explaining they were holding a hearing to be held by the Collier County Planning Commission a concerning zoning regulations to be changed to IPUD zoning district to allow waste and o resource recovery facilities and public vehicle and equipment storage and repair facilities. z a, J The map that was sent to us, shows it will be caddy corner to our property within 50 feet, which concerns me because we are already backed up to the dump. Which is not as a problem obviously because we bought it with knowing we were purchasing near the w dump. My question is, is the entrance road going to be near our property or will it be on co the other end for the new facilities? E We never got to answer or come to a meeting cause we mainly live in Las Vegas and was not available at the time. Our last letter for public hearing was sent out on October 5th, to be at a public meeting at 9am for the same day which we just received the letter on October 171h d Also, I have been wanting to contact somebody, you may know who I need to contact. Our back lot of our property was totally flooded when we were there in September. There was no place for the water to flow out. The dump has a berm along the fence, which kicks water our way and is flooding the side also. There is no drain to let the water out and the only place it can drain is beside Collier County Property which 2 Packet Pg.202 9.D.6 is the property mentioned in the public hearing. How do I get someone out there to look at it and tell us what we need to do so that we can drain the water in the future? Please reply to nvprincezz@aol.com, I am using my work email today. Thank you, Tina K.Warren c`o a 8028 Red bud Vine 5t. North Las Vegas, Nevada 89085 (702)962-7286 daytime CO (702)308-7695 evening o C.) 2390 Markley Ave. fY Naples,Florida 3+1 17 0 et 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. d 0 U N V a E 0 m z a� J I E W cD C d E t v to .r r a d E r r 3 9.0.6 JohnsonEric From: BosiMichael Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 9:12 AM To: JohnsonEric Subject: FW: 2390 Markley Ave. L R a Eric, Can you reach out to the e-mailer to let them know the location of the access road? (see e-mail below) Thanks, c mike From: YangBeth Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 8:53 AM To: BosiMichael m Subject: FW: 2390 Markley Ave. Mike, Would you please help her or direct her to the right person? Thanks a lot, Beth co M From:Tina.Wyers@HCAHealthcare.com [mailto:Tina.Wyers@HCAHealthcare.com] N_ Sent:Tuesday,October 18, 2016 6:21 PM To:YangBeth<BethYang@colliergov.net> Cc: nvprincezz@aol.com;gmarty40@cox.net a Subject: 2390 Markley Ave. 0 L Hi Beth, Martin Gaut and I own a house there in Collier County. We got a letter explaining they were holding a J hearing to be held by the Collier County Planning Commission concerning zoning regulations to be 01 changed to IPUD zoning district to allow waste and resource recovery facilities and public vehicle and 73 equipment storage and repair facilities. w (o The map that was sent to us, shows it will be caddy corner to our property within 50 feet, which concerns me because we are already backed up to the dump. Which is not a problem obviously E because we bought it with knowing we were purchasing near the dump. My question is, is the entrance road going to be near our property or will it be on the other end for the new facilities? We never got to answer or come to a meeting cause we mainly live in Las Vegas and was not available at the time. Our last letter for public hearing was sent out on October 5th, to be at a public c meeting at 9am for the same day which we just received the letter on October 17th Also, I have been wanting to contact somebody, you may know who I need to contact. Our back lot of our property was totally flooded when we were there in September. There was no place for the water to flow out. The dump has a berm along the fence, which kicks water our way and is flooding the side also. There is no drain to let the water out and the only place it can drain is beside Collier Packet Pg.204 9.©,6 County Property which is the property mentioned in the public hearing. How do I get someone out there to look at it and tell us what we need to do so that we can drain the water in the future? Please reply to nvprincezz@aol.com, I am using my work email today. Thank you, Tina K.Warren tLa a 8028 Red 5uci Vine 5t. N North Las Vegas,Nevada 89085 (702)962-7286 daytime m (702)308-7695 evening Z' a> 2390 Markley Ave. re Naples,Florida 3+11 7 O O 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. CL m O U cc ea U_ a E °. Cdr J I H E W co C a) E c.) t0 w E ca z 2 Packet Pg.205 9.D.7 Wiffiiiiiip. 1111111111. N0710E of PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday,January 10,2017 in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples FL., the Board;of County missioners (BCC) will•consider the enactment of it'County erftance.Thi!