The URL can be used to link to this page

Ex Parte - Solis 01/10/2017 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Solis COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 01/10/2017 CONSENT AGENDA 1 6.A.8. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Tract 3, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 20 Replat, Application Number PL20160000628. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE Meetings ['Correspondence ❑e-mails J 'Calls Ex parte Items - Commissioner Solis COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 01/10/2017 1 6.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 IMeetings (Correspondence ne-mails (Calls Ex parte Items - Commissioner Solis COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 01/10/2017 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. V NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence De-mails ['Calls Ex parte Items - Commissioner Solis COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 01/10/2017 9.A. ***This item has been continued from the December 13, 2016 BCC Meeting.*** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 95-74, the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Planned Unit Development, and amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 5.21± acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD; by revising the property description; by adding a recreation area to Tract A; by revising development standards; by amending the Master Plan; by adding a tennis center conceptual site plan and a landscape buffer exhibit; and providing an effective date. The subject property, consisting of 563± acres, is located south of Davis Boulevard and west of Collier Boulevard in Sections 3, 4, 9 And 10, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [PUDZPL20150001416] (Companion to agenda item 9.B And 9.C) 9.B. ***This item continued from the December 13, 2016 BCC Meeting*** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC- PL20160001403 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public interest in Tract RW4, an approximately 100-foot wide, 1,300-foot long tract dedicated to the County for future right-of-way according to Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Phase One, Plat Book 26, Page 73 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. The subject property is located approximately 1/2 mile east of Santa Barbara Blvd., and 1 mile south of Davis Blvd, in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (This is a companion to Agenda Items 9.A and 9.C). 9.C. ***This item continued from the December 13, 2016 BCC Meeting.*** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC- PL20160001406 to disclaim, renounce and vacate a portion of Tract C5 Conservation Area, and a portion of the 10 foot Collier County Conservation Buffer Easement within Tract C5, as shown on Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Phase One, Plat Book 26, page 73 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. The subject property is located approximately 1/2 mile east of Santa Barbara Blvd, and 1 mile south of Davis Blvd, in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (This is a companion to Agenda Items 9.A and 9.B). NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM n SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails I (Calls Meetings: 1/6/17 with residents of Colonial Court: Joseph V. Huber, Barbara M. Huber, Leon Case, Walt Kulbacki, Pamela Elder. Letter from Jeff Wright of 12/27/16 presented. Correspondence: Staff Report Emails: from Colonial Court residents, various dates; Richard Rogan; Bob Mulhere Ex parte Items - Commissioner Solis COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 01/10/2017 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 De-mails ['Calls Correspondence: Staff Report Co1- er County • STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2016 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL201500002737 COLLIER COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY BUSINESS PARK PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT & AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Collier County Tim Hancock,AICP c/o Dan Rodriguez, Solid and Hazardous Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Waste Management Division Director 3200 Bailey Lane, #200 3339 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 302 Naples, FL 34105 Naples, FL 34112 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to rezone property from a Rural Agricultural (A)zoning district to an Industrial Planned Unit Development (IPUD) zoning district to allow solid waste and resource recovery facilities and public vehicle and equipment storage/repair facilities for a project on 344± acres to be known as Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located within the North Belle Meade Overlay (NBMO) and the Rural Mixed-Use Overlay, Sending Lands (RMUO-Sending Lands), approximately one and one-half (1.5) miles east of Collier Boulevard and one (1) mile north of White Lake Boulevard in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida(see location map on page 2). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: In 2009, the subject property was approved for a conditional use (Resolution 09-275) for uses associated with the recovery of solid waste and public vehicle equipment storage/repair. This petition seeks to rezone the property to IPUD to allow for more flexibility with respect to future site design and development standards, including proposed access to the site. The list of uses in the proposed ordinance for this IPUD would generally remain the same as those approved in connection with Resolution 09-275. Approval of this IPUD would repeal the conditional use. (See location map on page 2) PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 1 of 18 November 21,2016 51111111M11.1".111LIIIIMMIENNEIIIIIDMI OI IIIIIIl11{P11111110l--�0 0 00l000000�i. OO 116IlhiIIE11111111oi W o move i000soo a � � ® o ioaoaae� •• IHhU1IIIIllI y °0000..o..ee.�a• o i0®000Gig:INi9;GCEi:o 0 e:miamiiiiimmammimmemimmmo —i 1 immiammiimmimo a � ° ok iP8 1iiu a � QmmommiiEo mmmma ' • CO \ ' 1iiommmimmmiim- - leiE0F Ell �c kktiN 0 00 /hPiIllHiIIlN mounrimiorrammr.mmimmeDai 4a 1 , isEM®�® ®�s� =• "4' 0* ®M "ff g N 11===.11.1..1.=--111111.111E=IMMEITIMINECE: et AM D MEM= g r 11/41 AMA Li) ;iiiL,,., �o�pmo NI z a ___// N E n Z z c W H O Q CO 1 2 c 0 i gs (a 0 min"�I 0 g V J j §,h 4 w a aA1�-,1aiU_0_ j i--� a ,. LL � C w 8 4,4 t \ 4 po > 1-1 �`n _�"� \� pec 8� SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD boundaries: Northwest: Hide Out Golf Club, zoned A within the RFMUO-Sending Lands and the NBMO. Northeast: Jenkins Way right-of-way, then a single-family dwelling, zoned A within the RFMUO-Sending Lands and the NBMO. East: A mix of vacant residential lands and parcels with single-family dwellings, zoned A within the RFMUO-Sending Lands Overlay and the NBMO. The subject property also has frontage on Garland Road. There are three (3) parcels east of Garland Road, which are comprised of a vacant residential parcel, a parcel with a single-family dwelling, and another vacant parcel owned by Collier County, all zoned A within the RFMUO-Sending Lands and the NBMO. South: Land owned by Collier County, zoned A, including the Collier County Landfill Site, which is located within the RFMUO-Sending Lands and the NBMO. West: Canal, then farther west, are a mix of vacant residential lands and parcels with single-family dwellings zoned Estates (E). } } a1 i V✓,. AVE 19th AVE SW, t yy I :, Q44, AVE SW y {�'t 'y. :.� Markley AVE :Vf9O ENDING Aerial(County GIS) PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 3 of 18 November 21,2016 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property is located within the Agricultural/Rural designated area, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District(RFMUD), Sending Lands, as identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The RFMUD generally provides a transition between the Urban and Estates designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural/Rural and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The RFMUD employs a balanced approach to protect natural resources and private property rights and provides for large areas of open space. The RFMUD allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service. The Sending Lands have been identified as being least appropriate for development within the RFMUD. Based on the evaluation of available data, these lands have a greater degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than Receiving Lands or Neutral Lands and generally have avoided being disturbed through previous development or agricultural operations. The Sending Lands designation allows participation in the Transfer of Development Rights(TDR)program, including Rural Villages and residential clustering,single-family residences at a density of one(1)dwelling unit per five (5) acres or legally nonconforming parcel, agricultural uses, and other non-residential uses including facilities for the collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste. The RFMUD allows for resource recovery activities within Sending Lands, stating, Public facilities, including solid waste and resource recovery facilities, and public vehicle and equipment storage and repair facilities, shall be permitted within Section 25, Township 49S, Range 26E, on lands adjacent to the existing County landfill. This shall not be interpreted to allow for the expansion of the landfill into Section 25 for the purpose of solid waste disposal. The existing Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park was approved as a conditional use on June 23,2009,by Resolution No. 09-275,allowing for yard waste and storm debris processing [seventy-two(72) acres], construction and debris processing [fourteen (14) acres], a recycled material processing facility [fourteen(14)acres],a household hazardous waste facility[five(5)acres],an administration and equipment maintenance facility [nine (9) acres], tire processing [three (3) acres], and white goods (old appliances) processing [three (3) acres]. This petition would provide for the same type uses within PUD zoning. Applicable Future Land Use Element(FLUE)policies were evaluated by staff as part of the original (2009) conditional use request. The proposed changes do not necessitate new re-evaluation of applicable FLUE policies under Objective 7. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. Based upon the above analysis,the proposed rezoning petition may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 4 of 18 November 21,2016 Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states, The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions,SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3%of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. The proposed rezoning was reviewed based on the then applicable 2015 AUIR. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed development will generate approximately ninety-one (91) PM peak hour trips, on the adjacent roadway links, as follows: PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 5 of 18 November21,2016 Table 1. Level of Service(LOS) and Capacity Roadway Link 2015 AUIR Current Peak Hour 2015 Existing Peak Direction Remaining LOS Service Capacity Volume/Peak Direction Collier Boulevard Golden Gate C 2,300/North 853 (C.R. 951) Parkway to Golden Gate Main Canal (4- lane divided) Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Main B 3,600/North 2,054 (C.R. 951) Canal to I-75 (8- lane divided) Collier Boulevard 1-75 to Davis D 3,600/North 764 (C.R. 951) Boulevard(8- lane divided) Collier Boulevard Davis Boulevard to C 3,000/North 1,012 (C.R. 951) Rattlesnake Hammock Road (6-lane divided) Davis Boulevard Radio Road to B 2,900/West 1,629 Collier Boulevard (6-lane undivided) Based on the 2015 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for the amended project within the five(5)-year planning period. Therefore,the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME). Policy 6.1.2 requires eighty percent (80%) preservation of native habitat outside the Natural Resources Protection Area (NRPA) Sending Lands. The land preservation requirement is reduced where lands contiguous to the Collier County Landfill are to be developed pursuant to CCME Policy 6.1.6. The policy is specific to this site and states: On the County owned land located in Section 25, Township 26 E, Range 49 S (+/- 360 acres), the native vegetation retention and site preservation requirements may be reduced to 50% if the permitted uses are restricted to the portions of the property that are contiguous to the existing land fill operations; exotic removal will be required on the entire +/-360 acres. The proposed development will require the preservation of fifty percent(50%) of the native vegetation on site,which equates to 172.15 acres. PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 6 of 18 November 21, 2016 GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. ANALYSIS: Applications to rezone to or amend IPUDs shall be in the form of an IPUD Master Plan of development, along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table. The IPUD application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed deviations from the LDC. Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report(referred to as"Rezone Findings"),which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (Board), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the IPUD Document to address environmental concerns. The minimum preserve requirement of 172.15 is being provided. In addition, the 200-foot wide native vegetation buffer tract will consist of six (6) acres of existing native vegetation. The location of the minimum required preserve has not been modified from the site plan previously approved with the conditional use (Resolution 09-275). The document Recent Preserve Monitoring & Status Report has been provided to summarize the habitat management that has taken place within the onsite preserve areas. The habitat management activities are intended to benefit a number of listed species, including Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides Borealis),Florida Bonneted Bat(Eumops floridanus),Big Cypress Fox Squirrel(Sciurus Niger Avicennia), Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon Corais Couperi), and Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus Polyphemus). The project has obtained the Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)Environmental Resource Permit(ERP) and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Permit. Collier County Pollution Control requested the IPUD address 2016 modeling results that indicate the Collier County Water-Sewer District's Golden Gate wellfield recharges from portions of the Golden Gate Canal during the dry season. The proposed site's discharge point to the canal is within the recharge area. As such, the PUD Document (#2 under General in Exhibit F of Attachment 1 —Proposed Ordinance) contains the following commitment: At the time of SDP application for any future land uses, Collier County Pollution Control or its successor will review each land use to determine if water quality testing is warranted based on the proposed land use. Where warranted, minimum standards for storm water testing at the point of discharge to the canal at a reasonable frequency will be developed and made part of the SDP approval. Additionally, all facilities shall be managed using the relevant industry best management PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 7 of 18 November 21,2016 practices. The above are considered to be guidelines until specific standards are developed and made part of the Land Development Code at which time, the LDC standards shall apply. It is requested that the stormwater is tested at the point of discharge to the canal for the following parameters: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-8 metals [Arsenic (As), Barium (Ba), Cadmium(Cd),Chromium(Cr),Lead(Pb),Mercury(Hg), Selenium(Se),and Silver(Ag)];organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)—Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8081/8082; extractable organics [semi-volatile organics and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)]-EPA 8270; organophosphorus pesticides—EPA 8141; and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—EPA 624 at a reasonable frequency. Testing for some of these parameters may become a component of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit;however, as of the date of this report,this permit has not yet been obtained. Landscape Review: The Master Plan shows that a twenty(20)-foot wide utility easement would run along the IPUD's north property line. No landscape buffer is required at this location due to the large expanse of preserve area located just south of the aforementioned utility easement. Along much of the IPUD's southern property line,a Type"A"Buffer(on the subject site)would be installed between the internal roadway of the IPUD and the Collier County Landfill site. Along the east property line, the Master Plan shows the existing preserve area may be used to satisfy the Type "C" Buffer requirement where the developable area of the subject property (i.e., Tract D) abuts the adjacent A-zoned lands. In this area, the proposed preserve is 160 feet wide. It should be noted that no landscape buffer is proposed in the area where the subject property abuts the A-zoned parcel owned by Collier County. The Master Plan shows that a twenty(20)-foot wide utility easement would run along much of the IPUD's western boundary. A 200-foot wide native vegetation buffer tract, which may be used to satisfy the twenty (20)-foot wide Type "C" Buffer requirement, would separate the IPUD from the canal and E-zoned properties to the west. Transportation Review: Approved. Utilities Review: The proposed IPUD Document contains commitments regarding future water and wastewater connections. The Collier County Water-Sewer District has sufficient capacity to provide water and wastewater service to the site in the future. The drawing labeled, "Future Access and Utilities Exhibit" (see Attachment 2 –Application and Support Material) is a conceptual drawing that was provided by the applicant to show that water and sewer lines would be installed along the future access. Zoning Services Review: As previously mentioned,the subject property was approved for a conditional use pursuant to Resolution 09-275. The conceptual site plan approved in 2009 contained all the uses proposed in this petition,albeit,with a different labeling convention. With respect to the proposed uses,the following is a non-exhaustive and simplified list, which briefly describes the activities or items associated with each use (as itemized in Exhibit A of the IPUD Document): 1. Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Facilities. PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 8 of 18 November 21, 2016 i. Construction and Demolition Debris includes but is not limited to woods, metals, drywall, concrete, and the like,which are removed from active construction sites. ii. Dirty Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) is a specialized facility that receives, separates, and prepares recyclable materials to the extent that they are available to be marketed to end-user manufacturers. An example of a MRF includes but is not limited to a sorting facility with the bi-products that are sold, or a bio-solids facility that may generate energy. iii. Household Hazardous Waste are waste items typically found in a common household garage or a substance that needs special handling,such as but not limited to paint, oil, cleaners and solvents, computers,monitors,printers and peripherals, fluorescent bulbs, batteries, and the like. iv. Storm Debris includes vegetative materials that are typically collected after a storm event. v. Tires includes any and all tires. vi. White Goods predominately includes common household appliances, such as washing machines, dryers, refrigerators, air-conditioning/heating units, and the like. vii. Yard Waste includes but is not limited to vegetative materials from households, such as lawn/yard trimmings and the like. viii. Landfill Gas Management involves control of the gas that is typically produced by landfills. The gases must be effectively collected in order to reduce odors or emissions, and they can be potential sources of energy, such as a system similar to the Landfill Gas-to- energy facility at the Landfill, etc. ix. Leachate Management is the management of the liquid bi-products derived from the decomposing of organic materials that typically drains from a landfill. This may involve the use of pipes,tanks, deep injection wells, and similar infrastructure. x. Recycled Materials Processing Facility may process typical recyclables such as, but not limited to, glass,plastic, paper, Styrofoam, or cardboard. xi. Brown Goods includes but is not limited to furniture, mattresses, and the like. 2. Public Utilities Department Buildings/Solid Waste Administration Building Complex buildings may include but are not limited to Wastewater Collections, Water Distribution, Utility Billing and Customer Service, Solid Waste and Compliance Laboratory facilities, and off-street parking areas and other appurtenances. 3. Equipment Maintenance Building may include but is not limited to various public utilities and solid/hazardous waste equipment. PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 9 of 18 November 21,2016 4. Public Vehicle and Equipment Storage and Repair involves the storage and/repair of County vehicles including but not limited to vehicles for water, wastewater, and solid/hazardous waste). Public utilities equipment may include but is not limited to a parts inventory of pipes, valves,pumps, and the like. The subject property lies within close proximity to low density residential lands. Staff recognizes the importance of mitigating the potential for adverse impact (from the IPUD) as it interfaces with these residential lands. The Master Plan illustrates how the developable areas of the site are oriented to the center/interior, identified as Tracts A, B, C, and D. The Master Plan depicts a twenty(20)-foot wide utility easement located along a majority of the west property line and a forty (40)-foot wide access easement along a majority of the east property line. These easements are located along the perimeter of the property near where the IPUD's developable lands are generally proposed. The Master Plan also depicts the locations of the preserve and the native vegetation buffer tract. These areas are located to the interior of the aforementioned easements and would effectively separate the developable lands of the IPUD from the adjacent residential properties outside the IPUD. As shown on the Master Plan,the preserve along the east property line would be a minimum of 160 feet in width. The native vegetation buffer tract along the west property line would be a minimum of 200 feet in width. It should be noted that the majority of the IPUD's intense industrial uses and all of the tallest buildings are intentionally proposed in Tracts B and C. Tracts B and C are nestled between Tracts A and D,which are located between the native vegetation and preserve tracts. The western periphery of Tract B would be located over 500 feet from the IPUD's west property line. The eastern edge of Tract C would be located over 460 feet from the IPUD's east property line. The applicant is requesting to rezone to IPUD, in part,to allow for flexibility with respect to site design and development standards. The following table compares the proposed IPUD's design and development standards with the same in the A and Industrial (I)zoning districts. Table 2. Design and Development Standards Design Standard A I IPUD Tract A Tract B Tract C Tract D Minimum Floor Area of Buildings 550 1,000 550 550 550 550 (square feet) Minimum Lot Area(square feet) 217,800 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Minimum Lot Width (linear feet) 165 100 100 100 100 100 Maximum Building Height-Zoned 35 feet 50 35 50 50 35 (feet) Maximum Building Height-Actual N/A 50 47 62 62 47 (feet) Minimum Yards (feet) Front Yard 50 feet 25 25 25 25 25 Side Yard 30 feet * 15 15 15 15 Rear Yard 50 feet 50 25 25 25 25 * The total of all side yard setbacks shall equal twenty percent(20%)of the lot width,with a maximum of fifty(50)feet.No side yard shall be less than ten(10)feet.Alternative dimensions may be possible when approved through a unified plan of development involving one or more lots under common ownership where the yard requirements are met for the unified site but not necessarily for each parcel within the unified site. PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 10 of 18 November 21,2016 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 increased vertical clearance for dumping,sorting and equipment associated with processing such as dryers." The applicant further stated, "The 35' height limitation would be preserved for areas nearest existing residential development to provide a `stepped' effect for building heights that will improve transitioning within the project." Staff was concerned with how the requested height would be viewed from the adjacent residential properties. The sight line exhibit (see Attachment 2 — Application and Support Material) illustrates the anticipated view from the residential properties to the west. The exhibit demonstrates the importance of the trees within the native vegetation buffer tract and how they serve to provide a visual barrier to the buildings in Tracts A and B. The drawing shows the buildings would be undetected from the residential areas, although staff notes that 100%opacity is unlikely. It should also be noted that the tallest building proposed in Tract B is depicted as fifty-five(55)feet in height(on the sight line drawing),whereas the IPUD Document proposes a sixty-two (62)-foot tall building. Notwithstanding, the drawing still demonstrates its intended purpose. The proposed building heights, setbacks,presence of the native vegetation buffer tract,and general location of the developable area help to buffer the IPUD from the adjacent low density residential areas to the east and to the west. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: This petitioner is requesting one (1)deviation,which is itemized in Exhibit E in the IPUD Document. The petitioner's justification and staff analysis/recommendation is as follows: Proposed Deviation #1 A deviation from LDC Section 6.6.02.A.2, which requires that a five (5)-foot wide sidewalk be provided on both sides of public and private rights-of-way or easements which are internal to the site, to instead provide a six(6)-foot wide sidewalk on one (1)side of the private right-of-way which is internal to the site. Petitioner's Rationale: "Due to the nature and remote location of this facility,pedestrian use is expected to be minimal to non-existent. Any sidewalk use would be for employees to walk from one site to an adjacent site during operational hours only and public use of the sidewalks will not be encouraged for safety and security reasons. The site will be secured during non-operational hours." Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Transportation Planning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 11 of 18 November 21, 2016 waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation,the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08": 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water,and other utilities. The subject site directly abuts the Collier County Landfill. The uses proposed in the IPUD are the same as that which were approved in connection with Resolution 09-275. Water and wastewater facilities currently do not connect to the subject property; however, they will in the future once the extension to City Gate Boulevard North is complete. Drainage solutions would be evaluated in connection with SDP and construction permits. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,contracts, or other instruments,or for amendments in those proposed,particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals,objectives,and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum). 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The uses proposed in this IPUD are the same as those approved in Resolution 09-275 in 2009. The proposed Master Plan illustrates the presence of sizable preserve areas and landscape buffering located between the developable areas of the subject site and the adjacent low density residential parcels to the east and west. The Collier County Landfill abuts this project to the south. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Within PUD districts containing commercial,industrial,and mixed use including residential,at least thirty percent (30%) of the gross area shall be devoted to usable open space. The Master Plan PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 12 of 18 November21, 2016 indicates that 221 acres or 64.2%of the site would be open space. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order(SDP or platting),at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals,including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. The City Gate Boulevard North extension will be complete prior to the approval of any certificate of occupancy for any buildings on this site. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has(or will have)adequate supporting infrastructure, such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies, to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will continuously be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case,based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The IPUD is proposing one (1) deviation. The request is for a deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires a five (5)-foot wide sidewalk to be provided on either side of a public right-of-way or easement internal to the site,to instead provide a six (6)-foot wide sidewalk on one (1)side of the private right-of-way or easement internal to the site. Staff fully supports this deviation request as summarized in the Deviation Discussion portion of this staff report. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable": 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties. PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 13 of 18 November 21,2016 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. There are no other IPUD projects located within the immediate vicinity of the subject property; however,the proposed IPUD directly relates to the Collier County Landfill property to the south. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The boundary of the IPUD follows the boundary of what was approved in the conditional use petition in 2009. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary,per se;but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The property is entitled to the uses specified in Resolution 09-275. With the recommended condition of approval to attenuate the possibility of unwanted noise from the outdoor areas, staff does not anticipate rezoning from A to the IPUD would adversely influence the living conditions in the neighborhood. When asked about the size and types of vehicles(e.g.,trucks)that are anticipated to access the site, the applicant responded with the following response: The vehicle types and sizes anticipated are unchanged since the anticipated land uses remain the same. With the County purchase of the 305 acre parcel south of the RRBP, a more direct route to CR 951 via City Gate Blvd North has now become available. The current route to and from the RRBP from CR 951 is reduced from over 3 miles to just over 1 mile and eliminates a route that runs in front of hotels and commercial convenience establishments where truck traffic is co-mingled with passenger vehicles. The applicant further responded as follows: The exact cargo being delivered to and from the RRBP cannot be determined at this time but is reflected in the permitted uses such as white goods, C&D, tires,yard waste, etc. Collier County has built a household hazardous waste facility at the Landfill, making a duplicate facility in this location unlikely. Any and all vehicles going to and from the facility must meet FDOT regulations for the safe handling and hauling of materials. Due to the distance to the nearest homes of the proposed access roads being greater than 300'and the design of the roadway itself, vibration will not be an issue. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. The project is subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in the IPUD Ordinance, which PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 14 of 18 November21, 2016 includes provisions to address public safety.Additionally staff has included developer commitments to specifically address additional operational concerns related to impacts resulting from the proposed development. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Stormwater Best Management Practices,flow paths,treatment,and storage from this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and County staff will evaluate all required stormwater documentation during the development review process. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated this amendment would reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or external to the subject property.Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning;however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Staff does not anticipate the proposed IPUD would be a deterrent to the improvement of surrounding land. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact,the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however,the applicant wants to have flexibility with respect to future site design and development standards, including proposed access to the site. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is 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 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration,which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the IPUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal,state,and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02 regarding Adequate Public Facilities(APF), and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the IPUD Document. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC)REVIEW: This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on September 21, 2016 at the Collier County South Regional Library located at 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway in Naples, FL. The meeting commenced at 5:30 p.m. and ended shortly before 7:00 p.m. The NIM Summary is included in Attachment 2 — Application and Support Material. Tim Hancock of Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. gave a PowerPoint presentation, which included a comparison of the conceptual site plan approved in 2009 and the master plan proposed in this ordinance. Mr. Hancock was intentional about mentioning the possibility of having Brown Goods as a requested permitted use. Mr. Hancock mentioned that the number of access points would increase from PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 16 of 18 November 21, 2016 three (3)to four(4). Mr. Hancock also answered questions from the audience,which included topics such as fencing, landscape buffers, setbacks, flooding near Garland Road, water well contamination, and noise. Much of the focus was the public's concern about the anticipated noise that may be generated from the site, particularly from chippers. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on October 18, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Application& Support Material 3) Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review 4) Legal Notifications 5) Emails/Letters from Public PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 17 of 18 November 21,2016 PREPARED BY: i ) Db 3// ERIC JOHNSON,AICP, CFM, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: � r 7-4 /°/ I3116 RAYM D V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGERATE ZONIN DIVISION MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: 00"- ES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 10/1 /0 re,r ( IAO/ cp DAVID . WILKISON DATE DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDZ-PL201500002737—Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Page 18 of 18 G A D C 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 S00 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 Q. •)9n 9an 9c77 c. 990 999 9000 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 4111 Je= + right enclosures: Collier County Resolution Nos. 2013-166 and 2016-243 2 G Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2016 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20150001416 NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PUD PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT &AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club, Inc. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP 8150 Heritage Club Way Hole Montes, Inc. Naples,FL 34112 950 Encore Way Naples,FL 34110 There are hundreds of other property owners in this PUD. REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to amend Ordinance No. 95-74, the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Planned Unit Development (PUD), and to amend Ordinance No. 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code,by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 5.21±acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A)to Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD. The application also includes revising the property description, adding a recreation area, revising development standards, amending Exhibit "A" Master Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as Master Plan), and providing an effective date. The CCPC recommended approval of this petition on May 5, 2016. At the hearing, the applicant presented a conceptual site plan [see Attachment 3 -Items Presented by Applicant at CCPC(May 05 2016)] illustrating how the subject site would be developed. Subsequent to that meeting; however, the applicant requested changes to the PUD Document, including changes to the conceptual site plan, which is provided in this staff report after the location map. The petitioner PUDZ-PL20150001416- Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 1 of 12 November 4, 2016 intended to present the change to the Board of County Commissioners (Board), but the item was remanded to the CCPC. Since the initial CCPC hearing, there has been public opposition to this amendment request or to the companion request (VAC-PL20160001406) that would vacate a portion of Tract C5 Conservation Area, including a portion of the 10-foot wide Collier County Conservation Buffer Easement with Tract 5 as shown on the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Phase One, Plat Book 26, Page 73 (see Attachment 5 - Vacation of Conservation Easement and Attachment 6-Emails_Letters from Public). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 5.21± acres, is located south of Davis Boulevard and west of Collier Boulevard in Sections 3, 4, 9 and 10, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner, who owns a 5.21±-acre parcel of land that is currently located externally and abutting the southwest border of the PUD,is requesting to add this parcel into the PUD to be used for recreational purposes for the residents of the PUD. The master plan shows the subject parcel would be assigned two (2) land use categories, Recreation Area (RA) and Preserve (P). Most of • the parcel would be designated RA while the southern portion would be added to the preserve of the PUD. According to the applicant, "The application also seeks to change the southerly 100' of PUD totaling approximately 3.0 acres, from `possible future public thoroughfare right-of-way acquisition' to preserve." These changes can be found in the proposed ordinance (see Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance). Since the future public thoroughfare right-of-way is contained in the subdivision plat, a vacation of this right-of-way is being processed separately (VAC- PL20160001403) as well as the aforementioned VAC-PL20160001406 petition. These vacation petitions will be reviewed as companion items when the PUD Amendment is reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners (Board). Staff is recommending approval of both vacation petitions. Since the petition was reviewed by the CCPC on May 5,2016,the applicant is requesting to modify the conceptual site plan by proposing a different location for the access point (to the subject parcel) as well as making further changes to the proposed uses, exterior lighting, hours of operation, and amplified sound. (See location map and revised conceptual site plan on the following pages) PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 2 of 12 November 4,2016 111i ` gig < 3� � < II III 11111 ��iiiuuniiiiri" i.er�o�`��; 111 711.411.4! � ?millw �iM1 3 ��O\��iu:iii�o,„,,,v ��_I .§-.: : f �w C -k% 1111111111111111 , ` I� - UIII►1j�� s1111111 11� �. E' 11117��., a_ Y , z QQ II.I ~ 1 1 IN 01 SI 1 I O • E 0 III gi „�ipSSS R i \\111111///lllllllllllllll\\\\\\ Cli J : G C12, X1111//11111111111111111\\ � ".'