`fft#eting win commence L 0 A.M. at 9:0The title.of the proposa4()nihilism"is as follows: m 0 The purpose of the hearing is to consider: y w ANORDINANCEOFTHEBOARDOFCOUNTYCOMMISSIONERS a) OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE - NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY a LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE m UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COWER 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 �c..)) AGRICULTURAL(A)ZONING DISTRICT TO AN INDUSTRIAL ' PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(IPUD)ZONING DISTRICT 3 TO ALLOW SOLID WASTE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY v o . FACILITIES AND PUBLIC VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT Z STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITIES FOR A PROJECT TO ,ft BE KNOWN AS COLLIER COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY o co •a BUSINESS PARK!PUD ON PROPERTY LOCATED 1.5 MILES y o EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND ONE MILE NORTH a OF WHITE LAKE BOULEVARD IN SECTION 25,TOWNSHIP �, o 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA r a CONSISTING OF 344* ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL a z OF RESOLUTION NO. G9-275; AND BY PROVIDING AN O EFFECTIVE DATE.(PUDZ-PL201511/2737) O o A copy of the proposed Ordinance is on file with the Clerk to the m Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are Einvited to attend and be heard. U a, I NOTE:All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County manager prior to presentation of v the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be N O limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of any individual �, to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. co If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or co organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. c N Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in Ca the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum - of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, -a C written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall n be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of aa) seven days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in a) presentations before the Board will become a permanent part Q of the record. co Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and To therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the a) proceedings is made,which recordincludes'the testimony and a) evidence upon which the appeal is based. 4.; a If you are aperson with a disabilitywho needs any accommodation a, in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at E no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please c contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112- 5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Q Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA DONNAS FIALA CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK By: Martha Vergara,Deputy Clerk (SEAL) December 21,2016 No.1401400 Packet Pg. 206 01/10/2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller. OBJECTIVE: To further a collaborative working relationship between the Board and the Clerk of the Circuit Court. CONSIDERATIONS: The attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was presented for the Board's review and approval on December 13, 2016. The MOU was discussed with unanimous Board direction to resubmit the item for approval on the January 10,2017 meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: The provisions of the MOU include an agreement to not spend taxpayer funds for outside counsel regarding litigation between the Clerk and the Board. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney. There is an existing Interlocal Agreement between the parties. This MOU would be a supplement to this Agreement. In the event of any conflicts between this MOU and the Agreement, the terms of the Agreement would control. With that noted, this item is approved as to form and legality, and requires majority vote for approval. -JAK GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated with this action. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the recommended Memorandum of Understanding between the Board and the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller. PREPARED BY: Burt L. Saunders,Esq. County Commissioner District 3 in conjunction with Dwight E.Brock,Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller. ATTACHMENT(S) 1.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Payments Jan 10 2017 (DOCX) I 01/10/2017 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 10.A Item Summary: ***This item continued from the December 13, 2016 BCC Meeting.