. / o F 7 k.,��111►I►►�'�' �� &II 111/111/1/1►1111 ll #11111 ii0 0 1114 10111111111111 j C � �! ropum 4. N., . 11.1. if -"1111110111r-......-4‘74". 0aimpr. .1 == QIUII'I 1 _ � / El r -_ �� 4111 oliii +� ' �� 1j►III//►Illllllllllq� _ �• MIIIIII _ - • ►%/1110►►� 1 �� ir :S �pI 11111NIIIID\� - `. \\111111111P �1/�� =e i.0. � ii� r.;9?11111 m.,� 1111 ..sem i 3I i,.„\,\\\o -'. _ UIII its': ,apeall►:;ala arogn1 X11... _._ Aqj �Q 1111\ \O . 111111111/1111111► . 11111 1'kd�#flddl s ME MiN ►w/1/1111\ ` IIIIIIII_I_I11� ._, ,, ,I►- - 111111111►// _ \I. iulnm,.-►,;4444 u15Y/ri ' ' 11111111111% � ri* p1111111 1IIIIIIIR°DIU- aIIHhu! ! ” � 11111 , IQ - p,uV„,.,,i Nnulwiih muu uuNl gl ...Lima IIIIIIIII E Lo ��. �IIj��IIo'i�" S I ,�11111.1111 -i- IIIIUII � o '� Or �'aamm/p�C I < J a 3TYa5 U1 lON W a D a t —4-ag 0 ■ 11 14 112e — I— e gi rc pi <Q oc a Wx� b ' aN 2— P ❑ yy rc S I Z " W J " Z W Q Z Y K b 196'a'O --- --_-.-_. p ...= .,.. it GIAVA31306 x3111oO j W IIIb 1 ,r roavA31no8 In LS6'a'o 0... w 0 auj Gl g e am n, s Q o x AYM3LYO uv3 z N ,._ U c4 .Sci N00tl®100YS c n p g i[j0 > n I. N C < IMEm /+ z Z UMI ai g " iille mO 46'6 E 0 II S 13 z �y < 2'p0o• g r roc g5 a � �.f=+76 Y� g Y ` �� .,,i tt- 1 2 _ j �3 " Q 15 N 1 3XY11YINS < IIM m ff E. s ' m NOLLYLM'ld r b 0 = mii g h'g `- S g 111 MOM vm evave vnlvs ,.I O Yi1Y8tlYB Y1NY5 _ OaVA31fO1 vav9ave • •S u vg 1 m w rc^ J cWi `� g m Y3 o m m5 3 < ia Idff b. ..sem no1o� f' e, §0g. <m w U N m /.. C N r _ �tI p5,� �I v < < Yilg b K 0 <I OVON Nave AJ Nnoo MIME I 531VISII ,elt,<"7 p i t I. P 02137431101% X g 0 cimuIWA 31Npd NMO I3 5 I'I, I ,. LW SB,BLOCK LII NAPLES HERITAGE T- ARON NAPLES HERITAGEGCC PHASE TWO-A, • - \ TRACT RIGHT-OF-WAY / ', PB 28,PGS 11-13RESERVOCK ,B, 11 __ GCC PHASE 1,PB 26,PGS 71-80 I I III ( P ASE TWO—A LAT 38,BLOCK B I II II I I \ NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE 7W0-A, Z------7 ' `'N PB 28,PGS 11-13 I I ' /'' EX.LAKE ``\ \ I il II III TER�SIBUCBAE TRACT GC48,NAPLES HERITAGE \`\`' III I \ GCC TRACTS B St C5 REPLAT,PB \ \ 27,PGS 98-100 \ II i LOT 6,BLOCK F, � I \ I I NAPLES HERITAGE I i GCC PHASE TWO-A, 1RACT a-CO3RVAR011 AREA PB 28,PGS 11-13 NCS IMINE 00:IINLTB B 1RIGr a-CONSBNATI81 AREA ��` - k a RBUT,P3 27,PS 98-100/ 11 II I NARES IMAGE UL TRACIS B k I I G5 IERAr,RB n,PGS 9B-100 T - 569'35,422 326. I I LOT 5,BLOCK F, NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TWO-A, PB 28,PGS 11-13 III o I IIEl NATURAL AREA m Lo i I III I B� oI� g' 0 LOT 4,BLOCK F, I'c•-.4 J NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TWO-A, UT 1 -2 I PB 28,PGS 11-13 II 0 O .. J • Oi' I -� , - - I LOT 3,BLOCK F y:: �� / I NM' NAPLES HERITAGE ^�.—�-/ • GCC PHASE TWO-A, �� \PB 28,PGS 11-13 III i �� \. __ , \ c �� ►moi. ii- i im n 614 u .I I Iu, 20.0' • LOT 2,BLOCK F TEN . (3 I q.� \' NAPLES HERITAGE II I- GCC PHASE TWO-A, � 1 PB 28,PGS 11-13 1111111 . I 111.11 .7.111.161111 � lz. i �..'►�'�'' I li II II u l LOT 1,BLOCK F I I Ego NAPLES HERITAGE rii O-A, I I � . _ GCC PHASE T11-13 PB 28,PGS W-13 :- in, v. III11314 TEN6:li(3n 11,1, ' 1,,,,i 4111 „Lon No . ... ... .. .... . .. * * 4. a a•.•.•.•a•.•a•.•a•* .6. a a•* * * * a ' TRACT C5-CONSERVATION AREA a a a a a a . a a a a . a a a a . . 1 NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE 1, * * * . . . • . . . . . . . . .•.• . . . . . . . . . . I PB 26,PGS 71-80 I. a a a a a PROP OSFaDaCQP15F.RVA11( •AREA. * . * . ..... • iI..... .•. . ............. . .•. . ,. ,.a,.a N'o TRACT RW4-RIGHT-OF-WAY ........ ... .................. . RESERVATION NAPLES HERITAGE CCC . `•` . . 4. ,.• . . a . a Y PHASE 1,PB 26,PGS 71-80 Iaa • aa • a • . .. . I ....•....• •.•a59828943W6W"326' M • . •.• •.•. •.•.•.• 7 EXHIBIT "A-1 " NAPLES HERITAGE TENNIS CENTER CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN NO SCALE SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the subject site. North: Tract C5 Conservation and Buffer Easement (water management area), then farther north are single-family dwellings, zoned Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD. East: Tract C5 Conservation and Buffer Easement,including a portion of a ten (10)- foot wide Collier County Conservation and Buffer Easement/TractRW4 100- foot wide Future Right-of-Way Reservation. Farther northeast is right-of-way for Colonial Court, still farther northeast are single-family dwellings. All aforementioned lands are zoned Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD. South: Vacant/undeveloped land Tract E (for future multi-family residential), zoned Shadow Wood PUD. West: Vacant/undeveloped land, zoned A. NAPLES t" P c _ "...,,-.1,.,,,.,._ 0b.HERITAGE G&�CC ,ice r }} xa � y.a . vC f ri y a‘A‘\4 Itt <,- Subject Propertyii o �, J Ne'rita9°. �j�'.- ,,,•:.,ST 4;fti ' 'Y ;3: :isN-.:.-k.:.:';4,'4-_':'-::':i 'w nin g_ w� '" $ t4 'Cil-;'A4n ~„ SFT,'4;,,,,,'r.u.Y-;;i',:,,z.,,:;'".‘.%E..'.t-. y 8 .v f+r X i :':,4'-:-..,#I YF z " SHADOW Aerial(County GIS) PUDZ PL20150001416 Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 3 of 12 November 4, 2016 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject site is identified as Urban Designation, Urban Mixed Use District,Urban Residential Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff reviewed the proposed land uses for consistency with the Urban Designation. Adding the 5.21±acres to the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD for the development of additional recreational facilities and a portion of this acreage for preserve are both non-residential uses listed (#2-Parks,open space and recreational uses)in the Urban Designation of the FLUE and therefore, consistent with the GMP (see Attachment 4-FLUE Consistency Review). Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff reviewed the application and found this petition consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. There is no increase in the number of residential dwelling units/traffic generation,no changes to point(s) of access or circulation,and no changes to the developer commitments; therefore, there is no impact on the previous findings of approval. Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. The acreage of preserve, as shown on the PUD Master Plan, will increase by approximately 3.9 acres with this amendment to the PUD [three (3) acres from vacation of the 100-foot wide right-of-way reservation and 0.9 acre from the parcel to be added to the PUD]. In total, approximately 251.9 acres or 44.7% of the land within the PUD,as shown on the PUD Master Plan, will be set aside as preserve. This acreage exceeds the twenty-five percent (25%) minimum native vegetation retention (preserve)requirement pursuant to CCME Policy 6.1.1. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. ANALYSIS: Applications for amendments to, or rezoning to, the PUD shall be in the form of a PUD Master Plan of development along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table. The PUD Application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed deviations from the LDC. Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5,Planning Commission Recommendation(commonly referred to as the"PUD PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 4 of 12 November 4, 2016 • Findings"), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading"Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns. The project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. There are no impacts or changes in location to previously approved preserves, as shown on the PUD Master Plan, and no listed species of wildlife were observed on-site during the listed species survey performed by the environmental consultant. The proposed PUD Amendment will add approximately 3.9 acres of preserve to the PUD [three (3) acres from vacation of the 100-foot wide right-of-way reservation and 0.9 acre from the parcel to be added to the PUD]. Landscape Review: No buffer is proposed along the south boundary of the RA-zoned area of the subject parcel because it would abut a preserve. The Master Plan illustrates that a ten (10)-foot wide buffer is proposed along the west property line of the subject parcel where abutting the A- zoned lands. Finally, the Master Plan shows that a twenty-five (25)-foot wide buffer is proposed along the east boundary of the subject parcel, internal to the PUD. Essentially, this buffer would be combined with the twenty-five(25)-foot wide strip of natural area that results from the approval of the companion petition(VAC-PL20160001406),which seeks to vacate that portion of Tract C5 Conservation and Buffer Easement. Staff has reviewed the PUD Document and the master plan and has no issues with the requested changes. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition request, the PUD Document, and the Master Plan for compliance with Collier County Access Management Resolution Number 13-257; and as noted above, for consistency with the transportation elements of the GMP. Transportation Planning staff is recommending approval of the request. Utilities Review: Approved. No comment. Zoning Services Review: The proposed Master Plan shows that the parcel that would be incorporated into Tract A of the Naples Golf and Country Club PUD and assigned the "RA" land use category. The applicant proposes a new principal use under Section 3.2.A.4 of the PUD Document, which reads as follows: "4. Recreation area,labeled RA on the Master Plan,limited to tennis courts,restrooms, landscaping and stormwater facilities, for use by all residents and guests." Staff has no issue with any of the uses proposed in the RA land use category. As a means of further controlling the future design of this parcel,the proposed ordinance includes a conceptual site plan, PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 5 of 12 November 4, 2016 illustrating the location of the tennis courts,restrooms,and off-street parking areas. The remaining undeveloped portions of the site would be comprised of natural/preserve areas. The PUD Document contains new setbacks for principal structures in the RA land use category. The proposed setbacks listed in Section 3.6.F are as follows: Front yard: 50 feet Side yard: 25 feet Rear yard: 25 feet Preserve: 25 feet Staff has no issue with any of the proposed setbacks. The PUD Document also contains limitations on building height,exterior lighting, and hours of operation. Amplified sound shall be prohibited. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08": 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land,surrounding areas,traffic and access, drainage,sewer, water,and other utilities. Potable water and sanitary sewer lines are in the vicinity of the subject parcel. Notwithstanding the fact that new recreational facilities are proposed next to residential areas,the proposed Master Plan shows that Colonial Court would serve both as a means of access and as a separation between the two land uses. Based on this design, which would include appropriate buffering, in conjunction with the development standards contained in the PUD Document, staff determined the intended recreational use would be compatible with the existing development in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application,which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. The applicant states that "the • continuing operation and maintenance of areas and facilities that are private (not to be provided or maintained at public expense) shall be maintained through the existing homeowners association. Additionally, the development will be required to obtain SDP approval. This processes [sic] will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer." PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 6 of 12 November 4, 2016 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals,objectives,and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives,and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum). 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements,restrictions on design,and buffering and screening requirements. Section 3.11 of the PUD Document indicates that"Buffers shall be installed along the rear yard of multi-family or recreational facilities which abut off-site single-family zoned or vacant agriculturally zoned lands." The Master Plan shows buffers would be placed along the east and west boundaries of the subject parcel. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. A majority of the acreage associated with the subject property is to be used for recreational purposes with the remaining used as a natural/preserve area. The applicant's response to this criterion was, "There are adequate areas within usable open space proximate to and nearby this development. The existing PUD contains approximately 103 acres of golf course; 248 acres of preserve; and 87 acres of lake." The site will be required to demonstrate compliance with usable open space requirements at the time of SDP review. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities,both public and private. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations,or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case,based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. No deviations are being requested with this petition. PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 7 of 12 November 4, 2016 Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable": 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals,objectives,and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. Staff determined the recreational facilities proposed in connection with this amendment are appropriate for this area of the County. By adding the ±5.21 acres, the PUD density would decrease from 1.43 dwelling units per acre to 1.42 dwelling units per acre. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The parcel proposed to be added into the PUD directly abuts another PUD. It is staff's opinion that this would not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The subject parcel is currently owned by the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club,Inc., who purchased the property in 2004. The boundary of the PUD would change if the new parcel were incorporated into the PUD, but not to the extent that the new PUD boundary would be illogically drawn. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff does not anticipate the new uses would adversely impact living conditions in the neighboring community. PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 8 of 12 November 4, 2016 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development,or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. The project is subject to the Transportation commitments contained in the PUD Ordinance, which includes provisions to address public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Stormwater Best Management Practices, flow paths, treatment, and storage from this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District,and County staff will evaluate all required stormwater calculation, site plans, and documentation during the development review process. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated that this amendment would significantly reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property.Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning;however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Staff does not anticipate the proposed amendment at the subject site would be a deterrent to the improvement of the vacant land to the west or to the south. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 9 of 12 November 4, 2016 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Recreational facilities are not permitted in the A zoning district. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff's opinion the proposed uses and associated development standards and developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance,as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF) and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. The concurrency review for APF is deteiiiiined at the time of SDP review. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety,and welfare. To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing. PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 10 of 12 November 4, 2016 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent conducted a duly noticed NIM on February 9,2016 at the Collier County South Regional Library at 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway. The applicant summarized the petition by indicating the project intent was to construct a small building for refreshments and a pro-shop, but that the primary use will be for tennis courts (see Attachment 2-Application and Support Material). The attendees asked questions related to the anticipated development process: likelihood and length of time for project approval: whether there are other lands that can be improved with tennis courts: the anticipated buildable area for the subject parcel,and the future for the non-buildable areas(e.g., Will it become preserve? Maintenance/oversight of preserve?): the number of departments reviewing the petition; and property owner notification. It should be noted that subsequent to the original CCPC hearing, staff received letters of objection to the project as contained in Attachment 6 -Emails_Letters from Public. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on October 31, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Application and Support Material 3) Items Presented by Applicant at CCPC (May 5, 2016) 4) FLUE Consistency Review 5) Vacation of Conservation Easement 6) Emails_Letters from Public 7) Legal Notifications PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 11 of 12 November 4, 2016 PREPARED BY: gi / /D/z7 %16 ERIC JOHNSON,AICP, CFM,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: 4 / / - /6 RAYM.y P V. ELLOWS,ZON ANAGER DATE ZONIN DIVISION ,d1' l0 -ac-- t (e MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: "..----- J e___, // _ / _/4. JA ES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Al:W/"") ' 1-- IN, ii73 /i6 DAVID S. WILKISON DATE DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDZ-PL20150001416-Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD Page 12 of 12 GoodnerAngela From: Richard Rogan <rmrogan40@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:33 PM To: Donna Fiala; SolisAndrew; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: HM File No.: 2015.055 Attachments: NHGCC Perspective on Tennis Center pdf.pdf; ATT00001.htm Ladies and Gentlemen, The above referenced file is on the BCC agenda for December 13,2016. The attached letter, dated October 26,2016, was sent to the then current members of the Board of Commissioners. I am resending it in light of the appointment of three new Commissioners and the passage of time. The intent of the letter remains the same,namely to restore some perspective that has been lost during the exchange between Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club and three of its residents. I hope that the insight it provides facilitates your support. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at(239) 825-0164. Thank you for your consideration. Richard M. Rogan 1 RICHARD M. ROGAN 7703 NAPLES HERITAGE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112 October 26, 2016 To: Members of the Collier County Planning Commission Members of the Collier County County Board of Commissioners Re: Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) Proposed Tennis Center HM File No.: 2015.055 The above referenced item was to be on the Board of Commissioners agenda for October 11, 2016 but was sent back to the Planning Commission for further review of its unanimous favorable recommendation. Presumably this action was in response to letters written by three residents of Naples Heritage Golf & Country (NHGCC) objecting to the relocation of the community's main tennis courts. While they raise a number of valid concerns, which have been addressed, it is also apparent that a great deal of perspective has been lost since the original plan was presented at to the Planning Commission meeting held on May 5, 2016. Of particular concern are the interests of the 464 NHGCC homeowners who have voted to approve a club expansion project of which the tennis court relocation is a part. I am a former President of the NHGCC Board of Trustees and, in 2015, served as the Chair of the Long Range Planning Committee which was responsible for developing the Campus Expansion Plan. I am also past president of the Cypress Pointe Homeowners Association; the single-family neighborhood within Naples Heritage consisting of 101 homes, six of which are located on Colonial Court and face the site slated to house new tennis courts. I live within five homes of the site under consideration. 1 In 2004 the NHGCC Board of Trustees was approached by a developer who was planning to build some 140 multi-family units on several pieces of property adjacent to Colonial Court. The proposal contemplated providing access to these units through the Naples Heritage main entrance off of Davis Boulevard, down Naples Heritage Drive and though Colonial Court. It was the judgement of the Board that the proposal offered no significant advantages to current residents and, in deed, would place added strain on the community resources already in place. Subsequent to turning down the proposal, the owner of one adjacent five-acre parcel offered to sell it to NHGCC. In light of everything that had taken place, it made sense to go ahead and make the purchase, which was approved in September, 2004. As is documented in the minutes of the Board of Trustees, as early as February, 2005, discussions concerning potential uses of the newly acquired property were begun. In the intervening years a number conversations were held about possible uses of this site as well as other sites within the NHGCC PUD. A frequently discussed prospect was the movement of the Club's main tennis courts to a site near the driving range which is dedicated preserve. On several occasions inquiries made of the Corps of Engineers (COE) resulted in strong admonitions about attempting to convert property already designated as preserve; this regardless of any offers to swap other land. Then, in July, 2014 the COE demonstrated its resolve by refusing to issue a permit to Quail West Country Club to convert dedicated preserve for use as tennis courts; a situation identical to ours. We concluded that going forward with an identical proposal was not likely to succeed. Taking the COE to court would not only be futile, but also expensive. The suggestion has been made that there has not been a good faith effort to find alternative sites for the tennis courts. The fact is that no fewer than 16 alternative sites were evaluated and documented in an Alternatives Analysis submitted as part of our application to the Corps of Engineers. The analysis, which goes on for 24 pages, reduces the practical sites to 3. They are the five-acre site adjacent to Colonial Court, the site near the driving range (discussed above) and a site west of the existing club house parking lot, a portion of which would be used for additional parking spaces. When these three sites are subjected to further analysis, the five-acre site comes out as being the least environmentally damaging. With respect to wildlife, all three sites contain no known listed species. As to loss of wetlands, development on the five-acre site is rated as the least damaging by a factor of over three times when compared to the driving range site and by a factor of 1.25 times when compared to the site west of the existing parking lot. I am not sure exactly how one would go about defining a "good faith effort," but I am sure that what was done qualifies under any rational definition. When NHGCC was planned in 1996, the Collier County Land Development Code dictated that only 185 parking spaces were required at the Clubhouse. Since then, the demographics of the residents have changed increasing the activity and usage of club facilities. Predictably, problems caused by the lack of parking are magnified during season and when Naples Heritage hosts events open to members and their guests as well as when inter-club events take place. The lack of space often leads to overflow parking along nearby roadways and other areas. This creates an unsafe condition for residents and complicates access for emergency vehicles.As far back as 2012, both the Club's insurance carrier and the East Naples Fire District have served notice that parking available to support the main Clubhouse area was inadequate. The plan under Page 2 consideration adds 66 parking spaces, an increase of 35%. To suggest that this is not a problem is to demonstrate total disinterest in the welfare of the community. In addition to responding to a growing problem with parking, the planned expansion addresses the increasing interest in health and wellness by including a new fitness center and an enlarged main pool. Finally some modification to the clubhouse are being made to accommodate additional activities. In March, 2015, the NHGCC Long Range Planning Committee was charged with the responsibility of developing a plan that would positively impact as many residents of the 799 homes as possible and to do so in a cost effective manner. Between April and October a plan was crafted following a broad-based examination of what other comparable clubs and newer communities were offering their residents. Between early October and mid-November, 22 neighborhood meetings were conducted to present the initial concept and to gain input that was used to make modifications. Between January and early February, 2016 three town hall meetings were held to present a mostly finished plan and to gather additional feedback. Approximately 1,000 people attended the small group and town hall meetings. It is inconceivable to suggest that there was insufficient notice given to the community. As a side note, one of the 22 meetings was actually a presentation made to the NHGCC Tennis Association annual dinner. If, as mentioned in one of the complaining correspondence, "many of the tennis players . . . were opposed to locating the tennis facility as proposed. . .," it was not at all evident at the meeting. In fact there was some concern about having spent a considerable sum to upgrade the existing tennis courts, to address safety concerns, just two years ago (at that time). Otherwise the overwhelming sentiment was favorable. They would finally have a facility worthy of hosting inter club competitions. But, since there is no objective data supporting either position, I suppose we are left with dueling anecdotes. On March 25, 2016 the results of a community-wide vote were published. 464 households voted yes. NHGCC documents require that a project like this must receive one more than 50% "yes" votes to be approved. Non-votes are counted as "no" votes. Against this stringent standard the project was approved by 58% of the 799 homeowners. Many other clubs require only that a majority of those voting is necessary for approval. Against that standard the project was approved by 64.7%. Within NHGCC there are 9 voting districts based on type of home; single family, terraces, verandas and villas. When the 464 votes are broken down by voting district, every single district, including the one composed of the single family homes, voted in favor of the project. The point here is that the Board of Trustees has the responsibility to serve the membership at large invariably leaving some individuals dissatisfied. Nonetheless, the residents in 464 homes have a legitimate expectation that this project will go forward as Page 3 has been presented to them. After all, their approval included a commitment to fund the project. One or more of the complaints made some reference to the impact on resale value of the homes on Colonial Court. Keeping pace with the marketplace begins with the community. Prospective buyers are not even going to look at individual homes if the community does not offer the features and amenities that they require. There are 799 homes a NHGCC that all suffer if we cannot keep pace with other communities. As you are aware from the written exchanges with the residents of Colonial Court, their concerns have been more than adequately addressed. Giving appropriate consideration to the wishes of the community at large is well overdue. I urge you to conclude your review and to move on. Thank you for your consideration. Since y, J Richard M. Rogan Page 4 GoodnerAngela From: Bob Mulhere <BobMulhere@hmeng.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 4:27 PM To: SolisAndrew Cc: GoodnerAngela Subject: Naples Heritage PUDA(on BCC Agenda Dec 13, 2016) Commissioner Solis: 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. U06 AW%ie1,e, meo Uce Pees/deet, P/aw,, Set wi es 1 ICNI 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 warrantor 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 GoodnerAngela From: Bob Mulhere <BobMulhere©hmeng.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 9:12 AM To: SolisAndrew Subject: Naples Heritage- November 17th CCPC Minutes Attachments: 11-17-2016 CCPC Minutes.pdf Commissioner Solis: Happy New Year! The Naples Heritage PUDA is scheduled for your January 10 meeting. It was continued from your December BCC meeting due to an error in property owner notification. Apparently staff had thought the Clerk's office notified the neighbors of the companion ROW vacation, and the Clerk's office didn't realize they were to notify the neighbors. As I understand it,this"glitch" has been remedied, but it was necessary for this item to be continued so the neighbors could be notified by mail, as required by Code. Honestly with the two CCPC hearings we have had, plus the Neighborhood Information Meeting, plus numerous emails, calls and meetings with neighbors, I am quite certain everyone had adequate notification, but the continuance was necessary to make sure the required mailing related to the companion vacations was done properly. After the original CCPC hearing, this item was remanded back to CCPC by the BCC due to changes we had made to address Colonial Court residents concerns.The CCPC reheard the item on November 17th and again, as was the case after the first CCPC hearing, unanimously recommend approval. I have attached the CCPC minutes in case you wish to review them. While we have made significant concessions and agreed to various conditions, most of which were requested by one or more of the Colonial Court residents(6 homes on Colonial Court), I am fairly certain that at least a few of the Colonial Court residents are still opposed. The Naples Heritage Homeowners, in accordance with their by-laws, voted in majority to approve the proposed Tennis Center at this location. Here are the final CCPC stipulations that we agreed to and which are set forth in the PUD: • 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. 1 In deference to your busy schedule I am sending this email; however, if you wish to meet I am happy to do that as well. Thank you. Bob Mulhere, FAICP Vice President, Planning Services HOLE MONTES 143V11 HOLE MONTES 239-254-2000 Direct: 239-254-2026 Cell: 239-825-9373 2 November 17,2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,November 17,2016 LET IT BE REMEMBERED,that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier,having conducted business herein,met on this date at 9:00 a.m.,in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, 3299 East Tarniami Trail, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt Patrick Dearborn ABSENT: Diane Ebert ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V.Bellows,Zoning Manager Eric Johnson,Planner Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman,School District Representative II Page 1 of 48 November 17,2016 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. If everybody will please quiet down. Welcome to the Thursday,November 17th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll start with roll call. Mr.Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms.Ebert called in. She will not make it today. The chairman's here. Ms.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Schmitt? COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addenda to the agenda. Before we go into that,I wish to introduce everybody to our new Planning Commission member,Mr.Patrick Dearborn,who represents District 2,North Naples,and welcome aboard, sir. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll try to make it very entertaining. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did a lot of your friends come this morning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Just because Patrick's here,yeah. Addenda to the agenda;we have a request for continuance of the Regency Autohaus PUDA. It was sent out a couple days ago. The applicant is requesting to be continued to the December 1st meeting. It will be,then,the first item up at that meeting. Is there a motion to approve their— COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to continue to December 1st. Is there a second? Somebody? Stan? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe seconds. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. So if you're here for the Regency Autohaus--has anybody come in for that particular item? It's the third item up today. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For those watching,that will be moved to the December 1st meeting. Planning Commission absences;our next meeting is December 1st. Does anybody here today know if they will not be here on December 1st'? (No response.) Page 2 of 48 November 17,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray,do we have anything scheduled for the second meeting in December? MR.BELLOWS: The second meeting in December, I believe we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Sometimes in the holiday months we don't get everything scheduled. Bob,you can take a seat a minute if you want.We're going to be a while before we get to you. MR.MULHERE: All right. I'll just stand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Approval of the minutes. We all were sent electronically the October 20th minutes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I didn't get any. COMMISIONER SCHMITT: I didn't get them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we will postpone the approval of the minutes until the next meeting. So we'll move the October 20th minutes for approval to the next meeting. BCC report and recaps,Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On November 15th the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD amendment for Granada Shoppes. That was approved on their summary agenda. They also heard the PUD amendment and rezone for the Marco Island Airport and Marco Shores project,and that was approved—also approved on the summary agenda subject to the CCPC recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you. MR.BELLOWS: And if you'd like,I can tell you what items are on the second meeting in December. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. That will be great. Thank you. MR.BELLOWS: We have the Hamilton Harbor--or Hamilton Place rezone,we have LDC amendments,and we have a Tradewinds Avenue. Looks like that's a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a variance. MR.BELLOWS: --variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rear setback variance. Okay. Good. That's good to know,because on the 1st if we have to have a consent or continuance,we've still got another opportunity during the month to get that accomplished. MR.BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Chairman's report;I don't have anything new to report today. We'll move right into our regular meeting.The first item up is consent,and we don't have any items up of consent. So we'll move to 9A. ***9A is PUDZ-PL20150001416. It's the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD located on the south of Davis Boulevard and the west of Collier Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're going to speak on this item,you have to be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This particular project was remanded back to us by the Board of County Commissioners because of some objections that came up after this board had heard it. Before we go into the actual business of the item,we'll have to do disclosures,but I wanted to make the Board aware that if it looked familiar,it's because we did hear on it,we did vote on it previously. Some things came to light after the meeting,and the Board thought it best to send it back to us before it goes back onto them. So with that,we'll do disclosures.Mr. Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: No contacts other than receiving emails which are part of the public record. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Same here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have had communications with numerous residents of Colonial Court either by email,by phone,or even before the meeting today;equally so with the applicant's representative, Mr.Mulhere. I don't know if I've talked to anybody else in your group,Bob,but that's the best I can Page 3 of 48 November 17,2016 remember right now. I've also gone through the files extensively,a lot of which we'lI be discussing today. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr.Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I also spoke to Mr.Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,Patrick,we have to disclose any ex parte communications we had,so you'll get used to this as we get going. And if you have talked to anybody about this project,you have to acknowledge it now at this time. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark,I'd like to correct something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I did get one email from a resident inside the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And just for the watching community,Nora Frances,I hope you're watching. We're going to try to keep your husband in line today. Nobody knows who that is,but Nora deserves to have a"hello"said to her. So with that,we will move directly into the item. Bob,it's yours for presentation at this point. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Good morning.Here—Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here on behalf of the applicant this morning. With me this morning,Patrick Doorbad,who is the general manager and COO of Naples Heritage; also Dick Rogan,who is the former president of the homeowners association and was chairing the Long-Range Planning Committee. He'll speak to the history of the acquisition of this property and the assessment of potential uses. Also,I have Rich Yovanovich with me. He'll speak as necessary;and Craig Smith,who is the ecologist that worked on this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich Yovanovich is going to speak as necessary? That's a neat way of--can you do that for every project you bring forward? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had to pause on that one,too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. MR MULHERE: Craig Smith,who will--who I will ask to come up and speak. Both Dick and Craig will speak;Dick,as I said,on the history of the acquisition,and Craig on the alternative site analysis that was done;and also Gina Green who is the PE. I'm sure that Gina will have to respond to some questions. I don't intend to have Gina make a presentation. As Mr. Strain indicated,this was heard by the Planning Commission in May and recommended for approval,but at that time we didn't have anyone who had objected in writing nor at the meeting. Subsequent to the Planning Commission,residents of Colonial Court expressed—several residents of Colonial Court expressed some concerns,and we began a process of dialogue both via email,telephone call,and there were also several in-person meetings even as recently as just a couple of days ago. So the concerns that were raised--and P11 stick to those as part of my presentation--generally centered on a number of things: The history of the acquisition and whether or not it was ever intended for this type of improvement of the five acres--and let me show you where that is. So on the visualizer you have a map of Naples Heritage,which is right here,and down in this corner, there's a five-acre parcel right here that is immediately adjacent to Naples Heritage PUD that we are proposing to add to the PUD and,in part,to improve it with a tennis center and, in part,to place some of that property in the southern portion of it in conservation. The concerns--in addition to that history and whether or not other alternatives existed besides this alternative,the other concerns related to whether or not the courts would be open for night play,whether or not there would be lights on the courts,noise generation,setbacks,landscape buffers,the size of the--what would be the tennis center building which originally had been proposed to have a snack bar was a larger Page 4 of 48 November 17,2016 building. And so as those issues came up and were raised and as part of that dialogue,we began to try to address those issues so that we could be the best neighbors that we could possibly be in terms of the adjacency to the Colonial Court residents. And I want to put an exhibit on the visualizer now. This is the site plan that you have that you have in your packet. You can see there's six tennis courts here. And you can see Colonial Court comes down here. There's access to the site,a parking area,and then these are the lots on Colonial Court. This particular lot owned by Mr.Huber is the closest to the tennis court facility. It actually abuts the property because the cul-de-sac ends here,and he has access to his property right off of the cul-de-sac. So this was the--and this site plan reflects the site plan that has had numerous revisions made to it during that post CCPC process but still generally was the same in that it had,you know,the six tennis court configuration. So a couple of things I want to point out is that we propose to have a pretty significant setback. It was 78-and-a-half feet to the closest point of the tennis court—of the structure here;I'm sorry,the building here;about 90--about an additional 20 feet to the edge of the first tennis court,so about 98 feet. Proposed to put a 25-foot enhanced landscape buffer,which is also part of your package. Right here and right here. We moved it over here because this--this little strip here is a 25-foot conservation easement that we are vacating,and this portion of that 25-foot conservation area was already cleared.We don't really know when it got cleared,but best we can figure is when the house got built on this lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,let me make a correction. I did check that out after you and I spoke. MR.MULHERE: Partially cleared. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It looks like it was cleared when the developer went in and cleared for the right-of-way of the Colonial Court. MR.MULHERE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you compare the aerials from that time to now,that was cleared prior to the house being built from what I can see. MR.MULHERE: Okay. So that's--and so although it's in a conservation area,it's been cleared. And since we were vacating it,one of—in discussions—and I didn't have these discussions firsthand so--others did. But in discussions,I think,with Mr.Huber,it was indicated that that could be retained in its clear area and that we would move the landscape buffer over here since we were vacating that part of the conservation easement anyway. We've made a number of changes to the ordinance,which I want to go over first,to address those concerns. And these changes that are reflected in this document are in your packet. The concern over lighting,after discussing that with my clients,we agreed that there would be no night play,and we put some language in the PUD that says lighting shall be limited to that necessary for public safety and security,shall be a full cutoff shield to prevent glare and spillage,and utilize motion sensors for activation,and that they would be limited to a maximum height of 10 feet. We've said that the building—we eliminated the snack bar. It's only going to be for restrooms and a small storage area,and we limited the height of that,because that was also a concern. There was some discussion of a two-story building,but either way we've limited it to a 12-story(sic)building zoned and 15-foot actual. We limited the operation of the tennis facility from 7 a.m.to dusk,and we've prohibited any form of amplified sound. Now,after we made these commitments,some additional concerns were raised,and one of those--one of the suggestions was that we consider revising the site plan. And rm looking for the alternative site plan right now. Right here. That we consider revising the site plan to achieve a greater buffer than the 75 feet or 90 feet--75 feet to the building,90 to the tennis courts. I think it was Mr.Huber that suggested that—so that--his suggestion was to reduce the number of courts to four. And my clients still want to retain six tenths courts,but we did take a look at the site plan and revise it. You do not have this in your packet.This just happened fairly recently. So we've taken a look at and moved--where we had four tennis courts before,we've taken those two Page 5 of 48 November 17,2016 and moved them to the north,revised the site plan slightly. The result of that is that we now do achieve the 150--it's actually quite a bit more. It's 140.1 feet to the edge of the building and then another 20 feet to the tennis courts. So the desired setback of plus or minus 150 feet,we actually exceed that now with that design. And then the remaining—I should point out that this area in here that will be used for holding water, once we take out the exotics,we will retain the native vegetation that's in that site,so it would create an additional buffer besides the 25-foot buffer that we're proposing right here and right here. And the same holds true for this area up here. And down here,this would be dedicated as part of the conservation easement. The meeting that we had--I've been busy. I think it was the day before yesterday. Tuesday,thank you. One other issue came up that I know some of the residents have concerns about,and that was relative to parking,and particularly as it might be during tournaments that are held occasionally,I think three or four times a year,and the possibility that folks would not have sufficient parking on the site and then would park on the street in front of these houses. And our commitment was that we would manage that. There are relatively few tournaments that are held. There's no reason in those circumstances why folks coming into Naples Heritage to participate in these tournaments could not park at the clubhouse center and then be shuttled down here,assuming there would be a parking problem.We feel,certainly,that there's adequate parking.It exceeds the county's requirement for these types of facilities. So we feel like there's more than adequate parking,but if there is some demand in these relatively few occasions,again,that will be during the day--because we don't have night play--we'll manage that by shuttling folks from the clubhouse center. I did want to talk a little bit about the county's history as it relates to allowing these types of recreational facilities in proximity to residential development. The county code sets forth a number of required development standards for these types of things, most particularly setbacks from adjacent residential development. Most of the time in residential districts these types of facilities are permitted as accessory uses to the residential development. Sometimes they require a conditional use. We're going through a public hearing that would be the same as the hearing process that we would go through if it were in that case. I think it was 15 years ago,it may have been longer,the county actually went in and changed the code to enhance the buffer requirements because there were some issues that occurred over the years about inadequate buffering adjacent to residential between these recreational facilities and residential development. We far exceed that buffer. That 25-foot enhanced buffer is considerably more than is otherwise required. I think it's 15 feet,typically. I do want to spend a few minute going over--or,actually,Pm going to bring Mr.Rogan up and ask him to go over the process of when the community acquired this,what the thoughts were,and how they went through a process of looking at this site,not from the ecological perspective,not from the permitting perspective—because Craig will talk about that right after Mr.Rogan speaks,but really more from--because there were questions about what the intent of buying this piece of property were. And I know that originally the intent was--at least in part was to buy this piece of property to eliminate any likelihood of someone from the outside buying it and then trying to create some sort of a vehicular connection to Naples Heritage.I think--I don't believe that would have ever happened anyway,but I do want to ask Mr.Rogan to come up because almost immediately,as soon as it was purchased,there was discussions about what other uses,since we've invested in this property,can we use this property for. And,by the way,this is being driven,this process is being driven by a couple of things.Number one, there is a deficiency of parking in and around the clubhouse during the season. People are parking in the right-of-ways,and there's just not enough parking. So the Long-Range Planning Committee plan began to look at what they could do to alleviate that and,at the same time,the residents are also looking for some improved fitness facilities and other facilities. So it was looked at comprehensively to try to address the long-range plans of this community both Page 6 of 48 1 November 17,2016 for parking and for other reasons. With that,I'd like you to come up,Dick,and speak to those issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to pull the mike closer to you. MR.ROGAN: What I'd like to do this morning is read the letter that I sent to all of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you start by stating your name and spelling your last name for the court reporter. MR.ROGAN: Sure. My name is Richard,middle initial is M,and the last name is Rogan, R o-g-a-n. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.ROGAN: Okay. As I say,I'd like to read the letter that I sent all of you on the 26th of October, except you,sir;I don't think you've seen it. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I have not. MR.ROGAN: It's important,I think,because it does set the context for today's discussion and,plus, there's a number of people here who hadn't had the benefit of my thoughts on the letters. So I'll start--I'll read it,and then certainly answer any questions that you have. The above-referenced item was to be on the Board of Commissioners agenda for October 11th,2016, but was sent back to the Planning Commission to further review its unanimous favorable recommendation. Presumably this action was in response to letters written by three residents of Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club objecting to the relocation of the community's main tennis courts. While they raise a number of valid concerns,which have been addressed,it is also apparent that a great deal of perspective has been lost since the original plan was presented to the Planning Commission on May 5th of 2016. Of particular concern are the interests of 464 Naples Heritage owners,homeowners,who have voted to approve a club expansion project,of which this tennis court relocation is a part. I'm former president of Naples Heritage Board—Naples Heritage 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'm also past president of Cypress Point Homeowners Association;that's the single-family neighborhood within Naples Heritage consisting of 101 single-family homes,six of which are located on Colonial Court and face the site slated to house the new tennis courts. Tye got a note here that I ask myself why I put it in,but since it's here,I'll read it. I live within five homes of the construction site,so I'm not exactly on the other side of the community second guessing. In 2004 the Naples Heritage Board of Trustees was approached by a developer who was planning to build some 140 multifamily units on several pieces of property adjacent to Colonial Court. The proposal contemplated providing access to these units through Naples Heritage main entrance on Davis Boulevard down Naples Heritage Drive through Colonial Court. You know,I think,Bob,we might want to show that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,you'll have to use that walk around mike if you're going to address us, please. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Bob,can you back that out a bit on the screen as well. Thank you. MR.MULHERE: Yeah. Thank you. MR.ROGAN: There we go. So the entrance to the community is here,and the proposal by these outside developers is that their residents would come in this way,down Naples Heritage,and to Colonial Court. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to move the map up. We still can't see it. MR ROGAN: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. MR.ROGAN: All right. Let me try it again.Here's the entrance to the community. The residents of that new development would come in this way all the way down hese and then down to Colonial Court So that was the expectation associated with the developer's proposal. It was the judgment of the board that the proposal offered no significant advantages to current Page 7 of 48 November 17,2016 residents and,indeed,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 Naples Heritage. In light of—in light of everything that had taken place,it made sense to go ahead and make the purchase,which was approved in September of 2004. The closing,by the way for--just for timeline purpose,the closing on the property was November 15th,2004. Pm going to make one comment that's not in the letter,and then I'll go back to the letter. In January of 2005,all right,so less than 90 days after the closing,the Long-Range Planning Committee at that time began to discuss alternative uses. I have a copy of their minutes. And the first alternative use they listed was tennis courts. So the notion that we would have bought this property to do nothing with it just doesn't ring true. As is documented in the minutes of the board of trustees as early as January 2005,discussions concerning potential uses of the newly-acquired property were begun. In the intervening years,a number of conversation were held about possible uses of this site as well as other sites within Naples Heritage. A frequently discussed prospect was the movement of the club's main tennis courts to a site near the driving range which was dedicated preserve. On several occasions inquiries made of the Corps of Engineers 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 Corps of Engineers demonstrated its resolve by refusing to issue a permit to Quail West Country Club to convert dedicated preserve for use as tennis courts,a situation identical to ours. We concluded that going forward with an identical proposal would not likely succeed.Taking the Corps to court was not only futile,but also expensive. The suggestion's been made that there has not been a good-faith effort to find alternative sites for the tennis courts. The fact is,no fewer than 16 alternative sites were evaluated and documented in an alternatives analysis submitted as part of our application to the Corps of Engineers. The analysis,which goes on for 24 pages,reduces the practical sites to three. They are the five-acre site adjacent to Colonial Court,the site near the driving range,which I mentioned above,and a site west of the existing clubhouse parking lot,a portion of which would be used for additional parking spaces. When these three sites are subjected to further analysis,the five-acre site comes out as being the least environmentally damaging. With respect to wildlife,all three sites contain no listed species. As to loss of wetlands,development on the five-acre site is rated as the least damaging by a factor of over three times when compared to the driving range site and by a factor of 1.25 when compared to the site west of the existing parking lot. Pm not exactly sure what would--let me try it again. Pm not exactly sure how one would go about defining good-faith effort,but I'm sure that however you define it,we did it. When Naples Heritage 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 inner 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 the 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 is inadequate. The plan under consideration adds 66 parking spaces and increases it 35 percent. 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 increased interest in health and wellness by including a new fitness center and an enlarged main pool. Finally,some modifications to the clubhouse are g made to accommodate additional activities. In March 2015,the Naples Heritage 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 Page 8 of 48 } November 17,2016 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 the residents. Between early October and mid November,22 neighborhood meetings were conducted to present the initial concept and to gain input that was used to make modifications. Between January and early February of 2016,three town hall meetings were held to present a mostly finished plan and to gather additional feedback. Approximately a thousand people attended the small group and town hall meetings. It is inconceivable to suggest that there was insufficient notice to the community. As a sidenote,one of the 22 meetings was actually a presentation made to the Naples Heritage Tennis Association Annual Dinner. If,as mentioned in one of the complaining correspondence,and I quote,many of the tennis players were opposed to locating the tennis facility as proposed,it wasn't at all evident at that meeting. In fact,there was some concern about having spent a considerable sum to upgrade the existing tennis courts to address safety concerns just two years before,two years at that time. Otherwise,the overwhelming sentiment was favorable. They would finally have a facility worthy of hosting inner club competitions. But since there is no objective data supporting either position,I suppose we're left to dueling anecdotes. On March 25th,2016,the results of the community-wide vote was published;464 households voted yes. Naples Heritage documents require that a project like this must be approved by 50 percent yes votes, and non-votes are counted as no votes. Against that stringent standard,the project was approved by 58 percent 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 of the voters. Within Naples Heritage there are nine voting districts based on type of home;single-family,terraces, verandas,and villas. When the 464 votes are broken down by voting district,every single district,including the one composed of 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 people disappointed. Nonetheless,the residents in 464 homes have a legitimate expectation that this project will go forward as has been presented to them. After all,their approval also includes a commitment to fund the project. One or more of the complaints made some reference to the impact on the resale value of homes on Colonial Court. Keeping pace with the marketplace begins with the community. Prospective buyers are not even going to look at individual homes if the community does not offer the features and amenities that they expect. There are 799 homes in Naples Heritage,all of which would suffer if we cannot keep pace with other communities. As you're aware from the written exchanges with the residents of Colonial Court,their concerns have been more than adequately addressed.Giving appropriate consideration to the wishes of the community at large is well overdue. I urge you to conclude your review and to move on. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Bob,that— (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen,please,I've got to ask you to refrain from clapping and responding to speakers. This is not the proper forum for that. Thank you. MR MULHERE: And I know there were questions—Pm sorry,Mr.Chairman. Bob Mulhere again. I know there were questions relative to the site selection that may be more science-based or more permit-driven,and I'd like for Craig to come up and talk a little bit about that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'd like the rest of your presentation to stick to the typical factual presentations relevant to the Land Development Code. I understand the gentleman who just spoke is a member of the community. A lot of the issues he said are outside of our purview,so... MR.MULHERE: Agreed,but I wanted you to have the history of the acquisition and,really,I felt Page 9 of 48 November 17,2016 that he was the best— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which we'll have questions about. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Should we wait till he's done,or can I ask a question now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with it. Do you,Bob? MR.MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There's a gate at the entrance,right? MR.MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And you can't get in with it-- MR.MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Ifs a private road,right? MR.MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What made anybody think-- MR.MULHERE: CDD? Well,it's gated,but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't—please,not from the audience. If you've got to speak,you've got to use the microphone. MR.MULHERE: Ifs a community development district. There's some legal discussion as to whether those are actually private or public roads. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,I'm familiar with that MR.MULHERE: However,having said that,it is gated. I mean,if your question is whether or not somebody from the outside could otherwise come through without the approval of the community,I think the answer to that is no. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So what made anybody think that they needed to buy that parcel to get access to their parcel? MR.MULHERE: Well,they had--they had someone already suggesting it. That made them begin to look at these issues,and then once the offer came up,they said,let's buy this land to make sure that something doesn't happen adjacent to us. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When they looked at the issue,they should have determined that this will never happen,right? MR.MULHERE: Well— MS.GREEN: Gina Green,for the record. The roads in there are handled by the CDD,but they are held privately within the community. It's a gated community,and any outside person that would want to develop and come through would have to go to that CDD board and ask for access across,and that could be approved or not. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But as a matter of clarification,CDDs—and I happen to have participated in the creation of two of them in the county,the road system,was it paid for by the CDD,the asphalt and the subbase and the limerock?If it was,then the CDD has to open—ifs open to the public. All they have to do is come through the gate and say they want to drive on a CDD road,and if the gate stops them,they're violating the law. So,now,from that perspective,then,the community is to--those roads are open to the public in some manner. Certainly,there are issues involving accessways for mutual—if a developer were to use that for his facility,he'd have to provide some means to maintain them and like that. MR.MULHERE: Shared costs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I understand better. I didn't know that was a CDD. So if that is a CDD and those roads were paid for by the CDD,there is a public involvement in that. But,Bob,since we're on the subject,back at the last meeting you said this five-acre parcel which is immediately adjacent to the PUD,5.2-acre parcel that we are incorporating into the PUD,was purchased for the purpose of relocating their tennis facilities,make it a tennis center,and then that area where the tennis Page 10 of 48 November 17,2016 courts are currently located will be additional parking and other amenity improvements and enhancements. So the testimony,though,we heard today seems to indicate it was not purchased for that purpose.It was purchased to prevent people from connecting to their road system. So is your previous testimony in error,then? MR.MULHERE: I don't know if it's in error,because— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well— M .MULHERE: Well,I mean--maybe I shouldn't have said that exclusively,because they certainly did purchase that property to,A,prevent people that they perceived might otherwise be able to come into their community and,B,to ensure that there wouldn't be residential development immediately adjacent to the property,but they immediately,very quickly,began to look at other uses. So to my knowledge,that was the basis,but I agree with you that it was broader than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care about what happened after the fact. The community,to purchase something,probably had to go out to all the community members because it would have been something they probably had done with HOA money or something— MR.MULHERE: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --or even CDD money,however they purchased it. But if it was purchased for the intention of strictly prohibiting access and not allowing any other development on it,that's one thing, and that seems to be what the gentleman previously initially said was the purpose for the purchase. You had said it was purchased for the purpose of relocating the tennis facilities,which it doesn't sound like that happened till months after the purchase was completed. And it looks like we found a necessary reason for Mr.Yovanovich to come up. I was trying real hard to make sure I found something you could comment on,Rich. MR.YOVANOVICH: For the record,Rich Yovanovich. I was hoping you wouldn't. I have--and I was not around in 2004,and Patrick was not around either,but we have minutes from 2004. They're very summary minutes. But those minutes clearly indicate that they would be improving that property at the time they acquired it. It doesn't say specifically what those improvements were. But at the public meeting when the HOA decided to purchase the property,it talked about future improvements to that Property So it wasn't purely an access issue. They intended always to improve that property. But,again,these are—these are summary minutes. We don't have verbatim minutes from that time,but there was always the intent to improve the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put the portion of the summary minutes on the overhead so we can read the language. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right here,where it says we're going to improve the property. Mr. Strain, right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,I'm reading it now.The purchase of this property is considerably cheaper than the mitigated land we tried to buy early. What was--what has that got to do--were you looking at this property as mitigation? MR.YOVANOVICH: Again,I wasn't around. Your question was,were they talking about solely as an access play,and it was not. There's indication in those minutes that they planned on improving the property. It wasn't going to be sitting as,you know,native vegetation—retention area of native vegetation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the CDD is actually the entity that paid for the property. MR YOVANOVICH: I looked at the records.It's owned by the HOA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So ifs owned by the HOA for the purchase by the CDD? MR YOVANOVICH: I don't know any of the details of the acquisition. I can only--I can pull the deed up if you'd like. I have it on my iPad,but it is owned by the HOA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw that. I've got the deed as well. It was a 2004 purchase. MR YOVANOVICH: Correct. MR.MULHERE: So,again,with respect to the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you slide that up a little bit so we can read what's on the second part of that. Page 11 of 48 November 17,2016 MR.YOVANOVICH: Does that work? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,that's fine. You loaned the money to the CDD to purchase it. The CDD purchases it. You put the deed in your name,and then you pay back the CDD for the money? MR.YOVANOVICH: Again,Mr.Strain,I don't know how— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,those are taxpayers'funds. I just was curious how you handled them. MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't know. I wasn't the CDD's lawyer. Pm just--specifically the question was,did we buy this purely just to avoid access for the developer. I just wanted to show you that there were always plans to improve the property. COMMISSIONER CI RZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,go ahead. COMMISSIONER CI-IRZANOWSKI: What I read into that first comment,they think that if they leave the property untouched,somebody could build a road through it,but if we improve the property, nobody will ever build a road through it. That's what I read into that comment. MR.YOVANOVICH: Keeping in mind that there was another piece of property that they--I believe they were not acquiring adjacent to it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANO W SKI: Thank you. MR.MULHERE:E: And I did want to say that. So as a result of the concerns,comments that came about after the Planning Commission,certainly I've learned more than I knew with respect to the history of the acquisition of this process. So you know,my statement is probably too narrow at that time. I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I understand what you're saying. No problem. And anything else, Stan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we continue with your presentation,then we'll have questions afterwards. MR. SMITH: Good morning. For the record,my name is Craig Smith. And for the court reporter, that's S-m-i-t-h. No E's,no Y's. My family wasn't that rich. I became first involved with this project back in November of 2004 when they purchased it just to take a look at the property to be able to be seen from an environmental standpoint what could be done with it, what the wetland/upland issues were with that project. We actually had a—some concerns have been expressed that we never seriously evaluated moving the tennis courts over towards the driving range.We actually had a pre-application meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers on November 21st,2012. And that map shows the map that we gave to the Corps and spoke from showing where the existing courts were and where we were thinking of moving them,which is immediately adjacent to the driving range. The upshot from that meeting was the Corps said,if you want to do that,you'll need to demonstrate to us that there is no upland alternative available to you since that site is entirely wetland and,since it is an existing mitigation area,we may well not approve a permit for that location. Subsequent to that,we prepared the ERP application which gets transmitted to the Corps.The Corps requires,as you are well aware,a detailed alternative sites analysis when you are impacting wetlands. And this is just the cover page of the methodology that the Corps requires current projects to use as far as evaluating a site if you were impacting wetlands and your project is not water dependent. It's basically a three-step process. The first process is you screen in to the area of your geographic concerns. Obviously increasing parking out in Golden Gate Estates somewhere would not work for this project,so you narrow it down. Once you do that,you look for potentially practicable sites. And for this particular project,not only did we look for practicable sites on the property,we looked at all the adjacent ownerships because,obviously,if we're going to do parking for the clubhouse,it needs to be close to the existing property. That map shows the 16 different sites we looked at. Most of them were determined not to be practicable because,for instance,the offsite locations we would have to buy a neighbor's golf course or Page 12 of 48 November 17,2016 neighbor's wetland preserve,which I think we can all agree upon that,that would not be practicable. We looked at all the other non-developed or nonresidential components in Naples Heritage, determined that those sites also would not be practicable. For instance,one possible location is where the maintenance facility is up along Collier Boulevard. In order to use that,you'dhave to relocate the maintenance facility someplace else or do away with it,plus you had access issues of trying to get back into it. That analysis led us to three sites that are practicable;in other words,there's a potential that you could actually do them given logistics,costs,and existing technology. The methodology then requires you to evaluate each one of those three sites in terms of wetland impacts and impacts to listed species. None of the three sites would have any significant listed species impact,so that wasn't an issue. In order to look at wetland impacts,you prepare a conceptual site plan for each site,determine not only the acreage of wetland impacts by each site plan,but also the functional value of those wetlands,and that's required to be done using the UMAM process. We ran through those numbers,and once you run through those numbers,the site that has the lowest credit requirement is considered by the Corps to be the least damaging practicable alternative site.Based on the numbers,the 5.2-acre site was that site. Just recently I prepared,in the last couple of days,sort of a preliminary cost analysis to also shed some light on those three different sites. And if you look on the top one,that is the proposed site plan,and all three sites were evaluated exactly the same,the same UMAM analysis,the whole nine yards. And basically what you come up with is you have a UMAM requirement of.98 for the proposed site plan. The UMAM is higher for both of the other two sites. In addition,we have the issue of the other two sites being located within dedicated mitigation areas. Both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Water Management District are not receptive to proposals that will impact existing mitigation areas,especially when those mitigation areas are functionally working;have been up and running for many years. The district also will require not only mitigation for--if we were to choose one of those two sites,if it was permittable,not only would we have to mitigate from the direct impacts to the wetlands that are there, we would also have to mitigate for the wetland impacts which those mitigation areas were designed to replace many years ago. So when you look at the--just from a cost perspective,assuming you could get a permit for any of the three sites,the cost goes up substantially from 81,000 to 157,000 to 378,000 when you finally get to the driving range alternative. I've had conversations with the project reviewer at the local Corps office,and he has reviewed my 20-some-page analysis that was submitted to him. He agrees with those findings. So that's how we got to the site we are at,and that's the process that we went through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe's got some questions. MR.SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To start with. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr.Smith,do you have the public notice that was sent regarding this permit? Because here's where Pm confused. And I was not here the day that this previously came before the Planning Commission. I was not a Planning Commission member. And where Pm confused is this permit for purposes of expanding the parking lot. As you so note on Page 2 of your alternative analysis where you say"project need"— MR. SMITH: Yes. COMIVIISSIONER SCHMITT: --you get into clear detail about expanding the parking lot. MR. SMITH: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMJTr: So when I look at the alternative analysis,I'm looking at the alternative analysis not for the mere fact of building tennis courts. It's for expanding the parking lot. Now,on Page 1,you state,you're going to have associated parking,landscaping,and increased parking and build a tennis facility. So which is it? Are you--are you--was the study predicated on expanding the parking lot to meet the parking lot needs-- Page 13 of 48 November 17,2016 MR.SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SC1 MI1T: --or was it predicated on we want a new tennis center,we need to expand the clubhouse and so,therefore,we want to expand the parking because— MR SMITH: They originally came to me and said,we need more parking and— COMMISIONER SCHIVIITT: Okay. Let's-- MR. SMITH: --that's what we wanted to do at the clubhouse. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let's focus on that. So your analysis is based--you just did the cost analysis. MR. SMITH: Yes. That's strictly environmental cost. Has no construction cost in it whatsoever. Strictly environmental purposes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Was that environmental cost including relocating tennis courts or just the expansion of the parking lot? MR. SMITH: No. This is strictly to get the cost. If each one of those options were permitted by the state and federal agencies,that is the mitigation environmental cost. It has nothing to do with physical construction activities. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Pm going to rephrase my question: Alternative 10. MR. SMITH: Yes. COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Shows the expansion of the parking lot to the west. MR.SMITH: Yes. COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Let's just focus on the parking lot,not the tennis courts. Tennis courts stay where they are. You just provide additional parking,which is what that alternative suggests;is that correct? MR SMITH: Yes. Ten? COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR SMITH: Yes. Ten was just to—was--as far as my analysis,was what wetland impacts would be required to expand that parking lot. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just the parking lot? MR.SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not move the tennis courts? MR.SMITH: No,because the tennis courts are an upland— COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So then you get into the other alternative,and you're talking about tennis courts and parking lot. So it's apples and orange on your alternative analysis. MR.SMITH: No. The tennis courts were relocated to another location in order to provide additional parking spaces at the clubhouse. That's how the two of them tie together. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Alternative 10. MR. SMITH: Is strictly parking. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Strictly parking. MR. SMITH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not moving the tennis courts. MR. SMITH: Correct,at least as far as my analysis is— COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. So we go to the alternative,which was your least damaging alternative,and I clearly understand 13 where you said you couldn't move it across the street,but then you get down to your LEDPA,and now you're--we've got Site 6, Site 10,and Site 13. 13 is your preferred alternative—or correction. Site 6 is your preferred alternative. MR SMITH: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Which includes both construction of tennis courts and parking? MR.SMITH: Yes. COMMISIONER SCHMITT: And expansion of the parking lot into the existing tennis court area now,correct? MR SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT': All right. How does that equate to your Proposal 10 which is Page 14 of 48 November 17,2016 simply nothing more than just expanding the parking lot? And just so you understand my background—and I'm sure Bob probably told you. I'm a retired Army Corps of Engineers. I know the Corps very well. I know the 404 process,so... MR.MULHERE: I think I-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I question the alternative analysis,and that's why I'd like to see what the public notice was. MR.MULHERE: I think I can answer that question,though. In that alternative,all that would be—we'd still—his analysis deals strictly with impacts to--what's the cost and the impact to the wetland areas in all the alternatives,all right. So if we did that in order to accommodate additional parking,we would simply be impacting that area for parking. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand,Bob,but— MR MULHERE: That would be it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --the two alternatives are not equal. MR.YOVANOVICH: Can I have a minute with the consultant for the response? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like we had two reasons for Mr.Yovanovich to speak today. MR MULHERE: So while they're chatting— COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I'll go back again to the analysis of the cost analysis,because they're not equal in the cost analysis either. MR.SMITH: One point of clarification. The public notice,I do not have that in front of me.I worked with the project manager,and the project purpose that is contained in that alternatives analysis is the one contained in the public notice. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would expect that was. MR. SMITH: Yes. COMMISIONER SCHMITT: I just would have liked to have seen what the public notice was,but I would have to assume what is on Page I was what was the public notice. MR. SMITH: Verbatim. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the project need specifically talks about the expansion of the parking lot to accommodate parking needs,and then by happenstance,gee,we're going to now build some tennis courts. So I don't— MR.MULHERE: In that scenario--Joe,in that scenario,you wouldn't need to add the new tennis courts. You would relocate parking,and they would,what--in that scenario where—the only thing we're impacting there was for parking in that one scenario. But still,that alternative still evaluated only wetland impacts. In all three scenarios it was what's the impact of the proposed improvement on the wetland areas. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you do an alternative analysis. On your Page 18,you come up with the three what you believe are your best alternatives: Site 6,Site 10,and Site 13. I clearly understand that. But Site 6 includes parking and tennis courts. Site 10 only includes the parking expanded to the west. And did the site--if--let me ask this question--let me ask this question: If you were simply just to accommodate the need for expanded parking,did the Corps tell you you could not--it was--the site visit said expanding to the west was not an acceptable alternative? MR.SMITH: They told me that we needed to document there was no upland available to do it and that current policy,coming all the way down from Jacksonville,very,very,very strongly discouraged any wetland impacts to any existing mitigation areas,which is what— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much--what are your wetland impacts to the 5.2-acre tract that you're proposing now? COMMISIONER SCHMITT: That was my next question. Thank you. MR SMITH: The direct impacts are two acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two acres? And what is your wetland impacts as shown in your report for the parking on No. 10? MR. SMITH: 1.25 acres of direct impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So which is less wetland impact? MR.SMITH: The purpose—what you do is you don't look at acreage. You look at functional value Page 15 of 48 November 17,2016 as required by the Corps'2014 guidelines,and that says you look at the functional value,which is the acreage times the UMAM score. The wetlands on the 5.2-acre site that are impacted are in very poor condition. They are invaded by exotics. They've been hydrologically altered. The wetlands on either of the other alternatives have been cleaned up and maintained for 20 years. So their functional score is much,much higher. That's why you get--the least environmental impact is actually from one that impacts slightly more acreage of wetland as opposed to more function of wetland. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the quantity of wetlands is greater in the site you're proposing that are going to be impacted,regardless of their value-- MR. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --than the quantity of impacts in the parking on the west side of No. 10? MR. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was getting at. MR. SMITH: Yes,that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm sorry,Joe. I was trying to get to— COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So let me go back,then,to clearly understand,this is not about--it is about expanding the parking lot,but it is also about allowing for additional parking because we want to make--expand facilities in the existing clubhouse and move the tennis courts? MR. SMITH: Yes. It is to expand the ability-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Because you don't say that on Page 2 for project purpose in your alternative analysis. I just want to understand this. MR.MULHERE: So to be clear,by relocating the tennis center,that frees up opportunity for parking-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand,Bob. MR.MULHERE: —and not impacting,because those are already impacted lands. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm just saying clarity in the alternative analysis is needed. I mean, this is sort of a bait and switch. But if this is what you're submitting as an official document to the Corps--has this been accepted by the Corps? MR. SMITH: As far as I know,they have reviewed it and they have agreed to it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is the public comment period closed? MR. SMITH: Public comment period? COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. SMITH: Oh,yes,a long time ago. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. And--but there was no Section 7 consultation required for either site? MR. SMITH: We have gone through the coordination-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They didn't elevate to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife for— MR. SMITH: They asked for comments. COMMISIONER SCHMITT: They did? MR. SMITH: The Fish and Wildlife Service responded back,said they had no concerns. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. All right. I'm just saying--I mean,section--your Site 10 evaluation is not equal to the other two evaluations because site—your one alternative only includes expansion of the parking lot. The tennis courts remain the same. I understand it from an alternative analysis, and it is factual in that purpose in regards to environmental impacts,but it isn't for project purpose. Your project purpose is to also construct tennis courts. MR. SMITH: That is a necessary byproduct of expanding. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wait a minute. Is it a byproduct of or is it the motivating factor? MR.MULHERE: No. Actually,it came about—the motivating factor was parking,and then one option for parking was to relocate the tennis center in order to free up area parking and other physical improvements. So this was the process that evolved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But Alternative 10 doesn't relocate the tennis courts. Page 16 of 48 November 17,2016 MR.MULHERE: Because it doesn't need to if we just--if we get the parking,then we can use the existing tennis courts. So in that scenario you wouldn't have to relocate. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Pm going to go back to the cost analysis. Did the cost analysis between the three--was strictly 10—was strictly the environmental— M .MULHERE: All three were strictly the environmental impact costs;only environmental impact costs. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because the Corps,you can also include total cost of the project. MR.MULHERE: Yeah,you mentioned that;you know,the economics do come into play. And we did look at the economics. That was partly why we looked at that site,but also it factors as the least environmentally impacting site. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob,where are you standing with the balance of your presentation? You've been going on about an hour now,so... MR.MULHERE: I mean,I think we're done. I know there's questions,and I know there's public comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we've got questions fast,then we're going to have to have staff report,and then public comment. And I just want to move forward,but I wanted to make sure you had ample time to put everything on record you wanted to. MR.MULHERE: I think so,Mr.Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now let's move to Planning Commission comments on the presentation from the applicant. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I noticed hardly anybody stood up when they asked who wants to be sworn in to talk,and I thank you for that. Pm curious,is it possible to poll the people in here and see how many showed up in favor and how many against? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That shouldn't have any bearing on our vote. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,it shouldn't.I'm just curious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no objection to it if you want to do it by raise of hands. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,just by raise of hands. (Show of hands.) COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How many of you are opposed to this? (Show of hands.) COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And how many are in favor? Okay. Just curious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to remind the Planning Commissioners,this is not a popularity contest. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They're not going to talk,so I don't know why they're here. I just was curious about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any other questions,Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom,did you have some? MR.EASTMAN: It seems that the majority of the residents want the new project. Those--I'm assuming those against it are living nearby and feel they'll be adversely impacted. And it's—it comes down to doing proper mitigations for those folks. MR YOVANOVICH: Is that a statement? COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,but that's not within the purview of the Land Development Code. MR.YOVANOVICH: That was a statement,right?Not a question. MR.EASTMAN: So my question would be,is it possible,Rich,that those that are impacted would not have to pay for the improvements? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen,please. MR YOVANOVICH: Usually,Mr.Eastman,as you know,we talk about compatibility,correct? Page 17 of 48 November 17,2016 And when we talk about compatibility,we talk about is there a way to buffer,shield,and make uses compatible. I would venture to guess that in a lot of nice communities there are residences around the clubhouses that exist in those community,tennis courts that exist in those communities. What we're talking about,if you look at the distance between the nearby residents and where the courts and the build--the restroom facilities actually exist,there is,I think,approximately 150 feet,and you also have a buffer and retained native vegetation. You have only hours of operation during the day,none at night. So I would say that from a compatibility standpoint,as testified to by Mr.Mulhere,there is no negative impact with this from a compatibility standpoint. And we've addressed parking. We've addressed all of the concerns--and there have been modifications based upon—originally there were lights that were associated with this,and it's changed. We've accommodated that. So we are compatible,and that's the criteria you look at. I'm glad Mr. Strain has said that it's not a popularity contest,because I've been saying that for years. But,you know,what happens is mostly those who come in--most people who show up for a project are usually those who oppose,and they seem to have the loudest voice when there are presentations. And it was important to us that the Planning Commission ultimately knows that the loudest voice in this community is in favor and that,although ifs not a criteria,we just want to make sure that the negative voices don't--are not given any more credibility versus our position as well. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Rich? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why was this sent back to us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because some opposition evolved-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The loudest voice? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: —after it left us and went before the Board of County Commissioners. MR.MULHERE: Well,in fairness,also,though,I think one of the--what was said at the board meeting was that there--also there had been changes to the site plan. I mean,yeah,we made the changes in direct response to the comments from residents of Colonial Court,but--so the--I think it was Commissioner Henning made the motion,and it was approved to remand it back to the Planning Commission. I think he said,you've made some changes to the site plan. That was what he said. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll thank him when I see him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Give him my thanks,too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant's presentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then let's move to your plan you've got here on the overhead. MR.MULHERE: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had said previously that the natural areas that's to the north and to the east were going to retain their native vegetation and they were going to be used for water management;is that correct? MR.MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this is a--more of an uplands or less wetland area than the other examples for the alternative analysis,how do you expect the native vegetation to survive in an area that is obviously being modified on its surface for water management reception? You've got species that--they're uplands,for example,slash pine.As soon as you drive heavy equipment across their roots,they're going to die. And if this is going to be what's considered part of the mitigation to provide Mr.Huber and the others on Colonial Avenue(sic)with some form of more of a barrier or a buffer,how are you going to guarantee that that's going to happen based on what I just asked? MS.GREEN: Gina Green again. The water management system for this is sheet flow into those natural areas,and we have now also looked at incorporating the lake to the north that was not in the original water management of Naples Heritage. It was a lake that was actually dug after the initial construction in an upland area to provide more Page 18 of 48 November 17,2016 fill for the site. So we have incorporated that lake and added a control structure over on the west side of that. The areas that are in the natural area,the majority of those areas are actually wetland. The one directly north of the parking lot and the tennis center adjacent to the north property line is actually wetland, and a portion of the site adjacent to Mr.Huber's house there on the east side,that is actually a wetland and upland combination. The actual ground elevations are very--they're within tenths of each other. It's considered upland but ground elevations. So these areas will receive the water management,will flow to the lake,and discharge to the west to the natural wetlands that are to the west of the lake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not going to use catch basins and outfalls? MS.GREEN: There'll be an outfall--there'lI be a head wall weir structure in the lake that we're adding into that lake because it's uncontrolled presently. If you pull this-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you're going to put a catch basin or an outfall into the natural area that will overflow into the lake? MS.GREEN: Correct. There will be actually a catch basin system underneath the parking lot since it bisects it. It will allow the water to sheet--flow underneath that parking area into that lake and outfall. So it's all connected to a water management system. It will bleed down. I've already had meetings with South Florida regarding this design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mentioned that this--these are going to be receiving water,the two natural areas,by sheet flow. MS.GREEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you see the double ring around those natural areas? That indicates usually a change in an elevation. So there's not a berm.It's not representing a berm— MS.GREEN: No. Those are just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --it's representing a drop? MS.GREEN: —the contours as far as top of bank for the development of the tennis courts themselves getting back down to natural ground.And then we have a berm around the entire perimeter to contain the water management boundary as we always do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the vegetation dies out,what do you propose to do? MS.GREEN: If the vegetation dies out,I'm sure the club will be replanting. We have—you have to remember,within this you've got the 25-foot— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm—your telling me you're sure the club will be replanting doesn't work, but I'm assuming Mr.Mulhere knows where Pm going. MR.MULHERE: Yeah. I mean--excuse me. I think that the intention is to retain the vegetation once the exotics have been removed. If that vegetation dies out,we can replant and we can live with a condition that requires us to do that. MS.GREEN: But just remember,in our mitigation with the Corps and everybody else,all those natural areas are considered impacts,so we're mitigating for that and all,but we're leaving them natural to maintain the natural effect of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're missing the point. MR MULHERE: He's talking about protection to the adjacent neighbors,yes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. Thank you,Bob. The language that you've utilized in the text of the PUD amendment indicates that the facility that's going to be the building that's going to be on the tennis courts would only be used for restrooms? MR.MULHERE: Restrooms,and there's actually a small tennis storage facility for,you know,balls and tennis rackets and those types of things.There's a little covered area that faces the--so they can get out of the rain. Ifs on the side that faces the tennis courts. So there's a little cantilever there;people will be able to,if it rains or inclement weather--or get out of the sun. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read this to you.Reaction area labeled RA on the master plan limited to tennis courts-- MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --restrooms,landscaping,and stormwater facilities for use by all residents and guests. Page 19 of 48 November 17,2016 MR.MULIIERE: Yes,I wrote that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,if you're going to put something more than that in there,how do you think you're going to get through our SDP department? MR.MULHERE: Well,let me ask you a question.Are you suggesting that I needed to say restrooms and a small storage area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you need to say anything beyond what's written in that paragraph that you intend to do,Bob,because that's written very strictly. There's no"and other accessory uses"or something like that,which I can understand why. But if you're going to mean other things,let's just put it in there so we're covered by it. MR.MULHERE: Okay. I have no--I just--we wanted to minimize--we wanted to appease the concerns that there wouldn't be a snack bar. I can-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't want to—I don't want to mislead people,and if you don't put everything there,then try to put it in later on,someone might construe that as something that was outside the approval process. MR.MULHERE: Okay. We can add some language to that. I don't know if you want me to do that right now;I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,there's more. MR MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's just get on with the rest of it of that nature. On the plan that's on the overhead right now,on the north side you have a 5-foot sidewalk leading to Colonial Court. Is there a sidewalk on Colonial Court? MS.GREEN: No,there is not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the south side of that entrance road,you have an unlabeled two lines going to Colonial Court that tie into the landscape buffer. What is that-- MS.GREEN: That's actually the water management berm lines to get grade back to the elevation of what the existing cul-de-sac is.Because the area adjacent to Mr.Huber's home is down at natural grade,we have to build a berm up around and contour that back into the entry road,which is up on the level of what Colonial Court sits at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Where it says 25-foot landscape buffer area-- MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --in that pattern,I mean,it doesn't have a dimensional arrow on it,but it just is written there between a couple of lines,and those lines change shape as you follow them around the south and then back up to the west and up the north,yet on your master plan you have a 10-foot buffer called out. Are you putting a 25-foot buffer on the west or a 10-foot buffer? MR.MULHERE: Yes--no,25. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you need to change your master plan. If you go look at the master plan— MR.MULHERE: Oh,I'm sorry. On the west?I'm sorry. Hold on. Let me--the 25-foot Iandscape buffer was adjacent to Colonial Court. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All I'm saying is if-- MR.MULHERE: Oh,yes,on the west-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your line work on this is real confusing. MR.MULHERE: Adjacent to the outside perimeter,the existing other agricultural lot that we don't own,that's a 10-foot buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When--this is going to have to come back for consent anyway,so would you clean the line work up on this plan? MR MULHERE: On the master plan or the— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the detail plan for the tennis courts,we shouldn't--someone could easily make the assumption that you've got a 25-foot landscape buffer around this whole thing,and I know that wasn't your intention. MR.MULHERE: Well,that's why we put the other exhibit in,the landscape exhibit,which says it's Page 20 of 48 November 17,2016 adjacent--25-foot buffer adjacent to. I'll clear it up. How about that? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all Pm asking. Now let's get into your language that you're proposing. I think you're going to clean up that recreation area,your description. Then when you get into your 3.6.F,recreation area labeled RA on the master plan,you talk about various setbacks,but on the master plan you have setbacks that are greater than this. They're done to provide,as Mr.Yovanovich clearly indicated,more compatibility. Somehow those setbacks need to be locked in.And they're not done so by that language that you've got on 3.6F. In fact,they're sufficiently less on that. MR.MULHERE: Those were general,I mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know,but this says,for the area labeled RA on the master plan. There's only one area RA. MR.MULHERE: I think we can be very specific as to the setback for the tennis courts and the setback for the structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the lighting discussion and the height discussion—let's see. Where's--yeah,the height's the next one. MR.MULHERE: Next paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The lighting one,by the way,the lighting's only going to be utilized--Pm just trying to figure out when. If you open at 7 a.m.and you close at dusk,why do you need the lighting? What's the lighting? MR.MULHERE: Well,there could be the need to go in there and do repairs,there could be trash collection,those kinds of things,maintenance in the morning when it's dark,you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I didn't know. So you're planning on maintaining the tennis courts off hours? MR.MULHERE: Anything could happen that would require some security lights. All we're talking about is security lights. It's just a question-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about using bollards instead of aerial lighting that goes up high? Now,that's one of the conditions in Golden Gate Estates,and it's a rural area out there. MR.MULHERE: Are you talking about four feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,about 4-foot high.That's one of the restrictions for-- MR.MULHERE: I don't think that would be a problem at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item concerning the maximum height shall be limited to one story,not to exceed 12-foot zoned height.Have you verified the crown of the road that you'd have to measure from for that 12-feet zoned height? MR.MULHERE: I'm going to defer to Gina. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I'm asking,we have another project that was approved in relationship,and it turns out the crown of the road is really messing things up because it was an older road system. MR.MULHERE: So the question relates to the height of the building,the 12-foot,is that—that's measured from— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be from the nearest,I would assume,the crown of the road.That's how the other ones are that we're familiar with. Where do you think you're measuring this from in this case? COMMISSIONER SCTIMITT: It would be from EWE. MS.GREEN: No,from finished grade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,no. Right. I'm sorry.I meant actually height,actually height. Does 3-foot give you enough in actual height? Because if your finished grade of your—and you're right,it's actual we're talking about,not zoned. Does finished grade give you enough in your measurement of actual when your actual's got to start from the crown of the road? MS.GREEN: If the actual goes from the crown of the road,the crown of the road--are we talking Colonial Court or— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the nearest road,I would assume. MS.GREEN: Okay. The nearest road,that crown of that road is actually—sits even a little bit Page 21 of 48 November 17,2016 higher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under hours of operation,7 a.m.to dusk,what's dusk? I mean,I know--we all talk about it,but what-- MR MULHERE: Sunset. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sunset. Then why don't we just say something more measurable. MS.GREEN: Actually,dusk has been used across the state for swimming pools,everything.Dawn to dusk is a very common operating time for swimming pools that aren't allowed night swimming.They have operation times of dawn to dusk,and it's predominantly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What time is dusk today? MR.MULHERE: It changes. MS.GREEN: Dusk today is probably--because--about,like,5:30 because the sun sets around 5:45. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is that Eastern standard or daylight savings? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't the same then. THE COURT REPORTER Can I get one at a time?Pm having trouble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen,please refrain from comments. MR.MULHERE: Let me just say a couple things.What we had in there originally was dawn to dusk.We moved it to seven a.m. We clarified that time.I see your point. MR.YOVANOVICH: We'll take sunset,okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. That's all Fm asking. Something that's defmable. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: How about dark? COMMISIONER SCHMMITT: Dark is different. MR.MULHERE: I mean,it changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The last time we talked on this project I asked some very specific questions at the last Planning Commission meeting,and a gentleman that answered them was Mr.Dorbad.I asked,first of all,anybody from the public like to speak on this item today,and there were no public speakers at that time. And I said,hearing none,I have one question that I do need answered. I need to have someone put that they were sworn under oath that Mr.and Mrs.Huber had knowledge of this action going on today and then discussion was held. If someone could come up and provide that testimony,that would be excellent. Mr.Mulhere: They were notified,obviously,through all the usual. I'll let Patrick talk about the specific context. Thank you. Mr.Dorbad: Good morning,Mr.Chairman. Pm Patrick Dorbad. Pm the general manager. I spoke with all residents,including Joe,and Joe was not truly in favor of it when we started it,but we were sensitive to the landscaping area and were working with him regularly as soon as via email this week,just this week. So we're very sensitive to him. He's a good man,and he's supporting the project that we want to do overall,and we're working with him. And then he went further on to say,from Joe Huber,generally we had a meeting as soon as yesterday,and Bob reported that there were several residents in the meeting,and everybody was frowning on a wall in that area. It seemed to paint the picture,based on the questions that were specifically asked--and I don't know Mr.Huber. I never spoke to him prior to the last meeting. Pd simply looked his address up on the appraiser's report,because if I owned his house,I would be real concerned. And it surprised me he had never contacted this board.That's why I asked the question. The picture that was painted it seemed to think that everything was being worked out.Mr.Huber was on board. You know,that's not what happened,and I don't appreciate the direction this discussion seemed to go when that may not have been exactly as we've learned now. MR MULHERE: Well,I think that it's all a matter of perspective in the response. I think Patrick's perspective at that time was we would be able to work out any issues. I'm not saying that was,in fact,the case. As it turns out,you know,there are some residents on Colonial Court--I don't know if all of them, Page 22 of 48 November 17,2016 but there's certainly some of them that do not support this project even with the mitigation that we have proposed so,you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all the questions I've got at this time. I think Joe had actually looked at the same alternative I was concerned about,that it didn't seem logical the way you're proceeding when you had that alternative available to you. But,anyway,I think that's been fleshed out. So anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,but I would just like to apologize for interrupting before. I'll try to restrain myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wouldn't be any fun,Stan. That just wouldn't be your nature,so we're used to it. Ending there,is there a staff report? MR.JOHNSON: Thank you,Mr.Chair. For the record,Eric Johnson,principal planner,zoning. Staff reviewed the petition,recommends approval,reconunends approval of everything that was submitted in your packet. The conceptual site plan that was shown today,as well as the one that was in your packet,as long as there's a 25-foot landscape buffer,that would be acceptable. And also either yesterday or two days ago I forwarded an email to you from Mr.Brown,and I just wanted to clarify that Mr.Brown is--that letter is not to be construed as a letter of objection. Staff is recommending approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go to public speakers,which will be next up,we're going to take our break for the court reporter for 15 minutes. We'll resume at 10:40,and we'll go to public speakers. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen,if you could please take your seats. We'd like to resume the meeting,everyone. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen,when we broke for the last 15 minutes,we left off moving into public speakers,and we'll start with registered public. Eric,do you have any registered speakers? MR.JOHNSON: Yes,I do,Mr.Chair. Before we begin,I just wanted to clarify.Our recommendation is still a recommendation of approval. The conceptual site plan seems appropriate,seems acceptable;however,a more detailed review would be conducted at the time of SDP. So I just wanted to clarify. Our first registered speaker is Joseph Huber,followed by Mr.Walt Kulbacki. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,Mr.Huber,and all public speakers,as you come up to either mike,state your name,and if it's complicated--we understand how to spell Smith. And maybe,Mr.Huber, we probably understand how to spell your name. So if you could just—I think,Mr.Huber,you and I previously communicated. You wanted 10 to 12 minutes,and that's fine. So ifs all yours,sir. MR.HUBER Thank you very much. Again,my name is Joe Huber. Last name is H-u-b-e-r,middle initial V,as in Vincent. I want to thank you for giving us the time to talk here. I'm speaking on behalf of myself and--who is the most impacted. If you look at the site plan,you'll see that I'm Lot No. 1. If you could put that up, which shows the location of the lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put the new site plan up,if you could,Eric,and we'll just leave it on the overhead for the speakers. MR.HUBER And I'm also here on behalf of the rest of the residents of Colonial Court. There are six residents of Colonial Court. They're all here objecting to the location of the tennis courts. I want to make something clear,because I think there's a lot of people here that are--as was taken Page 23 of 48 November 17,2016 earlier,a poll indicating that they're here in support of the project. The people on Colonial Court are not opposed to the enhancement of the facilities at Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club. What we are opposed is the putting of the location of the tennis courts directly in either our side yards or across the street from our houses,and that's what our objections are. As you have learned and was not part of the original Planning Commission meeting here,this is not all about adding parking. I think that's already been pointed out. This development was to increase--it's called the campus expansion project. Part of it--there was a brochure distributed--yeah,that's it--which includes taking the existing tennis courts out and putting a fitness facility administration building and expanding the clubhouse,the pool area,and so on.That was part of the campus expansion. In order for that to be accomplished,they had to relocate the tennis courts. And it's stated exactly in that brochure that that's the reason that the tennis courts have to be relocated. We have--the existing tennis courts are located near the clubhouse. It's approximately not quite two miles,but fairly close,from the existing tennis courts to the site--proposed site that you're looking at here today. That means that people are going to have to transit to that area from the clubhouse to these new tennis courts,okay. Why didn't we—you know,one of the questions that I've been asked is why wasn't the objection--why didn't you hear our detailed objections before? And the simplest way I can explain that to you is that there were discussions.We assumed,in good faith,that the information that was being provided to us was accurate and was transparent and inclusive of what was going to take place. And we found--I found out--and I found out after the hearing when I was asked to submit a letter of no objection to the conservation easement that runs along my property all the way to Naples Heritage Drive. There's a conservation easement that,as part of this package,it was presented to the Board of County Commissioners that needs to be vacated,and I have filed--and all of the residents of Colonial Court have filed objections to the vacation of that conservation easement. That was put there to--specifically to preserve that area as conservation and to provide a natural buffer between there and the property line,okay. The misrepresentations,there are many;too numerous to mention,but a couple of them have already been pointed out. Again,what prompted our not responding was we were told that there was no way that the Army Corps of Engineers would ever consider any other site other than this proposed site. I have found out consequently that that's false. I have talked to the Army Corps of Engineers.And I'm not an engineer,and I don't understand necessarily the process,but I can tell you that they have told me,quite frankly,that if you have the ability to trade acreage of comparable areas,that they will consider a transfer of those areas.It might be more expensive;there may be more mitigation. There may be cost involved,but they look at the total project,and they were very receptive when I finally contacted. And I also filed objections with them as well. I'm not sure exactly where that is other than they said it was referred to legal. We were also told--and that was one of the primary reasons. Also,you have already pointed out,at the original Planning Commission meeting--which I did not attend,and I did not actually receive notice. I'm a part-time resident. I live in Pennsylvania,and if a notice was sent there,it may have gotten thrown out,but I did not know of it. We left after Easter,and I haven't been back--today's my first day back here in Naples. We were--in that hearing it was indicated that the tennis courts were there to resolve a parking issue. I think that's already been pointed out,clearly,that's not the case. The purpose of the relocation of the tennis courts is so they can build the facilities and enhance the facilities at the clubhouse. The other misrepresentation--you heard testimony today,the 5.2-acre tract at the previous Planning Commission meeting,as already was pointed out,that it was purchased for this purpose of building this tennis center. That is incorrect.Certainly when they purchased it--and you heard the testimony of that. And I have a copy of the newsletter which I have here which was subsequently--this was purchased in--I think the closing was in November of 2000 when the transfer of the deed occurred--2004. The announcement was exactly what you heard today,because there was concern about development.Nothing mentioned in there about building a tennis center. It may have been discussed in some internal meeting but certainly wasn't available to—wasn't discussed with anybody in the organization, Page 24 of 48 November 17,2016 certainly nobody on Colonial Court. Actually,I was quite pleased when they purchased that property because I realized that it would—that that would protect us and provide us an additional area of natural vegetation there.But we understood always that it could possibly be developed but not by our own clubhouse. The purpose of buying it was to actually protect that from happening and,yet,the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club plans to develop it now and do exactly what another developer would have done. Totally inconsistent with the purpose. We were told by—that there would be no lighting on the tennis courts,and you heard how they revised the plan inconsistent. But if you look at the original ordinance that was presented to this committee in September,you'Il see that that ordinance,as it was drafted,indicated that there would be multiple uses. It included pickleball,bocce ball,indoor and outdoor fitness facilities,pro shop,and similar uses;it included outdoor lighting as well as amplified sound. In fact,there was a discussion at the Planning Commission meeting that they would have night tennis there. Now,the sad part is that we met with the manager of Naples Heritage and discussed the limitations of that. There were commitments I got in writing,they're in the file,from him indicating that wasn't going to happen yet it happened in the ordinance. It was proposed. And had I not--had we not objected,that's exactly how it would have passed. It would have been terribly unfortunate,but that's exactly how it would have passed. All of these have raised concerns. You heard about an alternative analysis. We first learned of this alternative analysis--even though we were arguing that it made sense,there's got to be another location that could be used. We just learned about that several months ago that this study was actually done. In fact,many of the people who are residents of Naples Heritage aren't even aware that this study was done,that there is alternative locations that are available. Okay. Now Pm not an engineer,and I read the report,but I think it's pretty clear that there were three sites identified. One of—both of the other two sites other than the proposed site here make much more sense for everybody concerned in the community. They certainly make much more sense and certainly have no impact on the people on Colonial Court. Okay. The whole character of our neighborhood--and there are some pictures in—I know that the commissioners have pictures in the file because I submitted them--just to give you flavor,because I know when you look at it from an aerial point of view you don't get maybe necessarily the perspective,but this is a unique part of single-family residential area of Naples Heritage. Cypress Point is a separate non-profit association of the single-family homeowners. And if you look at that,this is—what's shown here is where the proposed entrance from Colonial Court is going to go into these tennis courts,a rough picture of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you remove that picture,where's the road on this picture? MR.HUBER: It's to the left of that tree.We'll show you the road here in a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At the very end where the trees turn to the left,what is this the end of? Is it the end of your house property? MR.HUBER: Yes. That's where my property ends and the preserve starts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the area between the tree and the fence,according to the aerials I looked at,was the area cleared where preserves should have been left. MR.HUBER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your testimony previously said that that 25 feet was preserve area that was to be left natural for the benefit of buffers and whatever,but that's not natural. MR HUBER: Yeah,it was that way,as you pointed out when you asked the question. That's the way it was when our house was built,and that's the way it's been. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I looked to make sure that if it was you that did it,that's different than if somebody else did it. And it looks like it was done at the time Colonial Court and all the area was cleared for their infrastructure. But what I'm trying to suggest is that this isn't a preserve that's benefiting you from a view perspective or a buffer perspective. In fact,the only benefit of it at this time seems to be to expand your grass Page 25 of 48 November 17,2016 area is what it's been used for. MR.HUBER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR.HUBER: There's some other pictures.Again,they may not be coming through too much of the overhead of the street. You can try another one. This is the perspective of Colonial Court looking down the street. Okay. Everything to the right--as you can see,the first part of the street is maintained as a conservation area. The first 40 or 50 feet or more is maintained as such. My house is all the way at the end of the street. All of the other residents,their homes are to the left. So it gives you a little bit of perspective. But this is the only cul-de-sac in the single-family residence in Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club. When my wife and I,when we purchased this lot--and my wife was raised on a farm. She particularly liked this location simply because it was very private and because there was--it was surrounded by woods and preserve. And we paid extra to buy that lot at the time. So the whole character--my point is that the whole character of the neighborhood's going to change because now that privacy isn't going to exist,okay. What we see now--what we'll see across,despite whether or not we have a buffer,we're going to see people driving their cars in to go to a tennis facility,okay. And the wildlife that we view,the birds that we view--somebody said there was no woodpeckers.I hear a woodpecker every morning in the morning.No wildlife observed. We've had panthers come through in our backyard. We've had a bear in that area. So the fact that there's--I don't know--again,I'm not an expert on environmental,but we have seen those things in that area. Cypress Point is a unique community and,as I mentioned,the property was purchased,and we paid more. This is a picture from my driveway looking up. The entrance will be right as you see the cul-de-sac turnaround there,is where it will be. The neighbors will not have the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their property. We'll be living across--instead of a wooded area,we'll be living across from tennis facilities,ball machines,people yelling, noise,and the attendant events that they have there. It was mentioned,they'll have three or four of them a year,okay. The only people that drive on Naples--Colonial Court now are the residents,people that need to do servicing,the postman, do servicing.Some people get lost and turn around there. As was pointed out,there are no sidewalks.My grandchildren ride their bikes up this street,People walk there every day on that street. There are no sidewalks,yet we're going to have traffic coming in going into this tennis facility. I don't think people are going to change their habits of what they're doing. Okay. The safety issues. I already pointed those out. I wanted to address the staff report because I think that--I'm not sure when you talk about traffic,one of the conclusions of the staff report was that it would not enhance--it wouldn't increase the traffic in Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club. Well,it may not increase the traffic totally in the club,but it's certainly going to increase the flow of traffic when it comes down this direction. People who want to play tennis are going to come down there. They're going to turn onto--from Naples Heritage Drive onto Colonial Court,and then they're going to enter the tennis facility. Okay. I have concerns about the water issues.I know that during the rainy season there's standing water in the preserve. I'm not sure how those going to address(sic). Again,I'm not an engineer but, obviously,there has to be a plan to deal with those issues. Okay. And,finally--not finally,but if this was a homeowner trying to put a tennis court on his facility,it would violate the covenants that we all signed with Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club,and now the association wants to do exactly what a homeowner couldn't do. We feel that's a problem. Okay. As we pointed out,I think our argument is--and those are some of our major concerns. There's been no good-faith effort. You heard a lot of testimony here today about---from Craig Smith regarding the studies they've done. And,again,I'm not an engineer,1 don't know the numbers. But what I can tell you is in talking to the Army Corps of Engineers,that--and to the county,that there's been no application for another site submitted. Page 26 of 48 November 17,2016 Now,if—you know,I learned a long time ago,if you don't get up and try to do the right thing,you may get rejected,but you should do that. Really,what I think this boils down to--and we had a meeting with Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club earlier today—or earlier this week,on Tuesday,and we were listening,that is the people in Colonial Court. And what the ultimate conclusion here is,it was all about the money. It would be more costly to put it there. Now,I don't know what the total costs were going to be. There might be more mitigation in these other sites,but let's look at the overall cost of building the facility. It does not belong here. This is a single-family residential neighborhood,and it's going to be altered irrevocably by putting tennis facilities here. Yes,when you buy property,does it make sense for somebody to have a tennis facility near a single-family residence,yeah. But when you go into a development and purchase a property,you know it's going to be there. The people that live on Naples Heritage Road bought because they wanted a view of the golf course because the golf course is in their backyard,but they knew that when they bought it. The people on Colonial Court bought it for what it is today. And it's not some other developer. It's your own association trying to put a facility that's going to impact our properties. The value of our properties,in my view--and I have somebody looking at it now,but that will definitely be impacted in a negative way. Somebody mentioned,well,because the facilities at the clubhouse are going to be improved—that was one of the arguments I made--it's going to impact us.But people wanting what my wife and 1 wanted,what the rest of the people of Colonial Court wanted when they bought that property,isn't going to be available anymore. So anybody wanting that is certainly not going to pay for that unless they want to be a tennis player. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Mr.Huber,we've gone about twice as long as you and I had originally agreed,so Pd like you to wrap it up,if you could. MR.HUBER: Yeah. The only thing I would conclude is the criteria for amending the PUD requirements. And I know you're well aware of them,but I thought it would be important to cover those. It says,consider the suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to the physical characteristics of the land and the surrounding area. Traffic access,drainage,sewer,water,and other utilities. Will the proposed PUD rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Okay.This is a residential area. Will the proposed change adversely influence the living conditions in the neighborhood? It's going to certainly impact my living conditions. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible? We have no traffic now other than the residents as I mentioned earlier. Will the proposed change create drainage problems? I already talked about that. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? And is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the community? We're a residential neighborhood,not a recreational area. Whether it's impossible to find another location. And that's the key here. There are other locations; they should pursue that. What we ask you to do is to—just in wrapping it up,is to reject the application,send them back to the drawing board,let them look at the other sites and make a good-faith effort and make an application.There are other alternatives. It doesn't need to stop the existing development. And defer--if,in fact,you conclude that--if you conclude that you're going to approve this application as they've suggested the changes,we suggest you minimize the impact. What about looking at alternatives other than entering off of Colonial Court? What options are there that exist there? What about building a wall for the noise issues in addition to the buffers? Those are considerations I proposed. They've been rejected. Not that we want that. We would prefer them not to be there. But if it doesn't go our way,we want to minimize that impact. And I don't think those are unreasonable requests. Again,thank you for your time and the consideration today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And before you leave,Mr.Huber,does anybody have any Page 27 of 48 November 17,2016 questions?Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes,I have a question. Mr.Huber,you showed a picture—I'm up here--of the tennis--of the expansion of the fitness facilities and the pool. MR.HUBER: Yeah. Flip it over. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I am now confused again because you said that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the mike,too,when you respond,Mr.Huber. Sony. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That--the other--Eric,the other picture,the one with the pool. Your statement on the record was this is being proposed to be constructed in what now is the existing tennis courts? MR.HUBER: No,no,no. The existing tennis courts is the other side here. I'm sorry. He put the wrong--that's my fault. He had the wrong site. That's what's being proposed for the existing tennis area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR.HUBER: The administration building and fitness center. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Then let's go back to the Site Plan 13,and the alternative analysis shows the expansion of a parking lot. Which is it? MR.HUBER: Well,I think they're going to expand the parking lot as well. That's part of where the confusion here is. COMMISIONER SCHMITT: I don't see anything-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may be a question we might want to bring the applicant back. Not right now,Bob. After we finish with public speakers.But,Joe,we'll have--during rebuttal we'Il bring the applicant back up,and you can focus on that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just wanted to clarify that. That is what's being proposed to be constructed? MR.HUBER: Yeah. The alternative analysis--it's interesting in looking at it. If you notice,the date is dated April of 2016. This project was voted for approval in March of 2016. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of Mr.Huber? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple,sir. In your discussions that you just presented to us,one of the statements you made was the previous discussions were relied on. What previous discussions specifically are you referring to in relationship to what you had relied on for not showing up at the last meeting or not going further with your objections prior to the last meeting? MR.HUBER: That there was no alternative that existed to locate the tennis courts. We bought that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But your objection wasn't based on the site plan that they were presenting. It was based on the fact that the whole idea of putting it there was where your concern was;that was your--that you relied on them having what,sought out all the alternatives they could have possibly used and that there wasn't any? MR.HUBER: That's why we did not oppose it,and when we did meet prior to--had discussions with Patrick--and not all of us were involved in some of those discussions. The one meeting that I had with Craig Smith was with Leon Case,who's one of my neighbors here. There was only the three of us,and Patrick,was at that meeting discussing what the plan was. But all of this was based on the--on not knowing that there was an alternative location.That's why there's a site analysis. So the alternative analysis was never--we never knew about that. I don't know how many people did know about it—but that there were other locations that could have been looked at,and that was our position from day one. Can't you find somewhere else? No,we can't. The Army Corps of Engineers says that it can't be done. Well,you know,when you rely on that information and you make decisions based on that information,obviously it's going to change how you respond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand the point now.And then,another question--and,Eric,would you go back to the newsletter that was there before you put all the pictures on. Page 28 of 48 November 17,2016 MR.JOHNSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you blow that up on the lower right-hand corner. MR.JOHNSON: Yeah,this is the park CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Notice down towards the bottom,right before the value of the $205,000 it says,the board of trustees has no immediate plans for this land but wanted to protect the community now and provide for our own needs in the future. What did you think that statement meant? MR.HUBER: That,obviously,you don't buy(sic)200-some thousand dollars to buy without planning to use it for some purpose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.HUBER: Not to--you know,you have to remember at the time,this expansion,campus expansion,was never contemplated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What would you think would have been a use that would have possibly gone there,then,if it wasn't for a use associated with the overall community? MR.HUBER They could have used it to accomplish what we're suggesting they do,take this land as--and trade it on behalf and keep it in the character that it currently exists. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trade it to whom? MR.HUBER If they wanted to develop the land for what they're proposing to do now,put the tennis courts up near there;trade this 5.2 acres plus the 3 acres that they just got approved by the board that was the vacation of the right-of-way behind the property;use that as leverage to say,okay,we want to trade this area for another area in the development so that we can put a facility there. No one ever contemplated that you would put tennis courts,certainly,in--next to a residential area. They might have developed it for additional lots they could have sold,which would have made more sense, but not to put a tennis facility there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And let's say that this doesn't get approved to be brought into your PUD. Well,let's say you guys didn't buy it.Forget about the connection to your community. I think that would have been real hard for anybody to overcome. But,Ray,as zoning director,this land was zoned as or—or is zoned as ag currently. If it brings(sic) into the PUD,it would be PUD zoning. Polly Avenue is 500 feet from this land,or at least that's what it shows up on the map. From a perspective of changing it from ag to something else,what is the likelihood of that being consistent with our Growth Management Plan? MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. The subject property would be eligible for any of the permitted ag uses,but it also could be rezoned consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,which would allow for residential in this location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's about four units per acre? MR.BELLOWS: That's the base density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if they wanted to put affordable housing there,they could get units up to maybe 10 units per acre,something like that? MR.BELLOWS: That is one possible option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason I'm pointing this out is it was probably a good move for your community to buy this land to protect the Colonial Court residents from intenses(sic)that could be far more severe than what's possibly considered here. If this doesn't get brought into the PUD,your association,and by a majority that seems to be here today,they could vote,say,well,if we can't use it for what we wanted to,why don't we sell it.And then it could be sold and developed by somebody else for probably a more intense use than what's being proposed in the plan we saw today. And it's just something I wanted to point out,because there is some positive in the acquisition of this beyond the access to the gate. It allows control over this in a manner that,with your input and your neighbors,you might get a better compatibility standard out of it than what was started out with,say,a month ago when this meeting was held last time. I just wanted to point that out,because that's a real--that's a real issue. And if you do an appraisal Page 29 of 48 November 17,2016 on your property and you look at that property that was there,the other considerations that property could have gone to may have a better--or it may have a greater impact negatively on your property than what's proposed.And I'm just suggesting that also be included in your analysis when you go forward and do that, so... MR.HUBER: And,you know,certainly,that was always the possibility. Certainly,I was aware of that possibility being the most one impacted here. But we certainly wouldn't have the traffic or access to this property from Colonial Court,and that would be preferrable. And I'm certain that there would be some kind of buffering or screening requirements that the county's going to require in addition to what's already there. So,again,there's a big difference between a recreational facility that's going to be open to the members of the club,visiting clubs,an activity that's going to occur on an ongoing basis. I was at the club this morning,and people were playing tennis at 7 a.m. So that's fine,but there's a place for that,and ifs not next to your—not your next-door neighbor. And that's the problem;it's now our neighbor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,sir.Appreciate it. Ladies and gentlemen,we're going to move to our next speaker. Do we have any other registered speakers? MR.JOHNSON: Yes,we do,Mr.Chair. Walt Kulbacki,followed by Leon Case. MR.KULBACKI: I'm not going to say anything.I gave it to Joe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Kulbacki waives his time. Mr.Case? MR.JOHNSON: Yes. Leon Case,C-a-s-e. MR.CASE: Waive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Case waived his time as well. And is there next— MR.JOHNSON: Next is Thomas Leonard. MR.LEONARD: I ceded mine to Joe Huber. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Leonard waives his time. MIL JOHNSON: Mrs.Reverend Filomena Poole,P-o-o-1-e. Here she comes. And then her husband will speak after. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,Ms.Poole.Were you sworn in when we started this morning earlier? MS.POOLE: No. I apologize for being late.We went to the wrong building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if your husband's going to speak,if both of you could rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. MS.POOLE: Certainly. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS.POOLE: So help me God,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS.POOLE: Thank you for recognizing God. My name is Mrs.Reverend Filomena Poole. My name is spelled with an F,F as in Frank, i-l-o-m-e-n-a;middle initial A;last name,Poole.P as in Peter,o-o-1-e. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS.POOLE: My home is 3100 Polly Avenue. I'm your neighbor in the back in the woods. We live in the last close-in ambiance on the dirt roads. And Pm all for progress,since it started with the wheel. I'm only here because you sent me a letter to let me know you're doing something different. And we now have on our corner lot what's called a ditch and, across the street from us is another ditch but looks more like a canal.We're just wondering how much further back it's going to go. Is there going to be a bridge? What else is happening? Because the cougar is now coming into my yard,the Florida cougar and the panther comes into my yard and has eaten several of my animals. So we'd just like to know how much higher do we have to build our fence,and what happened to the Page 30 of 48 November 17,2016 buffer wall that we never got,and what's happening next. I know where water goes,A to B.I know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,you're on Polly Avenue. MS.POOLE: Polly Avenue. The corner of Polly and Polly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on what and Polly? MS.POOLE: Polly and Polly,the corner lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Polly and Polly,okay. So on this map,you're the square to the furthest south on that map that's on the overhead. Could you put your fmger or your pencil where her house may be. MS.POOLE: Polly and Polly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.MULHERE: That's Polly. That's Polly.Are you here or here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right there. Okay. Now,first of all,the project that we're dealing with here today does not--is not contiguous,does not abut your property. MS.POOLE: But you sent me a letter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no,no. MS.POOLE: And I wanted to find out how it affects us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I'm getting there. MS.POOLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The property is--the property that's being changed today is that triangle yellow box on the overhead. MS.POOLE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that property is within 500 feet of you,and that's why you received the notification. MS.POOLE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The project that may be one that you are closer to or may have the issues that you're talking about--see the words"Shadow Wood"on this? They're directly across the street from you. MS.POOLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is not this project.You were notified just because you fell within the area that's required to be notified. This may not have as much bearing on you as the one to the south. The one to the south is not the one we're discussing today. MS.POOLE: I thought that might have been the case,and no one knew when I called,so they said--I thought I'd just come to the meeting and find out. I do have another question,if I ask it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS.POOLE: The question is,with the water everyone's talking about where it has to go and be retained and into the ground,so on and so forth,that's fine. But that block that you've got blocked off in yellow that butts up to the Shadow Wood,where is that water actually going to go? Is it going to go into that ditch-looking canal,or is it going to be flowing back into that wooded area that's right across from me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The wooded area and the water that is in that wooded area won't change. What's going to change is,any water that they create by collecting it from the fill they put on the property will be diverted through piping to the lake to the north that is also within their property. So none of the water will go off of that area. It will all go to the north into the lake,and that's reviewed by South Florida Water Management District. MS.POOLE: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. Thank you.I don't know if your husband still wants to speak.He's more than welcome to. Sir. REVEREND POOLE: Please put that same picture back up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll just need to state your name for the record. We'll remember the spelling. REVEREND POOLE: My name is Reverend James E.Poole,Junior. Page 31 of 48 November 17,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. REVEREND POOLE: Thank you. On this wooded area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mike when you talk,but we understand--the one next to the-- REVEREND POOLE: Do you have any plans on chopping all the trees out of there,leaving a buffer somewhere along Polly Avenue over to my neighbor's--see the three squares above me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. REVEREND POOLE: Are we cutting into there anywhere? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That buffer—that one last tract isn't part of today's discussion. Now, that--someone may own that. Someone may want to develop that. They'll have to come in under a separate application either to this panel or just do it as a Site Development Plan in the future.But we don't have any information today on that parcel next to this one. REVEREND POOLE: Okay. That was my question.Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Eric,do we have any other speakers registered? MR.JOHNSON: No,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public who have not spoken that would like to speak here today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move into the rebuttal and questions of the applicant. Mr. Schmitt,you're up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Bob,just for clarity again,based on what Mr.Huber stated on the record,that building that he displayed on the overhead,is that currently being proposed to go into the parking lot or into the existing--where the existing tennis courts are? MR.MULHERE: Yeah,that was one of the options. One of the options that is being proposed, depending on where we would either move the tennis courts in order to free that up for that improvement or we would relocate for additional parking in some of the other alternatives,yes,that is being proposed. We are also proposing to increase the parking by approximately 70 spaces;66 spaces exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Well,we'll go back to the alternative analysis. The alternative analysis doesn't show any building being proposed. It shows-- MR.MULHERE: Because that wasn't--that wasn't part of what we were considering. What we were looking at was the impacts--regardless of what our alternatives were for development,we have different alternatives for development. COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR.MULHERE: What we were looking at was different alternatives for impacts to wetlands. We could have Option A for building,we could have Option B for building,we could have Option C. One of the things we looked at was going two stories in the clubhouse. It was cost prohibitive.We didn't tell the Corps that either. What we told them was,here's the sites that we're looking at impacting for improvements that will allow us to do what we want to do. Here's the environment impacts associated with those. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I'm not arguing that. My discussion only is this is a document that was submitted to the government that's an official document. MR.MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's subject to public release. In the Alternative Site Plan 13,it shows the expansion of the parking lot. It does not show anything other than expansion of the parking Iot. MR.MULHERE: And the reason for that-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I understand that it is--it has to do with the environmental impact. You could put whatever you want there,but the document does not show that. MR.MULHERE: I agree. I agree,Joe,but the point that I'm frying to make is,for that impact,that's all we were doing was expanding the parking into there. The Corps didn't need to know anything else. They needed to know what we were going to do on that impact. That's why. Page 32 of 48 November 17,2016 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have--did you want to say something,Richard? MR.YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure--Bob said what I was going to say,but there was a proposal--if I have the right site plan and we have the same-- COMMISIONER SCHMITT: You do. MR.YOVANOVICH: There was fitness facility that was also being identified that was going to being going on that site. And,again,as I understand the permitting process,is you show the Corps what you plan on putting on the area you want to impact,and that's all we did. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR.YOVANOVICH: And I think it was totally accurate. There was no bait and switch. It was a true representation of what was going on that parcel and what was it going to cost us to do that has been provided to you from a mitigation standpoint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any other questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I just got a question of Gina. Hi,Gina. How are you? MS.GREEN: Hi. Very good;thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was looking at the LiDAR of that area,and that preserve off to the east of Mr.Huber,there is a canal that runs along the northside of Shadow Wood on the south side of that preserve. There's no berm between that preserve and the canal. MS.GREEN: No. Well,that canal there is actually part of the LASIP project and is being improved for the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. That preserve seems to run right into the canal? MS.GREEN: There is an existing berm from when that canal was dug that they placed the spoils to the north. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So the LiDAR I have is older;doesn't show the berm. MS.GREEN: I don't know if it's enough of a berm that it would show up that greatly. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,yeah,6-inch tends to show up on the LiDAR,so if ifs greater than 6-inch-- MS.GREEN: There is a slight berm there,which that berm will remain,but all the part of the LASIP,they're adding a big control structure that controls that whole flowway that runs from Cedar Hammock to Naples Heritage,from 12 Lakes,everything that runs down through there to that canal. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I was curious because that south part of the parcel you're talking about drains into that canal. MS.GREEN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. And then you're saying that they put a berm there now? MS.GREEN: Well,that berm's been there-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,it doesn't show. MR. SMITH: Craig Smith,for the record. That--there is a berm along the entire south property to line of Naples Heritage,and actually a small portion of that berm is actually on the Naples Heritage site. There is one small gap,maybe four or five feet across,on part of the right-of-way tract,I believe. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But the new five-acre parcel has a berm along the south side of it,too? MR. SMITH: Yes,sir,all the way across. And the ultimate LASIP design,which has recently been permitted by the district and I believe is getting ready to go under construction,basically is going to improve that entire berm across the entire south property line all the way back to where the canal heads south along the runway,and they're putting in a broad-crested weir up in that corner which will allow flow from everything upstream eventually to dump into that canal. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. This is a 2008 LiDAR,so... Page 33 of 48 November 17,2016 MR. SMITH: That thing has been there--I did work on Shadow Wood, 15 years ago, 10 years ago. It's there. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I can see a berm on the Shadow Wood side,but I don't see one on the other side. MR. SMITH: What you see on Shadow Wood is actually a cleared area,so it shows up better.That is very heavily vegetated. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay,thanks. MR. SMITH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob,do you have any rebuttal comments that you'd like to make? MR.MULHERE: I do have a few. We certainly believe we've put on the record sufficient testimony that we did look at a number of alternative sites. I don't know if I mentioned it previously other than just in response to Mr. Schmitt's questions,but also there were some sites that—there were alternatives that were looked at that didn't really fall into the realm of the Corps,such as I said,putting another story on the--there was an alternative that looked at a parking structure. It was just too expensive. So I think we did do that. I mean,there are recreational facilities in hundreds of residential communities throughout Collier County,some of which were planned and proposed at the approval stage and some of which came in later, because each tract in these residential communities allows recreational facilities as an accessory use. I think the question is,once it's determined that,say,a sub-developer or somebody wants to come in and put a recreational facility--and this one's pretty limited. It's tennis courts and a small--relatively small restroom facility. And,yes,it wasn't limited at the beginning. I wrote the--as Mr.Huber indicated,I wrote the PUD document. I tend to write a PUD document as flexible as it possibly can be written. But once I understood that there were concerns,we revised the document. I wasn't involved in any of the discussions that may have been one on one with those residents. It's only after they expressed their concerns that I got involved. I said,look,we can change--we can limit these uses. We can change these provisions. But,you know,my thought was,maybe some of those other uses might be in the future desirable for the residents. Once I understood that they were concerns to Colonial Court,we took them out and we limited them. So I think we've demonstrated that it's an appropriate location that we can mitigate for the impacts. And I think once everything is constructed—everybody will have the aggravation during the construction process. Once it's constructed,the landscaping is in,I believe that this will be a very compatible use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that wrap up your rebuttal? MR.YOVANOVICH: I would like to add just a couple of things. One: As you're aware,we've started--in PUDs the Planning Commission asked us to identify either where the recreational facility's going to be or,if we don't know where it's going to be,we come up with development standards to make sure that anybody that may ultimately end up next to a recreational facility that's not identified in the master plan will be happy and safe from a compatibility standpoint. I think that the standards that we're proposing far exceed anything we've done in those standard PUD development standards that we've done recently for recreational areas. I would also add that we do have that 25-foot conservation area that for--except for the portion of that,you know,we will be crossing for access;we certainly can replant that to create additional landscaping and screening and buffering between the property owners on Colonial Court to assist what—they're concerned about a visual impact,because that area's there. We can just limit our impact to just crossing where we show you our access road. So there are those options,if that's what the community would prefer. I think when--certainly,when Mr.Huber bought his property in 1999,that property,as Mr. Strain pointed out--and I was going to say in my remarks and I want to reiterate,is that's in the urban area. Ifs only five acres. So I don't know if it's within the density band from an activity center standpoint. I couldn't measure that off,but it's near an activity center. Base units is four. Page 34 of 48 November 17,2016 If you're less than 20 acres,you can get an additional three units per acre,so you can get up to seven units per acre just without even talking about an affordable density—affordable housing density bonus on the property. And he acknowledged that development could occur on that property. The document that he put up clearly says it was going to be for future uses of the association.And I don't buy the argument that,you know,you could trade it. You can't trade it. It's not mitigation property within the community for impacts of property. And you know how difficult it is to undo a conservation easement for property that was previously used for mitigation. As you could see from the dollars and the increased cost for mitigation,it wasn't feasible to impact the areas that they would prefer. There is not an unlimited source of monies to do this. So when he was told this is the site,it's because an analysis was done about the financial feasibility of the other locations. So I want that to be clear that nobody was trying to mislead anybody when they were saying those statements,because they were factoring in what it would cost to do it,and this was the location that the facilities needs to go to. Bob--the only competent substantial evidence in your record regarding compatibility that sits here today is Bob and Eric. That's what you consider in a zoning hearing is competent substantial evidence. And all of the experts that have testified have said this should be approved. That's the legal standard that applies. Not popularity. I have more people this time than the other side. Most of the times there's more against me than are for me. But the standard is the same regardless. Competent substantial evidence,and the competent substantial evidence leads to this being approved. And,again,we are still—again,that area could be planted if necessary to provide some additional buffering. MR.MULHERE: And,actually,that--excuse me. Pm just going to add. That was our proposal. Originally we'd proposed to put the 25—landscape buffer in what would be the vacated conservation tract that's 25 feet wide;however,since this was already impacted and it benefited or--I think Mr.Huber preferred to have it remain clear,we—in response to that,we removed the landscape buffer there and moved it over here so that that could be retained. I mean,you know,that was done purely as an accommodation, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,by the way,since you brought that up,would you blow up the top corner of that property. MR.MULHERE: Right here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's a little hard to read. So on that—you've got the 25-foot landscape buffer on the left side of the line on the south of the driveway,and when it flips to the north of the driveway,you put it on the right side of the property line. Is that what you're suggesting? MS.GREEN: Let me comment on that. Because with everything that has happened with all these objections,we've actually revised the plan for that area you're talking about. We now have taken the conservation area that was to the north of our proposed entry,and we're leaving it exactly--and I've pulled the water management berm and that landscape buffer all the way in,and that just happened,so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,let me go back to my questions,Bob. MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The landscape buffer that's on the right side of the line,is that intended to be on the right side of the line,or are you telling me this plan is inaccurate as well? MR.MULHERE: Let me handle it,Gina. Well,we have to clean this plan up anyway,right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just answer my question.Where's the landscape buffer going to go on the north side of the driveway? MR.MULHERE: It's now going to be--the same place that it is down here,just over here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's going to be on the left side of the line? MR.MULHERE:HERE: On the left. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only answer I was looking for. MR.MULHERE: Yeah,the left. Page 35 of 48 November 17,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Mr.Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Also,for the sake of the new members,I just want to clarify a statement that Mr.Yovanovich said,because substantial competent evidence also does include laypersons that testify as to their own personal knowledge,but they are not permitted--it's not considered substantial competent evidence as to opinion testimony. So I just wanted to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And 1 have to clarify something. Or at least let's put it this way. I want to add some balance to one of Mr.Yovanovich's opening statements,and that in which he talked about what this board has historically done in regards to buffers and setbacks and other issues involving recreational facilities in PUDs. You're 100 percent right,we look at them very separately. We institute rules. We actually have a standard because of the development. I think it was the Brandon or something PUD up in--north of Immokalee Road where we have certain setbacks we look at as minimums. We have walls and landscaping. And those are done for PUDs that are not developed where owners bought something that they didn't count on necessarily going across the street from them. So there is a stark difference between what would be necessarily required here to get,let's say,mutual compatibility versus what we're doing on a raw project where someone is going in knowing that's what's going across the street from them. I want to make that clarification,because it's starkly different than what was mentioned. MR.MULHERE: That's why we put enhanced buffers in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And other than that,does anybody have any other questions? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have questions but probably more from a procedural standpoint having been gone from the county staff for almost seven years. Procedurally,if they were just to add the five acres to the PUD,that would be one public hearing, and with--if they-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it would be a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Board of County Commissioners. And if they did not include--the only reason the tennis courts are included here is because that's now part of--becomes part of the record for the site development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. If they didn't show a use on this property,then they wouldn't be able to get a Site Development Plan for a use,so they've-- COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR.MULHERE: I would like to suggest that we include the site specific plan so that we could commit to the commitments we're making very specifically in the zoning action,because if we didn't put that site plan there,this use is still allowed by the language in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You could have gone with residential or something like that that wouldn't have--they'd just plat it and be done with it. This is a community use. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,that's my questions. Had they just come in and added the five acres and if the use were--it is allowed in the PUD document-- MR.MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHNIITT: --could or would they have been allowed just to come back at a later date and ask for the development of this site for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think so. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would,too. My recollection,I would,too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it wouldn't have been allowed as a RA or a community facility,because those we generally locate on master plans. MR.MULHERE: Well,we were. We did. We labeled it,so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR MULHERE: Yes;the answer is yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't know. That's okay. We've disagreed a lot in the past. Page 36 of 48 November 17,2016 COMMISIONER SCHMITT: I'm just trying to understand procedurally. MR.YOVANOVICH: No,I think--no,listen. I think--and this is where we were being perfectly honest. And I got into this late,but I think we could have labeled that R Labeled it R,and all the uses in the R,you know,on the residential portion,which includes tennis facilities,could have gone on that property by site plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT': That's-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Because that's an old--it's an older PUD,we would have looked at the R uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't think we would have questioned that when it came through for a PUD amendment in today's world? MR.YOVANOVICH: Pm just saying we could have tried to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You think you would have got by this board with that? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah,I would have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,no,you wouldn't have.No,you wouldn't have. Nice try,Rich,but— COMMISSIONER SCHMITT:T: Well,that's my questions. No,you wouldn't have. But my question procedurally is you could have— MR.YOVANOVICH: I could have done it. I could have tried. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Could have just added this acreage and at a later date come back and did an amendment,a master plan amendment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it was single-family,they probably wouldn't have needed the master plan amendment— COMMISIONER SCHMTIT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: —because they could have allocated it as a non-preserve,which would be anything. But I think if you were--if they were to suggest they were going to put a recreational facility there, the questions would still have been evolved like we have to do. I mean--Bob? MR MULHERE: At the time of zoning,they would. But if the zoning—I think your question is,if this zoning was approved,we added this,we labeled it RA,what's the process? We wouldn't have had a—if we didn't have a site-specific plan,we simply go in for an SDP and build it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's what I thought.Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But we would never have gotten—it would never have gotten through. MR.MULHERE: No,we knew that,hence the site-specific— COMMISSIONER SCHMTIT: No,it would have been very clear on the development standards for the recreational area. Okay. But you answered my question. That's-- CHAIRMAN CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And is there any other questions of the applicant or staff or anybody at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob,I've kept track of some things. I don't know what the motion maker will want to make as a motion for this,but I have noted some thing that we discussed so that if the motion maker motions for a stipulated approval,then these could be included. If it's denial,then they don't need to be included. So just to keep everything clear and consistent with our discussions,the setbacks that are articulated in the narrative will be modified to be consistent with the site plan that was produced today. MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the site plan that was produced today will be the site plan that would actually be used in lieu of the one that was given to us in our packet. You would be working on some language to provide some kind of assurance that should the native vegetation that's in those retention areas—I think you call them retention areas on your plan--not survive after a limited amount of time,let's say six months or a year,you would replace them to a density comparable to what they were. The details on the RA plan,mostly your contours and your lines and all that,they need to be labeled. Page 37 of 48 November 17,2016 You've got different details in there that aren't clear what they are. You're going to change the narrative to make sure that any uses of those buildings are listed,including the shade coverings that you have on the master plan. Just list them as shade coverings or something so that everybody knows what they are and what they're limited to. The idea of special events,we didn't talk about this,but it's a good time to bring it up.That's another unique factor. You're not really geared,from the size of this,to have a lot of large special events. Were you planning on having special events outside what the area could support on a normal course of business? MR.MULHERE: No. What happens is they have these tournaments that--I think Patrick said three times a year. Let's say three or four times a year where folks come in and play tennis from other--and sometimes these guys go to other locations and do it. Interclub play,okay. So that being the case,if the numbers are going to be more significant than what would typically be used there,we've discussed it. We would have the guests park in the clubhouse parking lot and have them shuttled down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that needs to be articulated. And those events would not be utilized any different hours than what the hours are restricted to. MR.MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the hours of restriction,you're going to give us a more definitive word than"dusk." MR.MULHERE: Yes,sunset. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I just want a different word. Also,we didn't talk about this. It's something that I've heard mentioned. In a typical Type B buffer when you're up against a--when a community facility is located within a residential PUD and abuts a residential unit--now,I know Mr.Yovanovich is going to jump up and say it doesn't abut,it doesn't abut. Well,okay. It's adjacent to. Then the minimum 50 percent of the trees in the hedge planting shall be located on the residential side of a fence or a wall. Now,I think I heard one of the gentlemen—or Mr. Huber,actually,speak about the possibility of a wall going in. I don't see as a--if this is recommended for approval,that would seem to be something that would be warranted, especially with the plantings on the opposite side of it would provide--at least it wouldn't be a stark wall sitting out there. MR.MULHERE: So the--actually,I'm glad you raised that issue. I don't know if he intended to or not,but Mr.Huber indicated that it was his idea,the way I heard it and,actually,I suggested,after discussing with my client,a wall in the landscape buffer along his property,and he never responded yea or nay with respect to that specific recommendation. Others have said to us they did not want a wall;they wanted a substantial landscape buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if we--if the wall is installed consistent with a Type B buffer,it's going to be behind some rather intense landscaping because 50 percent of the trees and hedge planting shall be located on the residential side of the wall. So that means your wall would start--would be along Colonial Court and south to the end of Mr.Huber's property. MR.MULHERE: Does it require a wall? I think it just allows for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It allows a wall. MR.BELLOWS: Yeah,allows. MR.MULHERE: Yeah, it doesn't require. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I know. But if it does--if a wall does go in, it says right in the Type B buffer standards-- MR.MULHERE: Yes,I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there wouldn't be a stark wall there. It would be one that would have— MR.MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --some landscaping on the outside of it,so that's another consideration for any stipulations in that we consider a masonry or concrete wall consistent with these Type B buffer standards. M.R.MULHERE: And if I would suggest--if you do consider that,I would suggest that that is most Page 38 of 48 November 17,2016 appropriate along Mr.Huber's property line,because when you go north,then you've got Colonial Court separating all of that,so you even have a larger separation there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The area from south of your— MR.MULHERE: Yeah,south of the cul-de-sac. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: South--could you put the site plan back up. MR.MULHERE: As you can see,the cul-de-sac is here,the roadway is here,and then this property line would be immediately adjacent to the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But,see,I don't know why it would—why wouldn't you just put a wall along the entire eastern property line? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We don't want that. MR.MULHERE: Kind of a lot of folks have said it's not— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,Mr.Huber's the one that brought it up,so... Before we go any further,if this is a recommendation of approval,I'd like to ask Mr.Huber to come up and address the wall,if that's something that he would like to see included if this were to be approved or not. So,Mr.Huber,would you mind addressing that question. MR.MULHERE: Mr. Strain,I don't know if you said it,but you also talked about bollard lighting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,you're right. I thought that would be a correction. MR.MULHERE: It will be,but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr.Huber? MR.HUBER: From a visibility standpoint,obviously,we didn't want a wall there,if that was, ultimately—if they were going to be there. What I suggested is that the landscaping—all the landscaping that's proposed,that the wall be put adjacent to the tennis courts to deal with the noise issue,and that was my concern. So whether—you know,without seeing it,I'm not sure. But I think most of the residents probably would not prefer a wall that they can look at. They like the idea at least of seeing the trees and the buffer in that area;however,you know,the issue is the noise and how are you going to deal with the noise issue,and that was why we raised it,because—I mean,you have a recreational facility. Noise is going to be created. We don't have that now. And,you know,you have ball machines,you have a tennis pro,and you're going to have tournaments or—you know,inner club tournaments,or whatever they're called that's going to occur there. There's going to be noise. And the question is—that's not something that we have now. Again,that was another reason we didn't think it made sense to put it there,but that's,you know--but in terms of addressing your specific question,it's how do we address the noise issue.And the wall was one of the thoughts regarding that,but we don't want to be looking at a wall at our property. That's certainly not going to be something we want to see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. I appreciate it. Bob,any reaction to how that could be addressed,the sound from that--mostly the--Mr.Huber's property is the closest to the southern tennis court. And you have on the right side of the tennis court behind the canopy sun shade,rectangle on the south side,right up against that natural area. You could put a 6-foot masonry or decorative wall to the point where it bends,and that would provide as much sound barrier as possible to Mr.Huber's house,who's closest to this whole-- MR.MUI RF: Right here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR.JOHNSON: Over here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That line,the second line in. MR.MULHERE: So what you're suggesting is right along here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually,on top of that line that's there. MR.MULHERE: Okay. Right along here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.MULHERE: And that would be--I don't know what the distance is,but we'll have to locate Page 39 of 48 November 17,2016 that on the site plan if it becomes a condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would help mitigate the noise. And if the motion maker here in a few minutes wants to include that,that's something that can be considered. I'm just suggesting--I'm trying to put everything in order so that you have--the motion maker has all the options that they want to include or not. MR.MULHERE: So I just want to reiterate--Gina,I got it. Thanks. I just want to reiterate that,you know,we're retaining the landscaping here--they're not going to be able to see that because that's fairly mature landscaping--as well as planting a new 25-foot landscape buffer, and we're agreeing to replace any trees if they died,you know,in that landscape buffer. And we're not having any"I"play. We're not having any audio,you know,any noise. So I really think that we've addressed the issue of noise.Clay courts,they're not as noisy as the other courts. Har-Tru. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're willing to stipulate to clay courts. MR.MULHERE: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Har-Tru. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that even for pickleball? MR.MULHERE: No,we're not going to build—we got rid of the pickleball. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,you're going to open up a can of worms. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,they had mentioned pickleball,and I'm trying to fmd out-- MR.MULHERE: No,we're not doing that.That—apparently,I found out a lot about pickleball. It can be noisier than tennis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It can be a noisy sport,yeah. MR.JOHNSON: Mr.Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.JOHNSON: Over here;Eric. This area over here,where it says 25-foot natural area,could we just find out exactly what this will consist of? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifs not theirs. It's not on their property. It's not part of the piece being brought in. It is conservation easement. MS. GREEN: Yes,it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 25-foot natural area is already part of your PUD. MR.MULHERE: No,no. Excuse me. I got it,thank you. He's talking about this area right here. He wants to know what's being done in there. MR.YOVANOVICH: No,he doesn't. Bob. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Show us specifically--okay. You're talking about the 25-foot natural area that is supposed to be a conservation area but has not acted like one. MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. And what I suggested is if you want us to plant materials in there, we can certainly do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,I think with the--if it's--you've got so much vegetation going from the property line through the 25-foot buffer,through the natural area over to those courts. I'm not sure there's any difference there,but if that's supposed to be a conservation area and it's a conservation easement,I think after this meeting you'll probably get a call from Summer Brown anyway saying,well,why don't you plant this like it's supposed to? So I think that can handle itself. MR.MULHERE: Okay. So Iet me--what--I thought I was clear about this,but I'll try again. So that's being vacated,so then there won't be any violation when it's vacated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're vacating the whole thing or just the access across-- MR.MULHERE: We're not vacating the whole thing,but we are vacating that portion. At least that's what Gina just told me. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's what I just suggested,Mr. Strain. In lieu of vacating that area,we can leave it in the conservation area and just deal with the crossing of the entrance so it could be replanted. That's what I was suggesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mx. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now,I have a question since we're talking about stipulations,and I Page 40 of 48 November 17,2016 want to make sure—parking. Does this community allow for golf cart use? MR.MULHERE: They do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Within the community?Because it looks like you have some golf cart parking spaces. MR.MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then 20 parking spaces. MR.MULHERE: Yes. COMMISIONER SCHMITT: And that has been determined to be the correct amount for these tennis courts? MR.MULHERE: I think it actually exceeds what the code required by a few spaces. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,the stipulation--who--is there some kind of security, community security? Because my concern are people parking—parking along the street and then going into the tennis courts. MR.MULHERE: There is community security.And I'll tell you,it's a beautiful community,and it seems to me that it can be very easily managed by,you know,a drive through or something like that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,they're not going to have any enforcement power. They can't ticket.But from a standpoint of parking along that street,I think it's--it would be--you're going to have a tennis--there's going to be a situation where folks are up at the clubhouse and then they're going to go down to the tennis court. I don't know what kind of stipulation we can put in from a standpoint there will be no parking on the west side of the street. MR MULHERE: Well,I mean,I don't really think there's going to be any parking issue except under a special event circumstance because we exceed the parking requirement,plus we have golf cart parking there and bicycle parking. So I think when that issue's going to arise--some of the residents already park on the street,so we don't want to-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Well,it's going to be--I know it will become an issue. MR.MULHERE: We don't want to--but I agree,for the special events we have to manage that,and we will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I hate to belabor a point,but Summer just walked in,and now that she's here,I'd like her to address the 25-foot natural area that's a conservation easement and what can or should have been done with that property or who knows from staff what it's supposed to be. Thank you,Summer. You deferred nicely to Steve. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We need a purpose for Steve to come this morning anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we've got to get Matt up here next. Steve,are you familiar with that area? MR.LENBERGER: Yes,I am. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Your name,for the record,Steve. MR.LENBERGER: Stephen Lenberger,Development Review. It will have to be replanted according to what the agency permits require,very simply,unless they want to vacate that portion. My understanding of what I'm hearing is they're going to vacate some of it but not all of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they--thank you.And then if they--if it gets vacated,it just goes to what? MR.LENBERGER. Well,it will be— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just common area? MR.LENBERGER: —some sort of common area,whatever you want to label it as. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You may want to get together with Mr.Huber if you intend to vacate it and see how he would feel about that as--it's not a matter for this board— MR.MULHERE: No,I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --as far as the vacations go,but it's just a suggestion to— MR.MULHERE: What we understood from discussion with Mr.Huber was he'd like it to be retained in the way that it is;that's why we agreed to shift the landscape buffer further in the other direction. Page 41 of 48 November 17,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything they want to add? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Excuse me,Mr.Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I realize we've closed the public hearing,but this gentleman has asked a couple times if he could speak. He missed the speaking earlier,so I'm just relaying his request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We've closed the public hearing,and we're not going to open it up again. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's a safety issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,Pm sorry. We have a public comments section at the end of this hearing today. You're more than welcome to comment at that time. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back to where we are. Do you have anything else you want to add to your time? MR.MULHERE: No, it's a long list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. Anybody on the Planning Commission have anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we will entertain a motion from anybody willing to move forward. Anybody? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: P11 make a motion to approve with the stipulations,but no wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A motion's made to approve with the stipulations. There are nine of them. I read them all separately,or we talked about them earlier. The last one that was added was that there will be clay courts similar to the hard true type courts will be used. Is that included? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded.Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was the original person who requested information about the neighbors on Colonial Court and Mr.Huber in particular. I also have done enough research to realize that the outcome of the use of this property could have been and most likely would have been worse than a set of tennis courts that are now contemplated and modified to meet some of the compatibility concerns that have been expressed. So for that reason I will be supporting the motion. But it--had this discussion occurred the first time,I would expect the outcome to be similar to where we are today or close to it. The information that has been provided plus the added compatibility standards are better than what, in many cases,could have gone on that property if it went through a zoning change under someone else's ownership. So with that,P11 support the motion as well. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a--my comment,frankly,has to do with the documentation that was submitted. I believe that there--it was not forthcoming in explaining the full purpose for why you are proposing a tennis court. I think--if you want the recreation area,it should have been stated up front. That should have been part of the public record. That should have been part of the record that--for the permit as well. I have real problems with that from a standpoint of not laying out the facts to the both—to the residents,and it seems like there was an argument of which came first,the chicken or the egg here. Which came first,the required parking or the need for an expanded recreational facility. But with that,I would stress to the Board when this--or to the staff when this goes to the board that is made clear to the Board of County Commissioners as to the clear purpose of this,that it is not only because we need to expand the parking; it's because we want to build tennis courts,and we want to expand our recreation facility. That should be clear up front,and I don't think it was. When I read--at least in my reading of the documents. And I'm not going to discuss it,Bob. It's just my feelings. Page 42 of 48 November 17,2016 MR.MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But with that,I concur with Mark. I agree that there could be far more intense use. There's two lots that could easily combined if—this Iot and the one further west I would not be happy if I were a resident on that street for the mere fact of purchasing a home and then all of a sudden it becomes a recreation area,but I really can't find a reason to specifically deny the request. So with that,I'll support it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing no others,all those in favor of the motion to support with the stipulations,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you-all. This will be moved to the Board of County Commissioners next. I don't know what their schedule will be. Thank you. And with that,we will take a 10-minute--well,we'll take a break until 10 after 12. Pd like the Board to work through lunch,is that okay,or do you want to take lunch? We have two cases coming up. I expect they'll be similar--okay.So we'll work through lunch. We'll break now and we'll come back at 10 after 12. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everybody. Let's resume the meeting. Please take your seats. Joe stepped out for a moment. He'll be right back. In the meantime,we'll go through the reading of the hearing. ***It's Item 9B. It's RZ-PL20160001132. Ifs for a rezone,actually—a rezone of a agricultural zoned piece of property for an RSF-1 zoning. Ifs located on the west side of Morgan Road,approximately 750 feet north of Sabal Palm Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll get Joe's disclosures when he gets in. Disclosures,starting with Tom. MR EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had talked to Fred Hood on the phone,and we just talked a few minutes before the meeting started. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Schmitt says from out there in space,"none." So welcome back. With that— COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No disclosures,no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move right to Mr.Hood. First of all,I would suggest you can keep this brief. I don't think there's a lot of--going to be a lot of--it's a pretty simple application,so ifs all yours. MR HOOD: All right. Thank you,Mr.Chairman. Good morning,Frederick Hood with Davidson Engineering,for the record. Davidson Engineering is representing applicant and property owners Nancy and Theodore Naftel for rezone petition. Page 43 of 48 November 17,2016 The rezone that is being considered here today is a request to change from A rural agricultural to RSF-1,residential single-family. The subject property is approximately 5.75 acres and is located at 275 Morgan Road. Morgan Road is located on the east side of the property,and the property is approximately 750 feet north of Sabal Palm Road. All of the immediate surrounding properties have been developed with single-family residential and/or agricultural uses,and they all have agricultural zoning. As previously noted,the purpose of the rezone application is to convert the 5.75-acre parcel from A to RSF-l. On a personal note,our clients are requesting to change the zoning to provide a home for their son and daughter-in-law who are retiring from the military soon. Their desire was just to originally split the existing parcel in half and build a second home on the resulting parcel,but when they spoke with Collier County staff and Davidson,they realized that with the existing zoning,they wouldn't be able to do that because of minimum lot size requirements in the ag zone. Through that initial contact,we discussed with the county on what zoning district we should go to. The most similar between the existing ag zoning and what they were intending to do with the property was the RSF-I district. We also looked at the Estates district as well,but the setback requirements were a little bit more onerous than the A and the RSF-1 district. The two differences between the A and the RSF-1 were for the minimum building size and for the minimum lot width. So we went with the RSF-1 instead of the E district for that purpose. As part of the staff report,on Page 5 you will be able to see those differences in the design standards for each zoning designation. Basically,with the rezone the next application that the Naftels will be presenting to the county will be a final plat application to split the property in half. As part of the staff report,we have also agreed to limiting the lot split in that fmal plat application to only two lots. It should be noted that within the area,I did a--I prepared a map. Quarter mile out from the property you've got approximately 31 existing agricultural lots that are under the five acres. So that just furthers the point that even though we're asking for something that is,you know,not typical for this area,the existing grandfathered-in lots of 31 in nature,we range from--anywhere from.65 acres,I believe,all the way up to about just under five acres,at like 4.89 or something like that. The new home that will be being built after we do the fmal plat application will have to meet the standards of the RSF-1 designation. The existing property that will be left to the north has existing nonconforming buildings on it insofar as they don't meet the setback requirements for either the ag zoning or the resulting RSF-1 zoning. Those buildings will remain as they are currently. If the Naftels decide to either sell the property or to redevelop the property in the future,they will have to meet the RSF-1 designation design standards. That is pretty much it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions of the applicant from Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is it too early to move to approve? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to get everything on record. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred,the staff recommendation's a little different than how you worded it. It says,subject to 5.75-acre--the subject 5.75-acre property shall be limited to a maximum of two lots. So do you have any objection to that? MR.HOOD: I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a reference under Page 4 of the staff report,school concurrency. The applicant is requesting an exception from school concurrency. The proposed change does not meet the criteria for an exemption. So I'm assuming,from staffs perspective,that's still being processed like any other nonexempt piece of property? Eric? Or whoever wrote that.I assume you since you're still Page 44 of 48 November 17,2016 sitting there. MR.JOHNSON: Yeah. This is Eric Johnson,principal planner. That was given to me by Amy Lockhart,who works for the school district CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So from Tom Eastman's viewpoint,since he represents the school district,there is no exemption for this. They've still got to meet the school concurrency requirements;is that true? MR.EASTMAN: Yes,and that would be determined at the time of the SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or building permit. MR.EASTMAN: Or building permit. And there's existing capacity now. That doesn't mean that that will be the case in the future,but we also have oxygen for approval if there is existing capacity in adjacent service areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have anything else. Does anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there a staff report,Eric? MR.JOHNSON: Yes,sir. Eric Johnson,Principal Planner,Zoning. Staff is recommending approval of the request.Just for clarification,Amy Lockhart and I worked on the language together for her portion of the staff report. It is--staff is recommending approval subject to the Condition of Approval No. 1: The subject 5.75-acre property shall be limited to a maximum of two lots. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any registered public speakers? MR.BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We hear none.There's no need for rebuttal unless you've got something you want to add since you got up,Fred. MR.HOOD: I certainly do not. CHAIRMAN S[RAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing,entertain the motion subject to staff recommendations,assumably. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. COMMISIONER SCHMITT: And second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by--we'll let Patrick do one. COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Patrick second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Patrick. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. Page 45 of 48 November 17,2016 MR.HOOD: Thank you-all. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fred,that was so much easier than the first one we did. MR.HOOD: I try to make it simple for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,don't get sent back. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: By the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Next item up is 9D. It's PL20160001369. It's an expansion of the Panther Island Mitigation Bank on the north part of Collier County. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. We'll start with Mr. Eastman. MR.EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a call from Bruce to have a meeting to discuss. I read the application. There was no need to meet to discuss because I didn't see any discussion necessary. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce,I would hope that this could be succinct. MR.ANDERSON: Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce,that's the best thing you could say. Do you have any problems with the recommendations both by staff and by Lee County? MR.ANDERSON: No,sir. Just one tweaking and one typo in the staff report. Staff report says 350,000 cubic yards. Just to be accurate,our application said 352,360 cubic yards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we round it up to 355,000,keep numbers even. Does that work for you? MR.ANDERSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.ANDERSON: By the way,for the record,my name is Bruce Anderson from the Cheffy Passidomo law firm. The language we want to tweak is Collier County Condition No. 3. And the first sentence would remain as-is,that access to the site is through Lee County. The second sentence would be clarified to read, "There shall be no access to the site through Collier County without prior approval of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners." And I spoke with Mr.McLean about that,and I don't believe staff has any objection to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staff report? MR.McLEAN: Matt McLean with Development Review,for the record. You have the staff report in front of you.The additional two clarifications from Bruce,the 355,000 cubic yards,as well as the additional proposed change to the recommendation on No.3,we have no issue with that,and we do recommend approval. Bruce's revised language on that Condition 3,for us,really--it is really understood that it really doesn't even need to be there. The initial condition just reading"access to the site is through Lee County,"it could remain as that,but we have no issue with adding the additional language,which Bruce has proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would be more comfortable leaving his language in. He has to have purpose,and that will give him purpose for this. Page 46 of 48 November 17,2016 MR.McLEAN: Excellent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Matt. Any request of staff? Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any registered public speakers? MR.BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none,then obviously there's no need for rebuttal. We'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion subject to a change to 355,000 cubic yards for the excavation and modifying the second sentence,No.3,concerning the site access into Collier County. Is there a motion for approval? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I motion to approve subject to the stipulations as stated. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded. Those include the staff recommendations? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff recommendations,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. I'll tell you what,these last two are a lot better than the first one,guys. Thank you. MR.ANDERSON: Thank you. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Mr.Chair,I do have a housekeeping question before we close. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: On the Naples Heritage PUD there was discussion on bringing it back for consent,and I just want to make sure that that was the direction of the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that it was discussed. Staff had said that they basically—the plan looked--they didn't have any questions about the plan. Part of the need for consent was to know if staff had any concerns. I didn't—Eric seemed to think it was fine. MR.BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record,Ray Bellows. 1 believe we are find and don't need to come back on the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think that the stipulations were clean enough. I'm comfortable with it. What's the rest of the Board—and I thank you for pointing that out. I should have got into a further discussion on it. Does anybody else see a need to have it come back on consent? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No,not to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're good with it.Thank you. With that,it takes us to new business:There's none listed. Old business: None listed. Is there anybody here who would like to have any public comment? (No response.) Page 47 of 48 November 17, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that,is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: 1 second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Joe. Seconded by Patrick. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you-all. There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:24 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 21& �• MARK a TRAIN,C ATTEST DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on G2- ' — ,as presented / or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S.LEGAL SUPPORT,INC.,BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 48 of 48 GoodnerAngela From: Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 7:26 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/41 Attachments: Naples Heritage Plan Exhibit A.pdf; NAPLES HERITAGE PUDA CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN TENNIS CENTER final.pdf; Colonial Court from Naples Heritage Drive.jpg; Close up of proposed entrance tennis.jpg; NHGCC News of Purchase 5+ acre parcel Nov 2004.pdf; Fleming Message.docx Dear Commissioner Solis, This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff member Angelica about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th.This proposed development (see attachment)is located adjacent to our home (Huber's=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court.These include,the Boissoneault's(lot 2), Case's (Lot 3). Leonard's(lot 4), Kulbacki's (lot 5)and Bruckerhoff's( lot 6). Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half-truths, and broken promises for further review .While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection,they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suited for the community with no adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court. I have attached material indicating the best of these site.The environmental engineers we have consulted believe this alternative site is viable and could be developed at a comparable cost. Looking at this matter on its face it would appear that this is simply an attempt to amend the PUD in order to create a recreational zone in the PUD and gain additional parking : however this is misleading,these matters are part of a project by Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club to erect a new fitness center, and administrative offices near the existing clubhouse restaurant,golf club and swimming pool. In order to accomplish this they seek to eliminate the existing four tennis courts located in the club house area and relocate these and expand to six tennis courts adjacent to our property.Attached is a promotional brochure on the Project as well the proposed site plan. Colonial Court is composed of all single family homes(6)located on the only cul de sac in the single family community of Naples Heritage known as Cypress Point composed of 101 single family homes.There are no (RA)recreational zoned areas in the PUD and other than the homes located on the golf course there are no recreational facilities in Cypress Point The existing tennis courts are located near the existing club house which are nearly 2 miles from this proposed site All of the homes on Colonial Court are currently surrounded by preserve, conservation easements and woods. See pictures One of the misrepresentation made by the applicant initially was that this land was purchased for the purpose of developing a tennis center(initial testimony at Planning Commission) ;however the truth is that the land was purchased in 2004 due to a concern that the property would be developed and that such development could allow traffic from the development to use the roads in the PUD.