*** Request that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller. (Commissioner Saunders) Meeting Date: 01/10/2017 Prepared by: Title:—Board of County Commissioners Name: Dave Lykins 01/03/2017 11:37 AM Submitted by: Title:—Board of County Commissioners Name: Burt Saunders 01/03/2017 11:37 AM Approved By: Review: Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 01/03/2017 11:46 AM Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 01/04/2017 10:25 AM County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A.Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 01/04/2017 2:44 PM County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 01/04/2017 3:04 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 01/10/2017 9:00 AM 444.4 10.A.a 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 U 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 o the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, Dwight E. Brock (Clerk). a� U I.Purpose a ca The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to outline an operational process for m cooperation and consideration between the parties to avoid litigation and create an environment of collaboration between the Board and the Clerk. a' A a) II. The Clerk Agrees: 0 A. To work with the Board to resolve issues concerning Clerk processes to avoid 2 litigation; co 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 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. E ca a. III. The Board Agrees: C7 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 et 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 u_ 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. 0 IV. Process agreement: 2 A. The Clerk's Office will audit invoices as presented for payment B. The Clerk's Office will return to departments any questions/findings for resolution to pay C. Designated County staff will provide the Clerk resolution within 5 days regarding the issue. Packet Pg. 209 .. ET 01/10/2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Tract 3, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 20 Replat, Application Number PL20160000628. OBJECTIVE: To approve for recording the final plat of Tract 3, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 20 Replat, a subdivision of lands located in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. CONSIDERATIONS: The Development Review Division of the Growth Management Department has completed the review of the minor final plat of Tract 3, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 20 Replat, and these documents are in compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) and Chapter 177, Florida Statutes. Under LDC Section 10.02.04 D, a minor final plat approval may be requested as an alternative to the standard construction plans and plat approval where the plat does not require improvements,a construction and maintenance agreement, a security performance bond, or phasing. I All fees have been paid. The Development Review Division recommends that the minor final plat of Tract 3,Golden Gate Estates,Unit No. 20 Replat be approved for recording. I FISCAL IMPACT: The County will realize revenues as follows: Fund: Growth Management Fund 131 Agency: County Manager Cost Center: 138327 -Land Development Services Revenue generated by this project: Total: $1,015 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The developer must receive a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities (COA) prior to the issuance of the construction plan final approval letter and plat recordation, except when the applicant elects to delay obtaining a COA for non-residential developments that are required to obtain approval of a site development plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires a majority vote for Board approval. - SAS RECOMMENDATION: To approve the minor final plat of Tract 3, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 20 Replat,Application Number PL20160000628 for recording. Prepared by: John Houldsworth, Senior Site Plan Reviewer, Development Review Division, Growth Management Department ATTACHMENT(S) 1.Location Map (PDF) 2.Plat Map (PDF) 10.A.a D. If resolution is not provided within 5 days,the Clerk's Office will refer the item to the County Liaison. E. If the item cannot be resolved through the Liaison the Board and the Clerk will enter into mediation within a reasonable amount of time. t Duration of Memorandum of Understanding a) This Memorandum of Understanding shall begin when signed by both parties and is in effect o 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 m in the spaces provided a, 0 2 Donna Fiala,Chairperson Date co Collier County Board of County Commissioners N F 0 N O Dwight E. Brock Date Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller U) E a co a ATTEST: C7 DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK p By: cn I- w z Approved as to form and legality O z County Attorney 0 2 w 2 _ E V Packet Pg.210 • 01/10/2017 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 16.A.8 Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Tract 3, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 20 Replat, Application Number PL20160000628. Meeting Date: 01/10/2017 Prepared by: Title: Site Plans Reviewer, Senior—Growth Management Development Review Name: John Houldsworth 11/23/2016 12:34 PM Submitted by: Title: Project Manager,Principal—Growth Management Department Name: Matthew McLean 11/23/2016 12:34 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Division Reviewer Completed 11/23/2016 4:39 PM Growth Management Department Matthew McLean Additional Reviewer Completed 12/09/2016 10:46 AM Growth Management Department David Wilkison Level 2 Division Administrator Completed 12/13/2016 9:27 AM Growth Management Department James French Additional Reviewer Completed 12/13/2016 10:31 AM County Attorneys Office Scott Stone Level 2 Attorney Review Completed 12/15/2016 10:07 AM Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 12/15/2016 11:30 AM County Attorneys Office Jeffrey A.Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorneys Office Review Completed 12/15/2016 4:40 PM Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 12/20/2016 3:07 PM County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 12/28/2016 1:36 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 01/10/2017 9:00 AM A64434,4 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE \� r ' COUNTY ROAD 846 (IMMOKALEE ROAD) ct 24TH AVE NW vi 2 SECTION 29 coLu Q m UNPLATTED LAND `. 22ND AVE NW J cu r 'a SUBJECT 00, PROPERTY 20TH AVE NW 3as 70 a 0 Q. 18TH AVE NW R z a JUNG BLVD. � LL .. N N N 2 O to O J .i.i E V to Packet Pg.445 F c 01/10/2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item,all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Oyster Harbor at Fiddler's Creek Phase 1 -Replat 2,Application Number PL20160002690. OBJECTIVE: To approve for recording the minor final plat of Oyster Harbor at Fiddler's Creek Phase 1 - Replat 2, a subdivision of lands located in Section 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. CONSIDERATIONS: The Development Review Division of the Growth Management Department has completed the review of the minor final plat of Oyster Harbor at Fiddler's Creek Phase 1 -Replat 2, and these documents are in compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) and Chapter 177, Florida Statutes. Under LDC Section 10.02.04 D, a minor final plat approval may be requested as an alternative to the standard construction plans and plat approval where the plat does not require improvements, a construction and maintenance agreement, a security performance bond,or phasing. There are no issues with the PUD that would prevent this plat from being approved at this time. All fees have been paid. The Development Review Division recommends that the minor final plat of Oyster Harbor at Fiddler's Creek Phase 1 -Replat 2 be approved for recording. FISCAL IMPACT: The County will realize revenues as follows: Fund: Growth Management Fund 131 Agency: County Manager Cost Center: 138327 -Land Development Services Revenue generated by this project: Total: $1,015 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The developer must receive a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities (COA) prior to the issuance of the construction plan final approval letter and plat recordation, except when the applicant elects to delay obtaining a COA for non-residential developments that are required to obtain approval of a site development plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires a majority vote for Board approval. - SAS RECOMMENDATION: To approve the minor final plat of Oyster Harbor at Fiddler's Creek Phase 1 - Replat 2,Application Number PL20160002690 for recording. Prepared by: John Houldsworth, Senior Site Plan Reviewer, Development Review Division, Growth Management Department ATTACHMENT(S) 1.Location Map (PDF) 2.Plat Map (PDF) I I o m €g.€� 118 � < 1 e a I9 I Pgom o g;w Ip g$ 1. o<awas ,=as , zm aa� � E. 8 9 I< :� Ilya 8 23 a.2n� a PE91_1 ..,. a7" 24 W <I w r N =t:oE `oz = Ing > 8e ' 2i 13 d�2-.8 .0,0. 8 11.13 OE <8 W2 1> __�"' ;E a i ai z'F mmE X a8 o I i S "a 8$ -_T I Io oi<iFm ods ^8 �j�3it 8 9 R r� dg d' G I 11,6 8 m �3 rb'41 3 2�rc� o 1+,iii 84 N No - P �I s= $< 0< I- :g it' m ,2 d <I z 292= Q N El{E!' 9932 zozwB o U, 3"' `< i 8 - mS I€ <oF I� o 2 '4='" 0m E 8'1 1 8 0= 108 =_m aE. e.mdw�o =m t0 o 3 .g 4638„3 _ v 00 m z m I S I 0 € �€8; §; m =36=2= =9 — to F. E R' C Y �' g 18 g €4n2 I 's3 M Hai%„w Ied y0. R X ��=a m yNg joy TEA-18 NOSIIA 6 d a gg E 0 io! Pew a iitil, a ow� m Cz-< o m�� O �$zg.V6 iS I 0 z a N a I E' amt n np -i W0W,, z Lr,-4 -..g, IIW,o �' g-1 U U €16 U p �m fu ]< m _mau<am m E. '2' _a z�, 2z n. <E > <I— OlZ rcu < a m g,-6,... !! i aim '3 LL 312'3 BY'dMl'BL ...32 d03Nf1 1530. o "g <��w ora$ ml88 J os W F oW 055g6biW004E3 128 I I 1�0 e itw >- (5 wg N 26 a a9s=pgw«s.W m N< w8 - 8 8 8w ~I— LLI W az y< 6S 8=5 0,81 €g3o s a g I<= wox < „pg B W PI 0 F = e�w -� 8 nz= (9. O 00 ohm C o��m�e 6W = n 'gid Vl 0_ N SE ew a� tm <�=Fsei..wF< m , gw =gym Eg . F.,z � o 5m SK=' -R'sa8461°2—898 o I 1 Zoo w z zdQ z w =2 "a" X°:0:2a = El ,3El t I x ;3� s- q Oa Oa ,SNF 95 32 Y F m: 922 ='Z''' 22 m 8N o < "2<9 39 aim o 9 8 1 1 O - 0 $811 = <� 00r z m2 x<N <_ �m= =y6 a Iy o a, � �oaa�oRK 6 ,,nE,, 8` 8 eo 2 6g(6.°2z=4-+=3 5A-T 8 2° I� I< 8 <ok�mmmw� w 2 8 A `_€ oN2 gai.i mP3 3 0 Ie Ie W ory � IHQ o<w ==�aa=. in w ,58 389 < m s'a= _ 2 83 € 13 1 0 < 1= 1 p =<=82.. dNa a o i'I„ a :� <_� 5643280<b o w 2< 5£88'<.., 94 .8.226-E 42 }-- zqU o6 o2===39 9 P .F.oE- =3 244n H Q n[.3 -oh- 2= o' g U A Q mez - - = 8 ~0'8 90¢m z 8°2`388"5585-2# $ LJ waa ES 1.8.3. am u '< op r LL7-i E'w = 8 E<m =oemm dee 1 z �o F �W 8 ,00'099 M „01,61.00 S add= 0 00 �<m m,� m P i W z U 0 I.00 ,OC Tm .092 N3rv35V3 IILLn 0102nd.01 w 1N3rv35Y3 23id112 3M020Ntl1.Ol _.i O a' O < �. /��1� 00 8 Z.8 to L/ U � Wwm to o ` a >e -w+ 6 Qa 5 9S I °” 08” x x mo U F 1"s� ma °0.009---M „01.,6 -s Q O w 1 m 1N3rv35tl3 A111u0 0f000d Ol ' (///-r-c4 - ,O[Wl—^ 9 3rv35Y3 ALf1LL0 Jfi9nd 0 < oi Pr- � 5 (ZI 11 (FL S- p 9.p ¢m 4= '<- m 3 343 vm �za u3 .3110E N < t o W �8=a rgWwa q ^oma w, -LLQ m d _ 45o= ..�o� =S _ h pal 13 °J _ 0 uo.zz,z d J gI go" m p2 V'. L/J 5 i1, u I 143/113503 Al13LLn 00203.01 / ' 0 099 —M--0 176 -S- -21:14 ` p W U p Z N x< .v V 319 111 1113003 A113LLn 0132nd,01 0 cn G m O a W �AUO�m O m 7.. $ xN¢UP:>'�o� m1:: ::!0.GX• '� V' - -� mcaiao¢ O e+o �_� 03 N3 u ��= o ap-m W i W s S �s LO W ¢ Y ads« WOO�gY .0., k. li � sZ n � -Wi imam �od.dapz aVp aw a=� ;-:::11 JOC MW 1.101N3rv35V3 tl331n2 3dV050NVVI,01,01\ on�Qo 1431,0593 30941990 1002 OLo UWS 00 Fgm 1SV3 LZ 30998 'HLf105 84 dIHSNM01 '8Z NOLL03S d0 34111 1S3M 2 rM'oo '" Ism zFs¢aaa ,15'099 3 „05,92.10 S 0311518 10N I 42 ] . 01/10/2017 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 16.A.9 Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Oyster Harbor at Fiddler's Creek Phase 1 — Replat 2, Application Number PL20160002690. Meeting Date: 01/10/2017 Prepared by: Title: Site Plans Reviewer, Senior—Growth Management Development Review Name: John Houldsworth 12/05/2016 7:36 AM Submitted by: Title: Project Manager,Principal—Growth Management Department Name: Matthew McLean 12/05/2016 7:36 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Division Reviewer Completed 12/06/2016 4:56 PM Growth Management Department Matthew McLean Additional Reviewer Completed 12/09/2016 10:47 AM Growth Management Department David Wilkison Level 2 Division Administrator Completed 12/13/2016 9:32 AM Growth Management Department James French Additional Reviewer Completed 12/13/2016 10:32 AM County Attorneys Office Scott Stone Level 2 Attorney Review Completed 12/15/2016 10:09 AM Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 12/15/2016 11:42 AM County Attorneys Office Jeffrey A.Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorneys Office Review Completed 12/15/2016 4:40 PM Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 12/20/2016 3:09 PM County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 12/28/2016 1:41 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 01/10/2017 9:00 AM 16.A.9.a IiiRtiaartE t44,44 3 S fes_._ -' .1g-:-/- N iii -, 10I "Ii F 11. 7 cc Ca 11 6 ti-T /rte"'' 11 I R 1 LYcrs#/� ;.70 1•5 T cc( 14 \ 411 4 ra it /II 13 \ 23 as i �, t��L).GLE,4'.S''CREEK 19 0 RIRKWA'Y' 24 to o I MAINSAIL i71 G \\114.„._. ..] 4i// i co LOCA TION MAP t NOT it) SCALE J. Packet Pg.449 id 'R0 ;;R ' ykell ggI I RP' til', E � k ==- �g mE N a`a a I lie = 2. g° 6 w $ c a o Yh g g p/ '0 LW giggf6� :1a .411 Hit a c e al iii IV it WSI it a n1 Cjs i 0 �!a �� 8 � € p,.. v 1 C 9e o 8'1 5 8' IN 8.' ii ° ii OM _ ii 61 AI $ i m " zi C7 me s C\1 MI 1"-••• oo z azo 2 � W C. Ili , 2L,ag� LI v WR n Q oho mti Q , m wo 4�'� `� mz� 0om � � Cr C7 '~ Q - o W Q m 2—. xC. o ry/4," (e oo � � `Lzm fir° _ p K „,,...L. ,..,„„)Z, ,,,,_ ,._. z --- a ( )1 g 0 ry die 8g. `_ W Q - � OoU N � U2� � UOp � @s .I O U o� W�u cc W W W .J--- o, 8 Qa \\ ro.oa i�.n,o ns0 2 U O O U Q O c Qc m O __-n:,"c. -F-„ W •-- El a pag_ a 'gea f a �g Cr xi @ 61WerYsa 2 ° ag.66Rgeaa a 2 3 �' m O �c�ny hygygga�i ae k •p • p f Whi� }d e il U E W l(� e''�sk41 414%e ea l • P.ritc 014A j 6 _ Baa e� a Cr) (Y�'/�''7o .-4 5 1014/1111,111611VjAha�Aak k 1 p0 ea1e a14 l! a 61 •* I i vJ '~N Q VI 1` ea 4 �266Iih q�1 �la11 1■ 11 kp t Ili i: 311 1 . Z[^ L) a _.ag 1, 2 C 'a: g ' 6 .°Q 3 7'€ a a& lad a `i1ig,., F &g k°0} 1` s pP @E.EE 1 gor'AI e O letl IlLU) v0 L..TAEONE9 R' vF'-6a ,g vB v i z k a gad i LQ iaP ”, • �: O se 6It Nia �°dg 1k iaa 1:111!5!;641 � a = 4 �' k. Q E� U O ala a -IP - k k e- a Baa & ba' k'6 .. Ca ® 4'e. Q H f�P�-� I' 33¢gaa¢€ l �k ��aae :11.116;1114 'e;-111aa * k ���g Y; ` z4 iZUO a, o @ a _vtyt'R. k,,e;tw K- Et a ,g_..+..*�k_i. �k, s e li' _.s '-1 m , i; &t m &a �amph &R PO s g p :i/W-17441 s k 6 x' 99 q a' k ao �1'I � R u e tlf fall 11p111G11 11 11 N; ggkg N i 5kka kk k Vw S d "gee �a Ih �6i k4 t $ a a I 4 I z 1616: 11 1 ,1 k 1 o 11a1loll m O' 1a ' 1 :11 5a� a lisp of 40it 3 2 V w �a ism Et !Ni 2-111 ; 11141 : 4 1gk 0 1 ' e 1 Ilk. Wl 1 .1S aE40 .1/1 C� o 116 s o d. 11 K og M i 2 WI o `o ''H Il lSYcp23 0�� gel w k a' Ea 1Rn 1; a 6 [ a yyg g� Y t e� Ie N�v Iy1C y 4ia @F ' gE 6 i ¢ k g ' g O� € 4 m 4 ' a llt a 41gl4 W Q S i� Ill a� i �r , h -_.. Ia .I OMO'A38-11d-De-eLVVld\z iVldla lad aOaara adjs40-ge\3toL,annus J33NadV-avins:, bs- ,,,es> t, =� zr,n-.-v3-„u _— $wg$g and ,ta -- t m W iV-d5W,.3j mr..xw' ...._� � prS Hix; \ x ®S N O. r ' w ,00'04 • N _ h 8 m. 1 n c x E e b 4 : R g 8 R m B R : R.- _ • ~ g 8 e 8 - et 7 8 R - S g r• 8 d W CO Ill - l I � - . R J T W t t M t v o W t ^ t W t W e F ' W t ; ` • h . V Q $ k, x x a - _ Pj e o x x z 8 - 8 0 n h .mGl N.PrrrrM m 5 n o 5 1e a a g s 5 § § 5 E ' 5 - .4 c _ �_ •959a "- m1514Bkim6 5k1} 5kkti ^ � N , ' a a h q o” 3 a 1! m a ggg _ _ 5 ' � 8 's ., 'I, . stBgkgc a _ r~ j ', Iv N N N , , b , : h N N : k _ _ _ _ ,+ y ,- 1 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ";, ; ; ; ; -- - r ^p 6 z ppl r.PafOB" cg u m gB B B 5 5 B 8 5 5 5 5 5 B 5 ' 8 5 5 8 ' ao'PaL , �N gNoegaggRggs5gIg $ gg g nV 7 • Cl. CrK- �I CW'�O Q B B B S 's S g e N h B k a �',� +su°F" • �.. ., i x a k P £ R e d # c s mol w t w t W t w t N w t t {.a ' 1�- a s s: R a R et 8 a 9 0 _ g N 106 LUq) _, . st2sas § apsxat ^ ' ' " - mRkm5N5g5kk55 55 -- Ti Q � W w ^ 's s s sE4E• 4E5E5 ^ s } L' 'g 8 8 8 8 5 R : .8 S 8 8 A _ � �rnci 0. O o e e m „ _o . W. R 5 R 8 � c€ c 8 8 d 8 � Y H+nl w 58858se5 's5 ''1P" WW I t' ' Z9 "Iltt 11115 ! w Wrn C\20p & 6555555565 $ 5 Ti t � -0Fr a Q x A _ Ti,- a ;1 l t LuCr z �0 " �q O rl 0 _ F OOYNI M.➢I.Oz�" d —.1E.<c 08 _ _ 755EB $ 58B8 1 : I r4 F d R 1 g m :-; ; ; ;' 8 R' 8 l"8 R 8 L r u E n 4. O r, O. wt wtWtt wtwp wtwt ' ^n a P,n', t t t R 8 8 w r x x 8 8 R R 8 8 t AA ,L0'Ptt a. I ^O1V) = _ A 4 ' 8 8 x a a x R 3 N T 3.6_O.tE. S----"_- - M �g AC- p I w E k k i z G t R i Q i G li3 _T - - Anti ■.zcsrtN i ^ rte, m 1 C�'F Qi :4, w n p g o o ' = 3 3 3 3 3 3 '4 3 m a q QQ� a p � BBosSBpgR5R5BBBa o 5 _ "� c 5 U Il [Ex-jl ] Y 4 > 4 5 h N h „ Y h a, t h h h i • M W U ^ R = 7 7 t e H a d a 6. Ol'-a B Y R 8 8 R 8 R B R 8 R a II ,mwt 3.mnnS F-10.0'P.mm, N,w.P/uN M ✓' 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0.1 u u a, u u & 5 6 5 5 5 6 5 6 I °�iet0CggnON4NNNg ,,-- .440 I - i8 i= Ti •u 5 •g Q E-� E. __ .mw, •.+zalrs m mm 2 Ino 1 I 3,P{Itt N t ER 14.1 FY B g a - R 8 a 8 B - 5 - - Ti-'. ' Ti sgR � x � gz5 —gra- ---- -1- -----_ .ora r-T 2x,.,,s. i tea, - ,¢ .mar, 3.ana N O tttktattg4taaWs 7 W� ,. -555555- 5 -a g k B s; Z a p31•18 i Ti! a m w a $ : k 5 $ 5 g i : m s I5 "' a' f-_..f,.-:.,,„„g 5 9 i..----- w . BBB '5111 4 'e 4 .5 ma "..a„ r g § § 's 's § § E - ' a ---- -- % N g 5. 5. g N 5 5 ,. E L1 a R' 8 z * —T- 7.s ngN 6a26 i 8 8 8 8 8 8 E 8 8 E 8 '8 z m „ �` R R .mm, y 3ne.oa,J 2 Ti z eiwrr L E l a !Y a a R 5 ^u 5 8 G 6 a U ,mry, 3,SllFGrN U $5li ylti ...s la a n� IIj b m li EPIIE 3.00.92:1 N L__._._- o g�� 00'04{ 3....I9.{N _d:tus Iva, 3 YlI:V I a5;,91.q 01/10/2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve 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. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners(Board)approve for recording the final plat of Savannah at Naples Reserve,a subdivision of lands located in Section 1,Township 51 South,Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, following the alternative procedure for approval of subdivision plats pursuant to Resolution 99-199. This procedure allows for the Board to approve the plat and associated construction documents for construction purposes and recording purposes concurrently. CONSIDERATIONS: The Development Review Division of the Growth Management Department has completed the review of the construction drawings, specifications, and final plat of Savannah at Naples Reserve. These documents are in compliance with the Collier County's Land Development Code and Chapter 177, Florida Statutes. This project is within the Naples Reserve Golf Club RPUD, Ord. 07-71, as amended. All fees have been paid. Security in the amount of 10% of the total cost of the required improvements, and 100% of the cost of any remaining improvements, together with a Construction and Maintenance Agreement for Subdivision Improvements, shall be provided and accepted by the County Manager or his designee and the County Attorney's office prior to the recording of the final plat. This procedure is in conformance with Section 10.02.04 F.2 of the Land Development Code. The Development Review Division recommends that the final plat of Savannah at Naples Reserve be approved for recording. FISCAL IMPACT: The project cost is$43,368.50(estimated)to be borne by the developer. The cost breakdown is as follows: a) Water&Sewer $14,820.00 b) Drainage, Paving,Grading $28,548.50 The Security amount, equal to 110%of the project cost,is $47,705.35 The County will realize revenues as follows: Fund: Growth Management Fund 131 Agency: County Manager Cost Center: 138327--Land Development Services Revenue generated by this project: Total: $2,306.05 Y � 01/10/2017 The Fees are based on a construction estimate of$43,368.50 and were paid in August 2016. The breakdown is as follows: a) Plat Review Fee($1,000.00+$5./ac) $1,005.00 b) Construction Drawing Review Fee Water&Sewer(.75%const. est.) $ 111.15 c) Drainage,Paving, Grading (.75%const. est.) $ 214.11 d) Construction Inspection Fee Water& Sewer(2.25%const. est.) $ 333.45 e) Drainage,Paving, Grading (2.25%const. est.) $ 642.34 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The developer must receive a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities (COA) prior to the issuance of the construction plan final approval letter and plat recordation, except when the applicant elects to delay obtaining a COA for non-residential developments that are required to obtain approval of a site development plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires a majority vote for Board approval. - SAS RECOMMENDATION: To approve the final plat of Savannah at Naples Reserve (Application Number PL20160002827)for recording with the following stipulations: 1. Approve the amount of$47,705.35 as performance security for the required improvements; or such lesser amount based on work completed,and as is approved by the Growth Management Department. 2. Approve the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and direct the County Manager or his designee: a. To withhold Certificates of Occupancy until the required improvements have received preliminary acceptance. b. To delay recording of the plat until suitable security and an appropriate Construction and Maintenance Agreement is approved and accepted by the County Attorney's office and the Board of County Commissioners or the County Manager or his designee on behalf of the Board pursuant to Section 10.02.04 F.2 of the Land Development Code. Prepared by: John Houldsworth, Senior Site Plans Reviewer, Development Review Division, Growth Management Department ATTACHMENT(S) 1.Naples Reserve Location Map (PDF) 2.Plat Map (PDF) 3. Opinion of Cost(PDF) O 01/10/2017 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 16.A.10 Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve 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. Meeting Date: 01/10/2017 Prepared by: Title: Site Plans Reviewer, Senior—Growth Management Development Review Name: John Houldsworth 12/07/2016 6:38 AM Submitted by: Title:Project Manager,Principal—Growth Management Department Name:Matthew McLean 12/07/2016 6:38 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Division Reviewer Completed 12/07/2016 9:16 AM Growth Management Department Matthew McLean Additional Reviewer Completed 12/09/2016 10:59 AM Growth Management Department David Wilkison Level 2 Division Administrator Completed 12/13/2016 9:42 AM Growth Management Department James French Additional Reviewer Completed 12/13/2016 10:39 AM County Attorney's Office Scott Stone Level 2 Attorney Review Completed 12/15/2016 10:12 AM Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 12/15/2016 2:18 PM County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A.Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 12/15/2016 4:40 PM Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 12/20/2016 3:12 PM County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 12/28/2016 2:19 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 01/10/2017 9:00 AM p t 16.A.10.a RATILESN r_ HAMMCICX RD. I EARP'A _ (C.R.864) _\_.1 \1 ME'4DOwi to fi- HACIENDA LIKES —�{•cOU1c:EwD1 f—I ZN1 ([Ia)(P) COLLEGE ECISQV r- PARK VILLAGE )J1 21 22 -' l �- — H24 -----19 20 NCCKEDNIE NA.•ENDA LAKES (DV)(P) SABAL PAI.A1 WADu1Y.A RESORT COWNJNI"' (ORO :17-1____ Z. I, CD 28 27 m a 26 25---- ---- 0 N 15 LI TM DING ' 29CD L(ReISS HACIEE.DA LUTES _-- r� (DPI)(I') L y - -- --- -- ----- a CO - CO 33 34 CO 35 35 C ,,,. .,. sToR7�(�\f / 31 32 CU ..). . \------ \ r-------- -- 0•AL�NE; ,- T�7�r P F;0 J E CT od` — MAE5 /7 - /,/ / // •'' ---- LOCATION\`� \ ius°ir / // _- wv IN /C'rFS / LL( j /S \\l [1*)sNiks"..N.NZ,^2N) r////////EA \ RESP. 7/ CREEK N‹ ISA ,/ �/ ' / % 5\ \;\'"4�i //%�/ / // 0.0IT • • Esi es RIVERBE43NAPLES \n,, x/ RESDF:T \\.A AKCAL CRES \-\.` WALNUT • R:S C fi, J'\\ LAKES -- O CO 9 s-' 10 11 `\ 12PARADISE J 1/35? POINTE 7 8 p• .654W BU:7NE aSl RV R57 u1 C�R_OF N�APL£5I \\ / :5 -1-'--I ES1ATEE: Z+ 9LNF LAK::; 2�-- MARCO SHOTES/ / ESTAT_5; 00 FDDIER'S CREEK H ____ -- (DRI) / , v :`\ O I __---- T _ 7 ___ PELICAN LAKE— CITE PRESERVE -- ` \ th d OA CO C-__-- Z 16 14 13 18\'. C 17 — _ `\\ \`\. E MA�2cC SHARES;FIDDLER'S Ci7EE �\ U ---�_--- _---_-- ___--CRI) _-- \\ CO NNNN Z à 5 MARCO F1ER:u:R'SR(M,E"�". ( ` /\\(DRI) / F J 21 22 i 5-1 L2.____"3 Irr, 1�r1 24 ..J f 19 20 RDYNE sourN NAPLES RESERVES Packet Pg.455 .r.....�d...� ..��...�. • 3 a� p m 3` n X _ B3g4 D es`5 r o r aN 4h l €€€ iw nai,jo @a a a�W�-_"1 a x n a " gra a s a O Ea n g a w�n 9 a Wgy ib Wo LWp- o a4 as € :Ph a- 't d z IR 1 HEI 1 1- ¢6g I O 2 ➢ g 2 E I 6rI "g 8 n < 2,1@ i . L8 gg a - _ o E E q! c a§ F .§ rg= 1 o F. 1° 1.- €8 g ag o67', € o- °8PP gi 84 $d 8416.6 111$ 8Pt 55 PULL! al= ON$ i W = aQ N O d W .;8 (f) O Y W J W m o `6-612.,. ons Mgt h NteM , W 5 - a 6 4opso V/ u-l' 111111MTV � __J ., " •n " r ` C _II vIUIE g =z QU'i .7l �qill b- wQ‹ w3 1 r�t z n = H O w = V) O Z Q I — CD O O a Q J - Z — IQ Q U OO � J X55 E i s $ �i w e 141E €n Pia:-* a n 41 Q N $l'I1 o .-ei ' 1 p 1 i ani h lii ! i I.. o n s ' g se g siga E 11 Es 4S"1 l i g ph 1 co e - eexepi P gg alb a o co a a I o g _a a ai p6 (i a W„ 1 :1 ¢ i IH P !! 192 a 1 11 = 5$Ei 1 i ?b i 411 hb P E € Ili E h ' Egg- - l ~ � 4 ill q sa 1 e , IR 14 iR e 11 Pi li R 14m1 11 p < 1 00 " a i eN£W� p¢F p - � - g - ga � € a _4 t8 N m N u N o W2 L ! 1 i 1 1 ' 01 3 m 3 C7 x € 1g1; �lWo c^U.0 1; � e o F €��b �`In �` 2 i= 1W- Y a E R R ! 5 1 1 M.i g o N !� a % ; b� � -- z o it t .n .0 1 bi@ H °22 i m W I! 5 5 E ~ E S a Ib�nX.g�' �q gg y o m I /Y1 ::ligAle'lglipi � = •1b s r J4O lik4 � � i � � � Egxgebtxea: b i ggQgpgggg _ 00N c 0 © 3 © 8 © e Al Be illxi m-, 111 0111INge a6 ;110 41 W = ' 0 1 1 eb g 29/ IX 1Et -6-1 !i! `� $ �exii/4:- g ;ERdIP o Wl 3 i .� / Lo /V) rmo / a; l U // / :- / k.4R< : / 46,g o , / 0i d W ! / s / Io a i/ .a a / a _ / / d a LO N N ,�,R� / a ,g' ;'// �g \ �R Q w / / \ $$ / S 0 / w'' V I 42 Z w m / a / / / n i a r r i W w o sp �a// a aq`4�� e�// / /r // J cn01 /� / _ a� / /' J / /r /l ^ J '.r) U '" • / / / / / Q d 4r �C / t i/ / / LLL..LLL Z = �' abr / r r < V) WAY`. v $ ^� / n-----2/:",„.„,,,,./.--..,,/, • / // U 3 s� /.,t'R- a 4 ro °a /p / . /C'y,/, ito ce Z / /27-: - \moi ° 'tet / / / / i 1— o / t -41447'.44N\ avr �' /e / / / / O LL U / i / ti� / �r g ^Ib i.44N\ .© r r / r Z N / is a / r e /r ; / r I O Z / t A's / / 6°jc+`4 / / / Nk O Z / tt , / �4' S 4 O' Q=r e r / r cl-Q J / it / ' / a�,.!,' —// dAN401,4, b r C)//& / / o Q / st a� l '� / 49/47S� ' / Z 0 ' t / l yak 4 e i'/ / / / TQ 0 tt / rta'm y c% ,„i. g"4 r / r N W F / 4`2°'0 /•l .% /3 // / / / Qt l v i M / as / ' cYi � ` / / a 1 / / a / U / a / / a a 'q a.R' / •`, 9 N a / 3 Q C' A�/ E3m A / r / MG�'4i„_ i o a a / ' rg / i o � / , dg / t K ga a 1/" +9 r Y Qo U n / /LA- / / 16g C. m C / If) .- 0- a 1 r / / f 5 / / / g e § it L, bio p / / 1 g g nEVE a2 1 b giAgI6 gaw WC, . . g sBE6A._ ugWNu 1 • e . 16.A.10.c ROBAU & ASSOCIATES NAPLES RESERVE PHASE II ICP PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST SUMMARY U) ce CONSTRUCTION $ 28,548.50 UTILITIES $ 14,820.00 Z TOTAL $ 43,368.50 cn caca Contingency(110%) of TOTAL $ 47,705.35 w U) v N w N O U O C O CONSTRUCTION REVIEW FEE 0.75%OF ESTIMATE $ 214.11 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEE 2.25%OF ESTIMATE $ 642.34 p TOTAL PAID $ 856.46 UTILITY DOCUMENT REVIEW FEE 0.75%OF SEWER AND WATER ESTIMATE $ 111.15 UTILITY INSPECTION FEE 2.25%OF SEWER AND WATER ESTIMATE $ 333.45 TOTAL $ 444.60 10/11/2016 2:22 PM X:\Shared\P\016-00-003 N.R.2016 Gen.Consult\09_Savannah_2nd_Entrance\CC_Supp\RAIl\OPC_ICP Packet Pg.458 16.A.10.c ROBAU & ASSOCIATES PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Naples Reserve Phase II ICP Estimated By:KAM Checked By:MWD CONSTRUCTION COSTS DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL COST y Maintenance of Traffic LS 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 d cis z Construction Staking Total Project LS 1 $3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 2'Valley Gutter LF 18 $ 8.50 $ 153.00 12"Concrete Ribbon Curb LF 20 $ 24.00 $ 480.00 ca Type"F"Curb&Gutter LF 410 $ 10.00 $ 4,100.00 c U- 3/4"Type S-111 Asphalt(2nd Lift) SY 424 $ 4.10 $ 1,738.40 N 3/4"Type S-111 Asphalt(1st Lift) SY 424 $ 3.80 $ 1,611.20 to0 C.) Paver Bricks SF 807 $ 6.00 $ 4,842.00 p 0 8"Limerock Base(LBR 100) SY 514 $ 5.35 $ 2,749.90 a O 12"Stabilized Subgrade(LBR 40) SY 665 $ 1.40 $ 931.00 E s Signage&Pavement Marking LS 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 4'Sod Strip Between Curb&Sidewalk SY 195 $ 1.50 $ 292.50 ADA Ramps&Detectable Warnings SF 60 $ 24.00 $ 1,440.00 5'Wide Sidewalk(4"Thick Concrete) LF 58 $ 12.25 $ 710.50 CONSTRUCTION Total $ 28,548.50 Packet Pg.459 16.A.10.c A4 ROBAU &ASSOCIATES PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Naples Reserve Phase II ICP Estimated By:KAM Checked By:MWD UTILITIES DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL COST a) a> tY Pipe Casing LF 76 $ 195.00 $ 14.820.00 ami ca Z To ca 0 co a R co N 0 U O 0 "E. 0 . c a> E ca a UTILITIES Total $ 14,820.00 Packet Pg.460