(see attached) . The irony here is that they purchased it to prevent development, now they seek to do the very thing they attempted to prevent.While management contends that the property would eventually be used for a community purpose,the property could easily be left in a preserve condition and used to trade or exchange for other property currently in preserve as mentioned above. Another significant misrepresentation made during this process has been that the Army Corps of Engineers would not approve any of the alternative sites nor would they consider new property in a trade or exchange for existing preserve or conservation areas . We have learned that Naples Heritage 1)never made an application for an alternative site with the Army Corps of Engineers2) Published the alternative analysis report(April 2016) after the decision and vote on the overall campus improvement plan by the community (March 2016)3)the Army Corps of Engineers would consider a trade of property if appropriate. (see attached email from Army Corps of Engineers0. Our objections are well documented in the file on this matter These objection include: 1) Negative Impact on the Residential Environment—Approving these matters would completely change the peaceful enjoyment of our homes as well as destroying an essential preserve and conservation area that should be maintained. Owners paid a premium for their lots in this neighborhood properties and were told that the conservation and preserve areas would be protected.Vacation of the conservation is contrary to this representation. Approval of these changes will negatively impact property values of the residents on Colonial Court making them less desirable . 2) Safety and Traffic Flow- Development of his site as a Tennis Center would greatly increase traffic, and create a safety hazard not only for the residents of Colonial Court but for those that use Colonial Court for walking,jogging and bike riding.There are no sidewalks on Colonial Court.The road network was not designed for this level of traffic nor was it designed as a feeder road.There will be two intersection within 75 feet.The tennis community holds competition with other clubs several times a year.This will inevitably lead to increase traffic and inadequate parking. Having the tennis courts located near the clubhouse where there is adequate parking and designed road network to handle this type of traffic flow would be a better alternative. 3) Buffer Inadequacy. While the buffer has been increased since our objections have been raised,they will be inadequate to prevent noise,visibility and disruption cause by locating the tennis center at this site.The entrance is off Colonial Court near residents driveway entrance. Providing a landscape buffer fails to address the end result of permanently altering the character of the neighborhood. 4) Failure to Make a Good Faith Effort for Alternative sites-As pointed out above the whole premises of this being the only suitable site is false. Management and the Board have failed to pursue a solution that would better serve the entire community without negatively impacting the residents of Colonial Court. No application was ever made for these alternatives even though their own report shows alternatives existed.Alternatives we believe are better suited and cost effective for the entire community 5) Bird and Wildlife Impact-All the land to the south, east and west of the residences on Colonial Court is currently either wooded, conservation or preserve. Residents commonly see birds, deer, squirrels, raccoons and occasionally panthers.The development of this site as a recreation with the attendant noise and traffic will negatively impact the environment for this wildlife. 6) Topographical Concerns including Water Flow- Due to the low level and topographical contour of the land, water flow, containment and sloop of the land considerable fill be required this could negatively impact drainage and create the potential for standing water. 7) Letter of Objection-All of the adjacent property owners have filed objection to the Vacation of the Conservation easement separating Colonial Court form the site. The Executive Summary by the staff list Criteria for considering PUD Amendments.A number of these are relevant in regards to this matter.They include the following: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land , surrounding areas,traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Inconsistent with current use 2. The internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design,and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 2 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 4\1111N90:j ,,Z\Z --,... LOT 38,BLOCK B )) II i'. \ NAPLES HERITAGE I GCC PHASE 11-13 TRACT GC4-GOLF COURSE PB 28,PGS 11-13 \...... NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE 1, II PB 26,PGS 71-80 II J�- \ LOT 39,BLOCK B I NAPLES HERITAGE jI II I EX.LAKE GCC PHASE TWO-A, \ PB 28,PGS 11-13 II \ 19R C NNI1 SIRICIUE TRACT GC4B,NAPLES HERITAGE \ - I I GCC TRACTS B&C5 REPLAT,PB II II 27,PGS 98-100 ��\ i �\ LOT 6,BLOCK F, •-•,..,_ \� NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE T4013 PB 28,PGS 11-13 IIR9RIRACT C5_ A — — — EX CONSERVATION il aM TRACES 8 a - EASEMENT TO REMAIN / C5 RIPIAL PB 27,PS 98-100 �,, r I LOT 5,BLOCK F, NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TWO-A, 6' ••NA1URAL AREA w z 3 PB 28.PGS 11-13 Ill I- -30' " EC z n I O roilR I_, U LOT 4,BLOCK F, NAPLES HERITAGE VIENING \\ Q GCC PHASE TWO A, 11 ARE11 \ Z PB 28,PGS 71-13 5�99Aii1Ui Y 3 o —65 \ \ o \ LOT 3,BLOCK F �4 . NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TWO-A, \ PB 28,PGS 11-13 I0 ( , A IN1 —"■I1TR CIN1 ,I ■n -11 i NIS PAVILION- ,� 1S 11 R�,I _rd drc • RESTROOMS NAPLES HERITAGE GCC '�- �� _ STORAGE& \ GCC PHASE TWO-A, I• COVERED PORCH PB 28,PGS 11-13 o w o N N OD n — "NATURAL AREA lo w LOT 1,BLOCK P INAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE TWD-IA, PIS1 R. ,IPB 28.PGS 11-3�® VIEWINGL — I 11 u AREA I „`A LNG „I 5z L - J U IUR�. I I. 168' + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + TRACT C5-CONSERVATION AREA + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + NAPLES HERITAGE GCC PHASE 1, + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + . PB 26,PGS 71-80 I++++++++++++++++U�ONSERangN AREA++++++++++++++++++++L ........ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4 + + TRACT RW4-RIGHT-OF-WAY + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + • RESERVATION NAPLES HERITAGE GCC 4 4 + + + + 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 + + + + + + + + + + PHASE 1,PB 26,PGS 71-80 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4 + + + + + + + • + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4 + + + + + + + + + + + + J. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + • ___ __ ..+ +.._ 4 4 4+ s�i++ v ...••1...••1 � 4. v. + + — ..-_+- , + + - _ **IN NO CASE SHALL THERE BE LESS THAN 50%OF THE NATIVE VEGETATION REMAINING. IF CLEARING RESULTS IN LESS THAN 50%OF RETAINED NATIVE VEGETATION,THEN SUPLLEMENTAL PLANTINGS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE 50%OF THE ORIGINAL NATIVE VEGETATION. EXHIBIT "A-1 " NAPLES HERITAGE TENNIS CENTER CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN NO SCALE i• AI (A r), \\....i I a' 722 . 200 A. v v o a F cl s ) m L `v a E y 2 1 u 1 1 = y §.2 yo c i ' pl' • • • 0. I.,_1\ _ - W z• t a .-2 ,-- - .1,0_0...„ >, 0. h 0 ) r j• 411" r _ a 1Hi 3 1 IIU n 3 'Z' It gs }..-. w ,' did.E 1' 3' 0. ) ) � - � A y7 Y ¢ ti - O CyU L8 1 E N 2 ... - • \ . . C ` y LRG '� \ lamf'#'' ui ma > - m i c > o> > 51 6..0 :g....",AA-g- ---.-`47 % 7, gi .s a y0 " bE ^ 3 QiU v. ' fl va_, -a I :t `14 „,1-,!, - 0d H � «. ) i ° U p0. tu ilL O U P9 s * » LQ 1 A. a 'ijr : g • ry5 a --1 I w v q • T O y ` U T CJ : rt G ? •- i L K Y to 3 -'a F L L V'D cad O F y O W y F N R 7 - _E 2 J g O T +J U O -j > y Q• 5 G y c> E • ci o O ao-" 3 v ° 3 v SS'> o .. v s a2 0 oa 0? >, o Q U! Vi o 3- 13 - F772 c,• a V >,g^ c. s -g ' a _ cC -`, YV. pS,mc � 7.1 E >, pi,.-' . v3 ,o, - 2E o •o � v _ ' u o > a y E > E. ,..2; ...a .- E. `s X o F = cF-F u = 2 , a= " DA C ao.°cou o_ v ? -' 2• c- m = .2 3 2 " 3 v-5 = • a' .� ` o abyr � vs=u me ^ E eEc •t = o '3'' o �� .-..5: It co. •& / , z E w Y i:::1 N $ n f .. t% s r .. y!S� _ S3� , 1 u .E 3 -r» sn wig in=. ` 1 ,W = r y,y c r •o a 47 o w_,.. - u C • • < _ . ✓ N Jy U L u U ',. ' 1V U L j - _....................____. Y ayF. a 7 ci C U 'O Y _� cE R R 0 u o u u C u O �G N L O CA rgi A ^I. E = a s o „C, z s4 y F„ N N C C. 5 Y =. W 6 O U C y•h .0. zw W v (4* c ., i Y § 0%?4, ,,,,*- a° oc2 r t..'eip r7 Z a h Q c O t. F 1 o O ' • ' tt A x a 41 p, IB v 1c L 8 �2 a ,-- W ,,,,,„..,,,,,,,,.10.,:ii-4' aL c‘73 .20 i c g E c W ! 4 ' i ? .0 f. �: ��yy x �' 4 F y i� 3 F e4Via.: F. n a �L c R 3 ❑.= O U �'L s 3 - u c o i � 1 > p O p0 j f ti U U y F _Os 811.? ceo; t- Y L m Oas WZ m > a2 yw- 40 u , , 3, \c--.\41, e.. 4' g ---'T.' 5.4 .0 ci *4tottl IA m_ y ;7,-o -6c um ' Y° ai a2 ca ° L 9 RwKE I a ♦11 I „,-=� V' i _ � 06 V Ny, �Q J E w • � ' E R 3 s .E .52,2 .&.. Rrc a2 `WW p o 3 N �.o IN V-" y G♦ JJ n 0 w C HI M o Q yw� ovMFikm W •a° • Y } a � M (` N. 1 } ..;�Z ... ar a . .. x r .. .'..- may! + '. }1F•�u" S ` OW+ `,.. 4. , ' _ - om X �> tom .t . - a , t..,_ .. .,i1-.4.e. .,'.. ...., • T.' f ii -,, $, ....,...-4,,,01,-.' r♦ Rte" �+ , a� x a > g '`'shy ''' u t` xF.. a z • f .tom :',-,g1,- ,A, } +yp2 + ytx,Ike - `�3 i- -.,a €' a e {; yi '--74F--.-,..--c -t :9 *" --,1--,77---.71'; '-P- 1 ,„ xrtP-t': -. ,� =.rte -- ----- '--',---- _ -- ;----_,_;:---- .._ ---'-:- --:--,----,,-,-- ---*:--?,-----,7-1**---,J4._:c.tiv,c1-4-4,-,- -ir,,- ..;,...:,1„,-,--:,.,,,, -.-- :,--,:,,,.-2,.:-:--,-.....7,-4,., -.-.)t%,1.-4",,, -.f.."44i,'„,-;;;NZ-frAire,..r. " - - • .,......4.4t.4,,:-.8---: - � r^ t3 t�, -` Is. f 7 _� 4 4ar j :s-,, Y - - µ Zr`1 -!........:41.'7.,%...:--.1 x -- - ,,,'-....:,, .- -, ----;'*--VitiC:41.4it- -ii-:.;--.;,-',.-'17iili''''..4..."''':'Apl :I-4... .'re:-';:• 4:'-'-''' .r 4V''•".1k:-,------.7:''''41-P.'-''''''', 1c;f:4;%.1.74::'''''---*.i4,,....-:'°ti..,..7'-70244.''!-:-:.Z4lir-r".g.,r...:‘':-:---':: ::''' ''':?•,',.,- .4-'.ii-,:', .,,,,'',-1,...024;7 '.;7:-.:::-:-'.',,iii.k4itl',V4-4„--1-rt: :-:'-7-4,111N,,,-:.,.`;--:•;- ,--1:-„'i4.4.i::,,-,T.7111-A7t:,:'74:1.:-t,---;`.--14.71,t-'17,-NN4:::-.,-=','-:-.'.'.47.:;-l'."-'7--..-4.,--:,•,-'-:;..11W!...N Z: +€ r * 4 . t ad '� - ts -� S-r � v : x a "ti-c .s ` - 1-.,-.47.....,,..71.,.. ..,-...,*� £ e ,r + . 1'- ° ssli . _ 4.4 [[�� _ - f � , ,��i � _ _ �" ,;�€ .E a'" `� ` '`- �'. .v::y 01;.%::-..!,,.,..r,--,,„.;7,_-:.*Vi.f,"-:::".::::.;:::. ,.,.,4„.- ..4:t.'....1-`-....._' ,._ ii-sii.....!--fat•,., '17--,7---'.g.4•:-.*:. 440, r .,� 4 r. "1.."*^ .sir t 4-414 i .'- - .' '� f�`�' s `"'s'.,1!<:.::.: ir {; ` mp �. E a#" 4. AJ lIlt * i ' 'r •.. } , TRAFFIC t __ -" - K . =.4: E —I --- ' kt 410.. vas ./ f ' -, \ sd L4 Y i >.40,,,„..*' f l' ,, �> ' r x iik '•~-'rte }- - * 1 v ' _ -, .' - 7'" r ,:,.. pp�� ` J. `t 4,--# � +� ms's ° R v T ,1,34 j t. '�' 4 I alp " z� t� iii a j y } i _ at} + ` `,'• • ' � te¢' � % Art 1.. .e _ ori°�,/, Ip" -ir'"" _ #"eats ile-h'e V ''t(.11 - 1 y"' 1 J A .r . . -.-41+' Lr 4 l' �'� � � of �- :� } +-rte ,` ,. N4, . '` t£ttl3�"'4 €i`, `-. .V"..,44'4?''4?M' i'�' 'r: «,."` # ._ i Mr. Huber, Pursuant to your inquiry as to the status of the above referenced application, the permit review is still ongoing. The applicant's alternative analysis has been reviewed and no decision has been made whether to issue or deny the subject action. Your comments were received by the Corps and were submitted directly to the applicant for review and response. At this time, the Corps is waiting for a response before moving forward with a decision. The answers to your questions below are as follows: 1. Did Naples Heritage ever apply to the Army Corps of Engineers to locate these tennis courts in another location within the PUD or other location? Answer: No. 2. As a matter of policy and practice would the Army Corps of Engineers oppose exchanging a tract of preserve land for acreage of similar type and character that would be designated in its place as preserve if such an exchange would be beneficial to the community and consistent with environmental objectives? Answer:The Corps would neither be for or against such action. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Stephen J. Fleming, P.E. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Myers Regulatory Field Office 1520 Royal Palm Square Blvd, Ste. 310 Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Office: 239-334-1975 email: Stephen.j.fleming@usace.army.mil ilalle t * I V. : � ..y .4 r E tip a _ 440, ,) 4 ,11 , ' Yoh ne6,No. 8 �+ ) 15 :::;*'t 1--'-',., 464'':' c/...--t.74k „,,,. ..7,„: ,4,-,, ,,Lifi v i. November' ove r2( r blisoietil '''Sal Master Board okays $200 dues increase; golf course renovation goes to members eeting Tuesday,Oct. 19,2004, Resurfacing all greens with Champions Board votes to oa the Naples Heritage Master grass,an ultra dwarf Bermuda grass being Association Board of Trustees widely used in Southwest Florida(all Lely buy five-acr `r voted to accept the Finance courses,Bonita Bay courses,Naples land parcel ` Committee budget recommen- National,etc.). dations for fiscal 2005.The budget projects At the Sept.21,2004 revenue of$2,868,000,operating expenses Overhaul of irrigation system,replacing meeting of the Naples existing hardware with Toro controls and Heritage Trustees,the of$2,301,000 and$567,000 for reserves, irrigation heads. Board voted to authorize depreciation and capital expenditures.The President Phil Plessinger result is a$200 per year increase in Master Leveling of all tee bci es,enlarging of to pursue negotiations on Association dues,or$2,900 for each Naples selected tee boxes. - • an adjacent parcel of land Heritage residence.Some of the increased that recently came on the operational costs are in anticipation of a golf Extending cart paths(combination of market.The Club now has course renovation project which must be concrete and cochina)throughout. an agreement to acquire approximately 5 acres of approved by the membership. Enlarging existing practice area. land behind our fifth The Finance Committee budget recommen- a Renourishment of sand traps. green,accessible via dations also anticipate the completion of the Colonial Court.Plessinger purchase of five acres of adjacent land Contingency of$50,000. said the parcel is landlocked and,if behind the fifth green and accessible via Marlowe explained that the existing Tif possessed by another 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 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 per unit to cover related capital costs. ' surface and very strong root structure which Property.The Board of will last much longer.Champions is the only Trustees has no immediate Golf course renovation new turfgrass which can successfullybe plans for this land but g wanted to protect the 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 ning proposal that the membership voted rebuilding required for other ultra dwarf in the future.The$205,000 down in September.The golf course pro- grasses. required for the purchase posal that the Board is sending to the of this parcel will come The Board of Trustees unanimously ap- from reserve funds and membership totals $797,900 or approxi- proved the Green Committee proposal and will not require a special mately$1,000 per residence. agreed to send it to the membership.Due to assessment of the Green Committee Chairman Bill Marlowe be mailed in late October,ballots will be members. detailed the proposal for the Board of counted at a membership meeting called for Trustees at their October meeting.Some of that purpose on Tuesday,Nov.23,2004.If the estimates were generated for the approved,the golf course would be closed previous Clubhouse/golf course renovation at the end of April,2005 and would reopen proposal but were updated for the current in September. proposal.Highlights include: II GoodnerAngela From: greatsmiles4you@aol.com Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 2:13 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndrew; SaundersBurt; PennyTaylor@collier.gov.net; McDanielBill Subject: Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club Dear Commissioners, Earlier today, I e-mailed all of you my feelings regarding the proposed tennis courts for NHGCC. Not too swift on computers. Actually hate them. I HOPE you all received them. If not, I'm sure Bill McDaniel did. Please contact him for a copy if neccessary. Thomas & Lois Leonard 1 GoodnerAngela From: greatsmiles4you@aol.com Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 1:52 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: Re: Proposed tennis courts at Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club-VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016 001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/41 Original Message From: greatsmiles4you <greatsmiles4you@aol.com> To: BillMcDaniel <BillMcDaniel@Colliergov.net> Sent: Thu, Jan 5, 2017 1:35 pm Subject: Proposed tennis courts at Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club-VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016 001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/41 Dear Commissioner McDaniel, We are residents at 7681 Colonial Ct., Lot#4, in Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club. We are one of six families who reside on that street. You have received explanations of our concerns, including pictures and proposed plans for the tennis courts from Mr. Joe Huber and others, so no need to include them in this e-mail. As expressed by others, we reside on a small cul-de-sac with a very narrow road. Very private. This was the reason we all purchased these properties and paid more for this luxury. The last thing we want is to have that disturbed, for we enjoy our privacy and the safety that a closed road is safe for our children, and especially our grandchildren, to play, ride bikes etc..without the concern of traffic and intrusions. The proposed entrance to courts is directly across from my driveway. A definite safety issue for my family backing out of driveway and those entering the courts. We are also concerned, due to the limited parking, that when large tournaments are played, cars will be parked on street. A DEFINITE safety issue due to blocked view when leaving driveway. Also, due to lack of sidewalks, residents and tennis players MUST walk on the street. An accident waiting to happen!! Let us emphasize, we are NOT against the "campus expansion". On the contrary, we are 100% for it. Our only concern is the site for the tennis courts, as expressed above, and along with my fellow neighbor's concerns. Due to much research from Joe Huber and Walt Kulbacki, it has been discovered that there are at least two other areas where these courts could be built. Due diligence, in exploring these other areas, was not done by the planning committee, due to our research, contrary to what NHGCC told us. We understand that this is a contentious issue between Colonial Ct. residences and NHCGG. We are only 6 among 799 "doors". However, we are the ONLY ones affected by this development. All we ask is that NHGCC evaluate the other areas fully, before making a final decision, and leave Colonial Ct. as is, so we can continue to enjoy it as we have for a long time. These other areas will be presented at the the meeting on January 10, 2017. Thank you for reading/listening to our concerns, and we ask you to vote favorably on this issue. 1 Sincerely, Thomas & Lois Leonard 2 GoodnerAngela From: Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:15 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: FW: Naples Heritage Documents Attachments: CentralMailRoom@ccapgh.org_20161206_143141.pdf Dear Commissioner Solis, I am sending you several documents that were not included in my original message to you.The aerial view shows how the Colonial Court neighborhood is surrounded by preserve, conservation and wooded area.This makes our neighborhood unique.The overall Plan shows that no other recreational area are located within the single family residential neighborhood. Finally the document from Gina Green shows the alternative location for the tennis courts identified in their alternative site analysis that is located near the clubhouse and the existing tennis courts. I know I have sent a lot of material a follow-up phone call would be helpful. I look forward to talking with you. I will be in the town the morning of the 12th. Thanks you. 1 OFFSITE LOCATION#8 OFFSITE LOCATION#9 0 OFF-SITE LOCATION#7COOK PROPERTY 6. D D TAORMINA RESERVE RPUD .A , MPUD ( 4..... Y Y , m 2 ' = . . - » „ l''','4, +t i t * Ss � A* . . - � ' ' e+ �r� i, ' * ( +' s ` f. ti�,,,r t , I • I .�.. - 1 C .-. t ........... . I CT) 1 Q (XI o N I „� n t t'> t r ' , , .......... i g [ % 1 di w rM ma — IN �..I .. >�r •' n 4 ? 4 . . , s:♦tea ,bra . t ' # f. 4 ' 1 . i ' + ;. ' 17, = - ,, 1 - - ',. z 7. - ',#,,.. . . : --,,,,,i;„:: ,:,-i"- I, -, . „„,-- - it, ...;„I , .4--f -„v° , ,,100 , - kr, r, .✓ ,,� .. ,'" c , • t 2 •rV9ams�..r ._w. u Ig 1 iikt 't ftp -'_ - s4 E Q i ,conn rr:orcarr, F i•..,I .;i Y. ,.....40- '' 4 ifiv t. r ' --"-'1�. %11( ''' t tr<ssrnP Y[�4 Leh-. i - 1 t r`j a i r tttcE�� r:' .- ` . �/� illi,' Oz.,' •i_, O m - '' C .ii. 701 ":....'..,td e 1 Yu � � v , i • itil.,,,AipN i r,f l'...---- '''.. ..7..". a 'k n . ""1 01,,,,,.'','''-'',...i'::,:li,-1,J1's..'ctilc-t't-rt:::,.1''''I--?- Yi .,} i , `t- ,ria' •: .. S: v iEa `` sem i qq L a ` � y *'•' 4 ' to r rt fl1.Ca L4.t �6 ' wit gjj(yy(�; (y_r i9 ( }•I}}j� we ••^'»' `f it t .. '" . . 4'b,5 •� '''.1,,Ci r LI- t.t t.Li i.G� i le, .w...,.,•yyy�^tan ., ,} "4'f•y.' Vs- i ; m m Yr .i a '.'".;.--.,":.'-',"7::!'"1":" f . ems` - - k k s,4 9 +�. -. - br, 1 ' Yom. igi GoodnerAngela From: Walt<wkulbacki@msn.com> Sent: Monday, January 02, 2017 8:52 AM To: SolisAndrew Cc: Walt; Huber, Joe (huber@CCAPGH.org) Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/41 Attachments: Naples Heritage Plan Exhibit A.pdf; NAPLES HERITAGE PUDA CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN TENNIS CENTER final.pdf; Colonial Court from Naples Heritage Drive.jpg; Close up of proposed entrance tennis.jpg; Fleming Message.docx Importance: High Dear Commissioner Solis- I am forwarding you the below letter that I wrote with Joe Huber which supports my strong objection to relocating tennis courts to a single family residential area, where I am a full time resident, when other more suitable locations could have been selected. I solicit your rejection of this PUD Ordinance to incorporate them as a Recreational area at this location for the specific reasons outlined below and look forward to discussing with you on Monday. Thanking you for your support in this matter, Walter S. Kulbacki 7677 Colonial Court Dear Commissioner Solis- This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th.This proposed development(see attachment)is located adjacent to our home (Huber's=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court.These include,the Boissoneault's(lot 2), Case's(Lot 3). Leonard's (lot 4), Kulbacki's (lot 5) and Bruckerhoff's( lot 6). Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half-truths, and broken promises for further review . While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection,they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suited for the community with no adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court. I have attached material indicating the best of these site.The environmental engineers we have consulted believe this alternative site is viable and could be developed at a comparable cost. Looking at this matter on its face it would appear that this is simply an attempt to amend the PUD in order to create a recreational zone in the PUD and gain additional parking : however this is misleading,these matters are part of a project by Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club to erect a new fitness center, and administrative offices near the existing clubhouse restaurant, golf club and swimming pool. In order to accomplish this they seek to eliminate the 1 existing four tennis courts located in the club house area and relocate these and expand to six tennis courts adjacent to our property.Attached is a promotional brochure on the Project as well the proposed site plan. Colonial Court is composed of all single family homes (6)located on the only cul de sac in the single family community of Naples Heritage known as Cypress Point composed of 101 single family homes.There are no (RA)recreational zoned areas in the PUD and other than the homes located on the golf course there are no recreational facilities in Cypress Point The existing tennis courts are located near the existing club house which are nearly 2 miles from this proposed site All of the homes on Colonial Court are currently surrounded by preserve,conservation easements and woods. See pictures One of the misrepresentation made by the applicant initially was that this land was purchased for the purpose of developing a tennis center(initial testimony at Planning Commission);however the truth is that the land was purchased in 2004 due to a concern that the property would be developed and that such development could allow traffic from the development to use the roads in the PUD.(see attached) . The irony here is that they purchased it to prevent development, now they seek to do the very thing they attempted to prevent.While management contends that the property would eventually be used for a community purpose,the property could easily be left in a preserve condition and used to trade or exchange for other property currently in preserve as mentioned above. Another significant misrepresentation made during this process has been that the Army Corps of Engineers would not approve any of the alternative sites nor would they consider new property in a trade or exchange for existing preserve or conservation areas . We have learned that Naples Heritage 1)never made an application for an alternative site with the Army Corps of Engineers2) Published the alternative analysis report(April 2016) after the decision and vote on the overall campus improvement plan by the community(March 2016) 3)the Army Corps of Engineers would consider a trade of property if appropriate. (see attached email from Army Corps of Engineers0. Our objections are well documented in the file on this matter These objection include: 1) Negative Impact on the Residential Environment—Approving these matters would completely change the peaceful enjoyment of our homes as well as destroying an essential preserve and conservation area that should be maintained. Owners paid a premium for their lots in this neighborhood properties and were told that the conservation and preserve areas would be protected.Vacation of the conservation is contrary to this representation.Approval of these changes will negatively impact property values of the residents on Colonial Court making them less desirable . 2) Safety and Traffic Flow- Development of his site as a Tennis Center would greatly increase traffic, and create a safety hazard not only for the residents of Colonial Court but for those that use Colonial Court for walking,jogging and bike riding.There are no sidewalks on Colonial Court.The road network was not designed for this level of traffic nor was it designed as a feeder road.There will be two intersection within 75 feet.The tennis community holds competition with other clubs several times a year.This will inevitably lead to increase traffic and inadequate parking. Having the tennis courts located near the clubhouse where there is adequate parking and designed road network to handle this type of traffic flow would be a better alternative. 3) Buffer Inadequacy. While the buffer has been increased since our objections have been raised, they will be inadequate to prevent noise,visibility and disruption cause by locating the tennis center at this site.The entrance is off Colonial Court near residents driveway entrance. Providing a landscape buffer fails to address the end result of permanently altering the character of the neighborhood. 4) Failure to Make a Good Faith Effort for Alternative sites-As pointed out above the whole premises of this being the only suitable site is false. Management and the Board have failed to pursue a solution that would better serve the entire community without negatively impacting the residents of Colonial Court. No application was ever 2 made for these alternatives even though their own report shows alternatives existed. Alternatives we believe are better suited and cost effective for the entire community 5) Bird and Wildlife Impact-All the land to the south, east and west of the residences on Colonial Court is currently either wooded, conservation or preserve. Residents commonly see birds, deer, squirrels, raccoons and occasionally panthers.The development of this site as a recreation with the attendant noise and traffic will negatively impact the environment for this wildlife. 6) Topographical Concerns including Water Flow- Due to the low level and topographical contour of the land, water flow, containment and sloop of the land considerable fill be required this could negatively impact drainage and create the potential for standing water. 7) Letter of Objection-All of the adjacent property owners have filed objection to the Vacation of the Conservation easement separating Colonial Court form the site. The Executive Summary by the staff list Criteria for considering PUD Amendments. A number of these are relevant in regards to this matter.They include the following: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land , surrounding areas,traffic and access, drainage,sewer, water, and other utilities. Inconsistent with current use 2. The internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropriate 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?Yes . No other RA in PUD 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses....Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Likely 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?Yes 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood...?Yes 10. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use? Other sites available We believe that any one of these considerations should be sufficient to not approve the above matters. In our view there are more suitable alternative locations to locate the Tennis center.There has not has not been a good faith effort to pursue an alternative location for these courts.The residents of Colonial Court are not objecting to the Campus Improvement Plan merely the location of the tennis center for the reasons set forth above. While much of the applicants arguments for this location has focused on environmental consideration, they have not taken into consideration the environment of the residents of Colonial Court. We believe and have submitted for the record that the alternative site can be used with little or no additional impact on the environment. 3 The Naples Heritage Community approved a Plan that included a new fitness center, administrative offices, enhanced club house and swimming pool as well as the tennis courts. Disapproval by the Board would not jeopardize these plans rather it would require Naples Heritage to choose another location for these tennis courts, one or more we recently learned were identified. This alternative site would be more convenient, less intrusive, safer, and less controversial that the proposed application and allow the residents of Colonial Court to continue to enjoy their resident in the manner they have become accustomed..There is no public benefit to approving the amendments to the PUD or vacating these easements but rather an adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent properties owners. This matter is being considered by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the South Florida Water Management District We ask that you do not approve the amendments to PUD and refuse to vacate the easements listed above or in the alternative postpone the decision until such time as these agencies approve the applications. I will follow up by phone to discuss the points raised herein. Thanks you for your consideration. 4 GoodnerAngela From: Bad Boissonneault <bart.boissonneault@sealedair.com> Sent: Monday, January 02, 2017 8:49 AM To: SolisAndrew Subject: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/4 Dear Commissioner Solis I am forwarding the attached email that Mr Joe Huber reviewed and discussed with me which supports my objection to relocating tennis courts to Colonial Court in the Naples Heritage Complex,when other more suitable locations could have been selected. I solicit your rejection of this PUD Ordinance to incorporate them as a Recreational area at this locations for the specific reasons outlined below. THank you for your consideration and support in this matter. Kind Regards Bart Boissonneault 7689 Colonial Court. Referenced Letter Below: Dear Commissioner Taylor- This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters 1 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. 1 Colonial Court is composed of all single family homes(6)located on the only cul de sac in the single family community of Naples Heritage known as Cypress Point composed of 101 single family homes. There are no(RA)recreational zoned areas in the PUD and other than the homes located on the golf course there are no recreational facilities in Cypress Point The existing tennis courts are located near the existing club house which are nearly 2 miles from this proposed site All of the homes on Colonial Court are currently surrounded by preserve,conservation easements and woods. See pictures One of the misrepresentation made by the applicant initially was that this land was purchased for the purpose of developing a tennis center(initial testimony at Planning Commission) ;however the truth is that the land was purchased in 2004 due to a concern that the property would be developed and that such development could allow traffic from the development to use the roads in the PUD.(see attached) . The irony here is that they purchased it to prevent development,now they seek to do the very thing they attempted to prevent.While management contends that the property would eventually be used for a community purpose,the property could easily be left in a preserve condition and used to trade or exchange for other property currently in preserve as mentioned above. Another significant misrepresentation made during this process has been that the Army Corps of Engineers would not approve any of the alternative sites nor would they consider new property in a trade or exchange for existing preserve or conservation areas . We have learned that Naples Heritage 1)never made an application for an alternative site with the Army Corps of Engineers2) Published the alternative analysis report(April 2016)after the decision and vote on the overall campus improvement plan by the community(March 2016)3)the Army Corps of Engineers would consider a trade of property if appropriate. (see attached email from Army Corps of Engineers0. Our objections are well documented in the file on this matter These objection include: 1) Negative Impact on the Residential Environment—Approving these matters would completely change the peaceful enjoyment of our homes as well as destroying an essential preserve and conservation area that should be maintained. Owners paid a premium for their lots in this neighborhood properties and were told that the conservation and preserve areas would be protected.Vacation of the conservation is contrary to this representation. Approval of these changes will negatively impact property values of the residents on Colonial Court making them less desirable . 2) Safety and Traffic Flow- Development of his site as a Tennis Center would greatly increase traffic, and create a safety hazard not only for the residents of Colonial Court but for those that use Colonial Court for walking,jogging and bike riding.There are no sidewalks on Colonial Court. The road network was not designed for this level of traffic nor was it designed as a feeder road. There will be two intersection within 75 feet.The tennis community holds competition with other clubs several times a year.This will inevitably lead to increase traffic and inadequate parking. Having the tennis courts located near the clubhouse where there is adequate parking and designed road network to handle this type of traffic flow would be a better alternative. 3) Buffer Inadequacy. While the buffer has been increased since our objections have been raised, they will be inadequate to prevent noise ,visibility and disruption cause by locating the tennis center at this site.The entrance is off Colonial Court near residents driveway entrance. Providing a landscape buffer fails to address the end result of permanently altering the character of the neighborhood. 4) Failure to Make a Good Faith Effort for Alternative sites-As pointed out above the whole premises of this being the only suitable site is false. Management and the Board have failed to pursue a solution that would better serve the entire community without negatively impacting the residents of Colonial Court. No application was ever 2 made for these alternatives even though their own report shows alternatives existed. Alternatives we believe are better suited and cost effective for the entire community 5) Bird and Wildlife Impact-All the land to the south, east and west of the residences on Colonial Court is currently either wooded, conservation or preserve. Residents commonly see birds, deer, squirrels, raccoons and occasionally panthers.The development of this site as a recreation with the attendant noise and traffic will negatively impact the environment for this wildlife. 6) Topographical Concerns including Water Flow- Due to the low level and topographical contour of the land, water flow, containment and sloop of the land considerable fill be required this could negatively impact drainage and create the potential for standing water. 7) Letter of Objection-All of the adjacent property owners have filed objection to the Vacation of the Conservation easement separating Colonial Court form the site. The Executive Summary by the staff list Criteria for considering PUD Amendments. A number of these are relevant in regards to this matter. They include the following: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land , surrounding areas,traffic and access, drainage,sewer, water,and other utilities. Inconsistent with current use 2. The internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses,which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropriate 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?Yes . No other RA in PUD 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses....Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Likely 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?Yes 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood...?Yes 10. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use? Other sites available We believe that any one of these considerations should be sufficient to not approve the above matters. 3 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. Bart Boissonneault Vice President Supply Chain-North America x 100 Rodgers Bridge Road P: 864-433-3149 Duncan, South Carolina 29334 C:413-537-9229 Bart.Boissonneault(a�sealedair.com 4 GoodnerAngela From: Leon Case <leoncase36@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 4:13 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: Fwd: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/2004/41 Attachments: Naples Heritage Plan Exhibit A.pdf; ATT00001.htm; NAPLES HERITAGE PUDA CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN TENNIS CENTER final.pdf; ATT00002.htm; Colonial Court from Naples Heritage Drive.jpg; ATT00003.htm; Close up of proposed entrance tennis.jpg; ATT00004.htm; NHGCC News of Purchase 5+ acre parcel Nov 2004.pdf; ATT00005.htm; Fleming Message.docx; ATT00006.htm Importance: High Dear Commissioner Solis, We are residents residing at 7685 Colonial Court Lot#3. We totally support the opposition to the tennis court location. We fully agree with Joe Huber's statements in the attached letter. We believe there are much better choices available for this project near the Clubhouse and other amenities, It makes no sense to locate it on a small residential court with six houses. We are also concerned with safety issues that may arise. There will be 6 tennis courts and parking for 20 cars. People may find a need to park on our short, narrow street with no sidewalks. One car would barely have room to get by and it would be difficult for us to exit our drive- way. It would be difficult for service trucks to get down our street. Our main concern, though, is blocking emergency vehicles such as police, fire trucks and 911 responders! Residents have always used our street for walks and riding bikes as it is not busy and very safe. We foresee an accident waiting to happen! Sincerely, Leon and Barbara Case Dear Commissioner Solis, This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th.This proposed development (see attachment)is located adjacent to our home (Huber's=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court.These include,the Boissoneault's(lot 2), Case's (Lot 3). Leonard's (lot 4), Kulbacki's(lot 5) and Bruckerhoff's( lot 6).Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half-truths, and broken promises for further review . While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection,they 1 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. 2 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: 3 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. 4 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. 5 GoodnerAngela From: Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 6:10 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: Additional Documents Attachments: Alternatives Analysis April 2016.pdf; 2016 0103 NAPLES HERITAGE EVALhighlighted.pdf; Reso 2013-166 (vacations).pdf; Resolution 2016-243.pdf; Legal Considerations on Amending PUD.docx Dear Commissioner Solis, We appreciate you taking the time to meet with our group and hear our concerns. I have attached the Alternative Analysis which was submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers. Please note that this was prepared April of 2016 a month after the vote by the community. I have also attached Evaluation of this Analysis from Mike Ramsey about which we spoke.( I highlighted relevant portions)This evaluation points out the many flaws and deficiencies in the analysis and point out that site 10 and 13 were better and more practical choices with no negative impact on residents of Colonial Court or the environment Joe Schmidt identified many of these same concerns at the second Planning Commission meeting. At your suggestion I reviewed the PUD documents and their provisions.There are no provision in the document regarding the need for resident approval to amend the PUD .The document simply states changes can be made as provided in Article 2, Division 2.7 of the Collier County Land Development Code.The Amendment proposed was not voted on by the residents. At our meeting you commented that this land could be developed for other residential use. In our view this would be preferable to having tennis courts. One has to ask if this land was not available for tennis courts what would they have done? They would have pursued another solution such as site 10 or 13.. Naples Heritage has an option that Quail West did not have.They have approximately 8 acres that could be exchanged for 2 acres of conservation land to build the Tennis Courts.A choice which would not negatively impact the Colonial Court Residents and the environment, and one that the Army Corps of Engineers would consider. I have attached an Evaluation Report prepared by Dave Ramsey Inc. at our request which shows the many deficiencies and in the Alternatives Analysis report done by Naples Heritage for the Army Corps of Engineers. I chose to highlight some of the evaluation.This report is in the record : however I have included this analysis with the attachment . In short this report concludes that site 10 (southeast of the clubhouse parking lot)and site 13 (adjacent to the golf driving range also near clubhouse) are more practical and environmental acceptable locations for the tennis courts. Finally I have attached an opinion letter prepared by Jeff Wright of the firm Goede,Adamczyk DeBoest&Cross regarding Resolution2013-166 concluding that the failure to obtain a letter of"no Objection" from any adjacent property owner renders the vacation application " null and void".(ordinance is also attached) Finally I have attached outlined some of the legal standards with comments as to why the amendment of the PUD as requested and other matter should be denied.Again Thank you for your consideration.Should you have any question, please feel free to call me at 412-680-0509. I will see you on Tuesday. 1 NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB TENNIS FACILITY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Sections 10 and 11, Township 51 South, Range 26 East Collier County, Florida April 2016 Prepared for Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club 8150 Heritage Club Way Naples, FL 34112 Prepared by W. Dexter Bender & Associates, Inc. 4470 Camino Real Way, Suite 101 Fort Myers, FL 33966 (239) 334-3680 I. Introduction The Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club (Naples Heritage) community is built on 558± acres in East Naples with entrances on Davis Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. The 558± acres include 799 residential units as well as an 18-hole golf course, a clubhouse, four swimming pools, six tennis courts, a bocce ball court, and a fitness center. Approximately 250 acres of native preserves make Naples Heritage one of the lowest density developments of its type in Collier County. This document contains the alternatives analysis required in 40 C.F.R. Section 230.10 ("Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines"). The Applicant has provided this alternatives analysis based on the Basic and Overall Project Purposes established by the Corps in their April 8, 2016 Public Notice. This provides the basis for the conclusion that, according to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, no practicable alternative exists to the Project site which would satisfy the overall project purpose that has less adverse environmental impact and was available and capable of being acquired and developed, taking into consideration costs, existing technology, and logistics. II. Alternatives Analysis Requirement The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines require the Applicant to conduct an alternatives analysis for the proposed discharge to "waters of the United States". According to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, a discharge of dredged or fill material will be allowed if there is no "practicable alternative"to the proposed discharge. 40 C.F.R. §230.10(a). A"practicable alternative" is defined as an alternative site that is available and capable of being developed "after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes." 40 C.F.R. Section 230.10(a)(2). Accordingly, the applicant is only required to evaluate alternatives that are reasonable in terms of the overall scope and costs of the proposed project. RGL 93-02 § 3(b). According to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, an alternative is not practicable if it is "... unreasonably expensive to the applicant, ...". 45 F.R. 85336, 85343. III. Basic Project Purpose The Applicant's Basic Project Purpose pursuant to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines is to construct a recreational tennis facility. Because the Project Purpose is non-water dependent, a more detailed Overall Project Purpose is provided below. IV. Overall Project Purpose The Applicant's Overall Project Purpose is to construct a recreational tennis facility with associated parking areas, landscaping and a stormwater system, to increase parking for the clubhouse within a private golf and country club community in Collier County. The geographical extent of the Applicant's Overall Project Purpose is based on the location of the Applicant's existing clubhouse. 1 V. Project Need When the community was planned in 1996, the Collier County Land Development Code dictated that only 185 parking spaces were required at the clubhouse. Since then, the demographics of the residents has changed increasing the activity and usage of the club's facilities. The current parking space is inadequate for year round residents. The problems caused by the lack of parking are magnified during "season" and when Naples Heritage hosts events open to its members and their guests. The lack of parking near the clubhouse often leads to overflow parking along nearby roadways and other areas. This creates an unsafe condition for residents and complicates access for emergency vehicles. Therefore, in order to provide for public safety and welfare there is a need for the current parking facilities to be expanded to approximately 300 spaces for use by residents, guests, and staff. VI. Alternative Project Sites Analysis The following summarizes the process undertaken by the Applicant to identify alternative sites in the area which would be both available and capable of being used as additional parking area consistent with the Overall Project Purpose and to evaluate whether any of the sites constitute a practicable alternative as defined in 40 C.F.R. Section 230.10(a). Screening Process The Applicant has used a screening process to focus the evaluation of potentially practicable alternatives sites. A single screening factor was identified. Potential sites that did not pass this factor are clearly unreasonable and were eliminated from further consideration. This factors is: Located within or contiguous with the existing proiect boundaries In order for a site to be of potential use for additional clubhouse parking the site must either be located within the 558± acre project or contiguous with the project boundary. In order for an area to serve as additional parking for the clubhouse the parking lot must be located reasonably close to the existing clubhouse facility. Potential sites located at a distance from the clubhouse that would therefore require a shuttle between the parking lot and the clubhouse would not be used by Naples Heritage residents, guests, or staff. Practicability Analysis Nine parcels immediately adjacent to Naples Heritage and seven locations within Naples Heritage that met the screening factor was further evaluated for practicability in terms of availability, cost, and logistics. These criteria are discussed below. Availability Available for Acquisition In order for a property to be acquired for a project that would satisfy the Overall Project Purpose, the land must have been reasonably available 2 from a willing seller. Cost Estimated Cost The cost of constructing the additional parking must be reasonable and affordable for the residents within the community. Logistics Compatibility The parking facility must be compatible with the remaining portions of the Naples Heritage. This includes consideration of whether the current functions of a proposed site (such as an existing lake, conservation area, or golf course hole) could be re-established elsewhere on-site. A potential site that would eliminate a vital current function that could not be replaced elsewhere is not practicable. A discussion of the practicability of the nine sites located immediately adjacent to the Naples Heritage project boundary is provided below. Site 1. Cedar Hammock Golf& Country Club The lands within this property that are immediately northeast of Naples Heritage are either developed golf course holes, residential development, or dedicated conservation areas (Figure 1). None of these areas are available for purchase. If these lands were available, the cost of the land would be excessive. The use of a site within the developed portion of Cedar Hammock Golf & Country Club would negatively impact either the overall golf course or stormwater management system. The use of an undeveloped portion of Cedar Hammock Golf & Country Club would negatively impact wetlands within conservation easements. In addition, access from Naples Heritage to these lands would impact golf holes or wetlands that are already encumbered by a conservation easement within Naples Heritage. Based on the criteria above a site within Cedar Hammock Golf & Country Club is not a practicable site (Table 1). Table 1. Site 1 Practicabili Available for No. It is highly unlikely that the current owners N:< 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. Compatibility'? No. Access to the site would require golf course, e vee kev 42 V lake, and wetland impacts. . *HOF No3 E 0 Ste OU -.NI ofV_a H a Zdw t a g N I q�t OW Q I d d d __N "j�°�i Cr) CA o a E ��4h k o o � w~�y w a z a 0t, q.ok' 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 ttt I,7741:h4' ' 111 tt,C qs CO tb 03- I1 0 Qj L. • co :" I!i# '''':1' ';74 4-Itij.: : " r • 1 3 , ,,,,,,, , , ,.„..i, ��JJJ ,,..„ ,.. . ,.,. , — . ,-..--,-. , ,,„ i z vz s� .er xi 1 ,,. 0 i ,..ilit.pm, T-,.L2— k 4. 0 `r+ f t o Q1 I hI O vJ 4 a Zy a Ei 4f 4-2 � � ° i . 1 a ti�*, ,...'4 C.-1 : o w d ,s w #` i _ co 3-<'? - $ . LCI, f o,'' L .. " 4e z a � � m x o.a�� L -.E.9 N 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 Practicabili A• vailable 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 C• onstruction Costs? excessively high. No. Access to the site would require golf course, Compatibility? lake, or wetland impacts (within existing conservation easements). :, . . « ,: No Site 3. Naples Club Estates The lands within this property that are immediately southeast of Naples Heritage are dedicated conservation areas (Figure 1). None of these areas are available for purchase. If these lands were available, the cost of the land would be excessive. The use of the undeveloped portion of Naples Club Estates would negatively wetlands within conservation easements. In addition, access from Naples Heritage to these lands would impact existing residential development or wetlands that are already encumbered by a conservation easement within Naples Heritage. Based on the criteria above a site within Naples Club Estates is not a practicable site (Table 3). Table 3. Site 3 Practicability 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 C• onstruction Costs? excessively high. No. Access to the site would require existing Compatibility? development and wetland impacts (within existing � conservation easement). 444P4'14::rP,is . $. No Nom: 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 Practicabili Available for No. It is highly unlikely that the County would Acquisition? consider sale of a portion of their mitis ation 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 41.10 «3fi 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 for Yes. Naples Heritage could potentially purchase a ri 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 t sa,a -- Available for Yes. Naples Heritage was able to purchase the Acquisition? property for a reasonable cost. Purchase and Yes. The cost of the land was reasonable and the Ex adjacent road/utilities reduces future development Construction Costs? costs. Yes. The tennis facility located at the clubhouse Compatibility? can be relocated to this parcel allowing additional parking at the clubhouse. Yes Site 7. Vacant Land Owned by Private Land Owners There are six parcels under separate ownerships that lie along the southwest and west property lines of Naples Heritage (Figure 1). Several have been developed while others are vacant. These lands could potentially be purchased but a price acceptable to the sellers is not known. These parcels have access from Sandy Lane and Polly Avenue but are not adjacent to any roads within Naples Heritage. Obtaining access to these parcels from Naples Heritage would require extending a road and utilities through existing development features resulting in substantial expense. In addition, the access road would impact a stormwater lake, a golf course hole, and potentially existing single family homes. Based on the criteria above a site within one or more of these parcels is not a practicable site (Table 7). Table 7. Site 7 Practicability • 14Available for Yes. Naples Heritage could potentially purchase s Acquisition? one or more of these properties. - No. The cost of the access road/utilities and Purchase and reconfiguration of lakes and golf holes would be Construction Costs? excessively high. ; No. Access to the site would require impacts to a e 4., ,E Compatibility? stormwater lake, a golf course hole, and potentially existing single family homes. ,::, 4 ' „eTeiSikt 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? •ortion of this •ro•ert . Purchase and No. The cost of the access road/utilities and « `F reconfiguration of a lake and home would be Construction Costs? excessive) hi•h. No. Access to the site would require impacts to a « « Compatibility? stormwater lake and an existin• sin•le 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 Available for No. It is highly unlikely that the current owners Acquisition? would consider sale of a portion of their project. Purchase and No. The cost of the land, if available, would be Construction Costs? excessively high. No. Access to the site would require existing lake -« � Compatibility? and wetland impacts (within existing conservation easement). No A discussion of the practicability of the seven sites located within the Naples Heritage project boundary is provided below. 8 Site 10. West of Existing Parking Lot This option expands a new parking area into the existing conservation area which lies to the west of the existing clubhouse parking area (Figure 1). This area is under the ownership of Naples Heritage. There are no land acquisition costs for this option. The costs of expanding the parking lot would be minimal because there is no need to extend utilities or an access road. The expanded parking area would be compatible with the existing clubhouse facility. However, this area is mitigation (within a conservation easement) for previously authorized wetland impacts and therefore the loss of that mitigation would need be to compensated for at another location. Based on the criteria above expanding the parking lot to the west is a practicable site (Table 10). Table 10. Site 10 Practicabilit Available for Yes. The applicant owns the property. Acquisition? Purchase and Yes. The cost of expanding the parking lot to the Construction Costs? west is reasonable. 5 P2c Compatibility? Yes. The wetland function would need to be re•laced elsewhere. €. ce Yes Site 11. Southeast of Existing Parking Lot This option expands a new parking area into existing developed areas located southeast of the existing parking lot(Figure 1). This area is under the ownership of Naples Heritage. There are no land acquisition costs for this option. However, the use of this area would impact portions of a stormwater lake, a golf hole, and a putting green that would require significant expense to relocate. In order to expand the existing parking area to this area a portion of golf hole 10 would need to be converted to parking. The tees for this hole cannot be moved to the east (to allow for the parking) without substantially reducing the length of that hole and thereby impacting the overall course. Signature golf courses are required to have a minimum total yardage that is distributed between a certain number of par three, four, and five golf holes. Filling a portion of the stormwater lake is problematic because the area is needed to meet the State's water quality/quantity standards. This would reduce the water management system runoff storage and water quality volume. The proposed site would also require that an important part of the golf course, the practice putting green, be removed. Based on the criteria above expanding the parking lot to the east is not a practicable site (Table 11). Table 11. Site 11 Practicabilit � t ° .8; Available for Acquisition? Yes. The applicant owns the property. No. The cost of reconfiguring the golf course, Purchase and stormwater lake, and putting green would be Construction Costs? excessively high. 9 No. The impacts would significantly impact the golf Compatibility? course and water management system that could not be re•laced elsewhere. No Site 12. Parking Garage This option is to construct a multi-story parking garage within the footprint of the existing at grade parking lot at the clubhouse (Figure 1). This area is under the ownership of Naples Heritage. There are no land acquisition costs for this option. A multi-story parking garage built over the existing parking lot would require 360± square feet for each parking space to provide for ramps, stairwells, and elevators. The cost is estimated to be approximately $4.5 million to build (i.e. $15,000 per parking space) and would require additional yearly costs to operate and maintain. It would be out of scale with all other buildings in the community where both residential and amenity structures are intentionally low profile to emphasize the natural surroundings. The clubhouse would be shut down during the parking garage construction and the normal operation of the golf course would be disrupted for an extended period of time. Based on the criteria above building a parking garage is not a practicable site (Table 12). Table 12. Site 12 Practicabilit 1,274, 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 excessive) hi.h. No. The garage would not be compatible with Compatibility? architectural theme of the overall development and would impact use of the clubhouse and golf course durin• construction. • No Site 13. East of Naples Heritage Drive This option expands a new parking area into the existing tennis court complex of the clubhouse parcel. In order to achieve this option, a new tennis complex would need to be constructed elsewhere on the site. Under this option the tennis courts would be relocated to wetlands within a dedicated conservation easement located east of Naples Heritage Drive and west of the driving range (Figure 1). Both areas are under the ownership of Naples Heritage and there are no land acquisition costs for this option. The expanded tennis courts would be compatible with the existing driving range. However, this area is mitigation (within a conservation easement)for previously authorized wetland impacts and therefore the loss of that mitigation would need be to compensated for at another location. Based on the criteria above expanding the parking by moving the tennis court to this location is a practicable site (Table 13). 10 Table 13. Site 13 Practicabilit ., 4 r, tom;c, - < Available for Yes. The applicant owns the property. Ac•uisition? Purchase and Yes. The cost of relocating the tennis courts is 144-tifZlae-i 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 Practicabili - ' `°' Available for Acquisition? Yes. The applicant owns the property. %. 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 Yes. The applicant owns the property. Ac•uisition? Purchase and No. The cost of relocating the maintenance facility Construction Costs? to a nearb area would be excessive) hush. Compatibility? No. The relocated courts would impact the golf course and the buffer alone Collier Boulevard. No Site 16. Southern Links Pool Area This option expands parking into the existing tennis court complex of the clubhouse parcel and relocates the tennis court to existing Southern Links pool and pickle ball courts (Figure 1). Both areas are under the ownership of Naples Heritage and there are no land acquisition costs for this option. The current pool serves primarily the residents of the adjacent Arbor Lakes neighborhood of Naples Heritage. The pickle ball courts are the only such courts within Naples Heritage. Removing these facilities to relocate the clubhouse tennis courts would be opposed by those residents and would therefore not be supported by the general Naples Heritage membership. Based on the criteria above expanding the parking by moving the tennis court to this location is not a practicable site (Table 16). Table 16. Site 16 Practicabilit Available for Yes. The applicant owns the property. Acquisition? Purchase and No. The cost of relocating the swimming pool to a Construction Costs? nearby area would be excessivel his h. No. The residents will not support the removal of Compatibility? the current pool and pickle ball courts at this location. E No Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative Analysis Parcels that were determined to be practicable were further evaluated to determine which alternate site was LEPDA in terms of loss of wetland function and impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered species. These criteria are discussed below. Loss of Wetland Function The extent of WOTUS was estimated for each potential practicable alternative site based on a review of publicly available information such as soils maps and photo interpretation of recent color aerial photography. A "desk top" functional assessment of each WOTUS type was conducted using the UMAM to estimate its ecological value. The UMAM scores were 12 then applied to a conceptual site plan to estimate the functional loss associated with a reasonable site specific plan. For the purposes of this analysis a reasonable site plan is defined as a project design that creates either 110± parking spaces or six tennis courts with associated parking in which wetland impact reduction results in the development footprint focused primarily in uplands and the unavoidable impacts are focused in lower functional value WOTUS to the extent practicable. Impacts to Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species Sites were evaluated for presence of habitat for federally listed species based on a review of publicly available information such as Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) listed species GIS database and site inspections. The impacts to federally listed species by a reasonable site specific conceptual plan was then qualitatively evaluated. The practicability analysis identified three properties (Sites 6, 10, and 13) that could feasibly achieve the overall project purpose considering availability, logistics, and cost. These three sites were further evaluated to determine which alternate site was the LEPDA using the two criteria described above. In order to compare the three sites objectively a site plan was prepared for each site. UMAM was used to estimate the functional loss associated with the proposed wetland impacts. The site plans and UMAM calculations for each site are presented in Appendix A. Each site is described below. Site 6. Vacant Land Owned by Naples Heritage This parcel is 5.21± acres in size. It consists of 1.77± acres of uplands and 3.44± acres of wetlands. Both the uplands and wetlands have varying densities of exotics (Figure 2). The Protected Species Assessment submitted as part of the permit application provides a detailed description of the habitats on-site. The development program for this property consists of relocating tennis courts and associated parking spaces from the clubhouse area to the northern portion of the site. A stormwater treatment area is also proposed in this area. The proposed site plan would impact 2.07± acres of wetlands resulting in a functional loss of 0.89± UMAM credits. The property is located within a wood stork (Myrcteria americana) core foraging area. It is anticipated that the wetland mitigation program would provide sufficient forage fish biomass to off-set impacts to wood stork foraging. The property is also within the red- cockaded woodpecker(Picoides borealis) (RCW) consultation area and Florida bonneted bat(Eumpos floridanus) consultation area. No potential nesting or roost cavities for these species have been observed within or adjacent to the proposed development footprint. Therefore, the project's site plan is not likely to adversely affect federally listed species. Site 10. West of Existing Parking Lot This area, located immediately west of the existing clubhouse parking lot, is a bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) dominated wetland (Figure 3). Scattered slash pine (Pinus elliottii), dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) are also present. 13 0770/k 9 7O 50S Naples Heritage Tennis Facility RANGE 26E 0 100 200 SCALE .*: 625E2 +:44.Mr® .r/. m.,,,,,:d/L , 4 ,� ' ►� \ /// Wetland Fill (1.52 ac.) . Ar Aor A, AA a /,,i/i/ W; •�•�•�•�pp�Z�� Secondary Wetland Impacts(0.55 ac.) y 'IIIIIII Impacts to Existing Upland Preserve ,jjj, Area(0.25 ac.) t i •.�\ 619 WET-1S i-4L /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 Figure 2 Site 6 LEPDA Analysis W. DEXTER BENDER & ASS O CIA TES, INC. Site Plan IsNTYRONAfANTAL et AMARINE CONSULTING FORT 1112' S 239-334-3680 14 S,ECTIOr1k 3 TOWAGNP s0 s RAtI 26 Naples Heritage Tennis Facility E 11 0 100 200 4, W W W 4, W- �` SCALE FEET Ty W W W W W W W /t4s �' � � W W W .. 4. /'WW �i� w, Extin Ennis CaurtsJ' W W � - xsExisting Proposed Parkn "Parking W W W W A y W W �_ W W W � � e' W W W \S + W W * W. r . W W W W W'. .: W W W W W W W W W W W W W W * W W 4, W W W W .....,.,. d' W W W W Existing Preserve W W W j/// Wetland Fill (1.25 ac.) Notes: PERMIT USE ONLYNSTRUCTION 1. Property boundary and surveyed wetland line provided by NOT FOR CO McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. March 1a, 2016 10:10:33 a.m. 2. Site plan provided by Gina R. Green, P.A. Drawing: NH67FlGURES2-7.DWG f W. DEXTER BENDER ( F,gure 3. Proposed Site 10 Plan & ASS OA CIA TES, INC. 4(4LENYIRONJ!!s'NTAL c@ �G4RIN�' CONSULTING _ FORT M�YAWS 239-334-3680 15 F 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 S CT1�01# 3 rower: 50 s Nap/es Heritage 26 E W W W 4. 200R FW W W W WTennis Facility100W W W W W W 0W FE /Y W W SCALE,/e/ ;,►//,/ /! �ice .�7 tow*, drAri,10 to 41 Proposed Tennis Courts ` ,1".'v/er . .f W W W W r W W W W W W * W v-, Proposed king * * * Existing * W Parking-, .. — I * * W L W W 4' W W W W Existing Preserve W W W W Wetland Fill (3.02 ac.) V * * .4. W W - `jr` ....._. W W W W W W W - W W W ..._.... W W W Notes: PL'RAl/P USE ONLY 1. Property boundary and surveyed wetland line provided by NOT FDR CONSTRUCTION McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. March 14, 2016 10:10:33 a.m. 2. Site plan provided by Gina R. Green, P.A. Drawing: NHGIFlGURES2-7.DWG W. DEXTER BENDER Figure 4. Proposed Site 13 plan ASSOCIATES, INC. 4(L)IsNV!RONMA'NTAL c@• li4RINE CONSULTING 4 FORT A(YL'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 LE 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 9ECT10Ak 9 TOWNSHP:: 50 s Naples Heritage Tennis Facility RANGE: 26 E it 0 100 200 SCALE FEET - ` d'7 ri 625E2 ii�i�ii��•i�� a , •••••••••&N � ..•..:..i•i•i. /•••••:44444*PA .� �- s vss,+iii►A 0 ® ��i ®! Wetland Fill(3.00 ac.) SET-INN... �� PI ' ".4.4.4.;V Secondary Wetland Impacts (0.44 ac.) ►® IIIIIII Impacts to Existing Upland Preserve e--_---,,„–, )1 A ,# , Area (0.25 ac.) — WET1S ; 7 19 ,..A.0-, : _ 4 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: NHG1FlGURES2-7.DWG + W. DEXTER BENDER Figure 5 Proposed Site Plan 1 ASSO CIA TES, INC. (4 AN!?RONJIANTAL e@� d(ARINE CONSULTING ��_,_ FORT MYERS 239-334-3680 19 1 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 C7701# 9 Tower:: 50 s Naples Heritage Tennis Facility R NCE 26E 0 100 200 SCALE FEET _ •• 625E2 -.•�❖;•.. ••.•.•.•<.•.•.•.•,0 >' ;j� /// Wetland Fill (1.84 ac.) : _ N; _ NAVA Vii ni / �A __ K.:444444 Secondary Wetland Impacts (0.33 ac.) 14A IIIIIII Impacts to Existing Upland Preserve , ,� Area(0.25 ac.) I i--P 4! I : :K:iti:�: :::;:::: Upland Buffer(0.06 ac.) .'44... -- -/ � .` WET=1'S fi19. 1 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: NHG1FlGURES2-7.DWG W. DEXTER BENDER Figure 6. Proposed Site Plan 2 ASSOCIATES, INC. (�1 ENat �1IARIN�' CONSULTING' \�_`_ FORT JIYE'RS ,239-334-3680 - 21 r C7 # 9 TOW so s Naples Heritage Tennis Facility RANGE: 26 E 0 100 200 SCALE .....----.7 �•:•�•�• 625E2 :444O�' ;t1 • ••♦ ••••••♦ ••• 414 • , // ; Wetland Fill (1.52 ac.) Inti :T i it 4 4 ` VMMOM ❖;-•;: Secondary Wetland Impacts(0.55 ac.) MI,WImpacts to Existing Upland Preserve e.-.v., Area (0.25 ac.) ii:iifi`i" = ` " Upland Buffer(0.10 ac.) WET-1S L i—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 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: NHG1FlGURES2-7.DWG W. DEXTER BENDER ( Figure 7 Proposed Site Plan SR 'eIMA�E \ _OMNTCONSULTING' ` _ FORT MYERS 239-334-3680 22 Appendix A Site Plans and UMAM Analysis 23 Naples Heritage Tennis Facility Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method Matrix (March 18, 2016) Site 6 Wetland Impacts UMAM Scores Location Water Community Polygon# FLUCCS w/o with w/o with w/o with Delta Acres FL WET-1N 619 4 0 5 0 2 0 -0,37 1,12 -0.41 625E3 4 0 5 0 6 0 -0.50 0.95 -0.48 Total 2.07 -0.89 Site 10 Wetland Impacts UMAM Scores Location Water Community Polygon# FLUCCS w/o with w/o with w/o with Delta Acres FL WET-2 621 8 0 9 0 10 0 -0.90 1.25 -1.13 Total 1.25 -1.13 Site 13 Wetland Impacts UMAM Scores Location Water Community Polygon# FLUCCS w/o with w/o with w/o with Delta Acres FL WET-3 624 8 0 9 0 10 0 -0.90 3.02 -2.72 Total 3.02 -2.72 24 RESOLUTION 2013- 1 66 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 1998-465, 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 104+ day of cepkeh'1 1:7Qr , 2013. ATTEST: "" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGF-tr ,•BRo.Ic., Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Attest as to C.hallrma..S e uty Clerk Borgia A. Hiller,Esq., Chairwoman signature onY y Approved as to form and legality: 61A..14—,----42€/p4A---H Emily R. Pin Assistant County Attorney I /A r . wIo I, '1 -(11 \' 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: 1. 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: (I) 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 'V2"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 4th .. . _ .' . •_ : •• _ : --• • • -- : 2ND 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 Environmental Servie s 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 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 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: (I) 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. . - . - !- - .. - : : Eiwir-effnenta4Engineering 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 legaliciey 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 { -1)t N. 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 : . - e = : - ' . - - - •-= 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, Building - 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 '/2" X 11" paper with an adequate scale showing all data pertinent to the proposed vacation,which shall include at least the following: (I) 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 /2"X 11"paper labeled in bold capital letters as EXHIBITExhi "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 4th .. !.• . •_ _- _-• - _• _ : 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"approvals"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: (I) 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. Enviret}mentelEngineering 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 uffieieney 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 1-11. L• I �j� N • r ; 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 ' • e: • ::--•- : -: - - ' .• - : 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 %" X 11" paper labeled in bold capital letters as EXHIBIT 14 "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: (I) 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. --"" • . - : = ''-•=- : •. • - • - .: Engineering Services will review the petition for completeness and compliance with this Resolution. :-• •- . •' a: : ;;--;- .. ;. .-_- : 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 legal -suffteienney 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 .. •.. . - .. °- e' - ' •.. •-• . 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 - 243 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 l3}' day of C,-}2ca..-n•bL C` , 2016 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as practical, in the Boardroom. 3`d 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 sSk‘-' day of N +o v e<-� - , 2016. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA I By. By: Deputy C1etk Donna Fiala. Chairman Attest as to Char an s- signature only. Appred as to orm and legality: ____Tc ..._ Scott A. one 1/ 9 71/1.,) Assistant County Attorney Attachments: 1. Exhibit A 2. Location-Site Map 0 r IMcANLY DESIGN ENGINEERINGINC. 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 COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 9,TOWNSHIP 50S, 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,NO0°43'07"W 100.03.; THENCE BINDING ON THE NORTHERLY OUTLINE THEREOF, S89°24'00"E 1307.42' TO THE EASTERLY OUTLINE THEREOF;THENCE BINDING ON THE EASTERLY OUTLINE, 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 THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 130,789 SQ.FT OR 3.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS PREPARED B ': /MG) ,titvly WILLIAM C. McANLY P.S.M. FLORIDA REGISTRATION NO. 1543 McANLY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC. 2025 J& C BLVD. SUITE 5 NAPLES FL 34109 1016000 4 REV 2025 J&C BOULEVARD-SUITE 5 NAPLES,FLORIDA 34109-6204 PHONE(239)593-3299 FAX(239)593-3298 ` - EXHIBIT "A" SKETCH OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION 11 NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB PHASE TWO-A • 10' PB 28, PG 11 HAT 0 :LOCK F LOT 8 tiLOCIall LAT 7LACK F BLOCK F LOT 6 BLACK F LOT 5 BLOCK F LOT NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & BLOCK F COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE Al o pz PB 26, PGS. 73-80 z 0 z O BLOCK LOT 3F TRACT C5 m 8 z 00 CD.c a CONSERVATION AND BUFFER EASEMENT z � 8 8 FUO 0 j �"'• O LAT 2 O E L8 Ce a z BLOCK F a, Z1:19 j o w CriE (0 LOT 1 8 "a --'1T ?T BLACK acp3a i g wz z a -0 e-Z -- w `J p^3 V U � a �• e a. N00'43'07"W 100.03' S8974'00"E 1307.42' ``... /7/ /% 7/7/77///////////////////// 130.780 SG FT. OR 3.00 ACRES t' i /// /Y,;5',,,,1,7 //,/,71 ,/ - S89'24'20-E N89-24'00.1V 1307.36' 3268.58' 04) P.O.B. S00'41'08'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 SIGNED: !ff I - (L '4,, A/5/(4 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. NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF i COUNTRY CLUB AND LAND SURVEYING III\ PHASE TWO-A 2023 JtC BOULEVARD— SUITE 5 . MAPLES,FLORIDA 34109 NW SCALE:1'..2001 DM.:R.M. IC/W.:M.K.RIDATE: 1/15/16 (239)593-3299 FAX(239)593-32911 II NO. REWSONS OWN DATE COPYRIGHT, 2016 RV hicANLY ENC NEERiNC AND DESIGN, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT: 130209 ( SHEET: 2 OF 2 .... J - g§.5 1. 2, Ng MC. 1; ;. 1: kdt! A r -3' 01111r ria trim= a n 1 F r� r j Z ,glibbb. i laltillrAr . 121 K ii titir,:" s = _$ i= \Cilli 11 I'm i I 111L4Ill cE ci x 11111 T Raw 3 ir gm ori*c.g a7 s C.R 951 0 ---I ° a C.R tir--1 isav S a � I , 311 t Z n A 3 rc rc 1 � m `nRn= d 4o O .0u, 0- z.a g. 4 NOT TO SCALE P '3 r 0 Z=rym O 9 ^O TRA CS t+ ii 1 *ACT CS -n5 O El atoo ®©° > TCO o iiii l "t4Cr Ct., 3_.._Y 1 D CI b a c 2:. nm D 0 2 ---1 N 1RAtTo a Legal Considerations on Amending PUD A number of these are relevant in regards to this matter, and reason to not approve the Amendment to the PUD.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. Answer-This is secluded private residential neighborhood. From its inception the character of the neighborhood was determined to be single family residential. It was never contemplated that recreational facilities would be placed in this area.These lots sold a premium because of the unique nature.This area is completely surrounded by preserve and woods.The roads size and structure were designed for the limited traffic with no sidewalks 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. Answer-There are no recreational uses(RA)in Naples Heritage.All recreational activities are located near the clubhouse which is located 1.6 miles from the proposed location there are no recreation facilities in the single family residential association (Cypress Point).Some homes are located on the golf course.The buyers choose these location. The residents of Colonial Court choose privacy and woods. 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Answer-The proposed use would be inappropriate.While tennis courts would certainly be appropriate in a PUD,such facilities would not locate them in an area that would interfere with peaceful enjoyment of a private residents. No one would reasonable consider paying a premium price for such location. 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? Answer-Yes.You are creating a new zone RA adjacent to a private residential neighborhood. 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? Answer-Yes-The character of Colonial Court will be forever altered. Increased traffic, congestion, street parking,and safety issues for walkers with no sidewalks.The neighborhood would no longer be surrounded by woods. 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land use, Answer-.Yes.Traffic will increase dramatically.The only traffic on Colonial Court is from the six residents, and service providers maintaining, repairing on improving these properties. Players,and spectators driving to and from the tennis courts plus the frequent inter club tournaments will add to the problem. Ramsey elaborates on this in his evaluation. I 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Answer. Mike Ramsey in his report outlines the potential water issue and drainage concerns impacting both resident and adjoining property owner. 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? Answer Yes.The change of the character will impact the resale value of the properties on Colonial Court. It will no longer be a private secluded neighborhood. 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood...? Answer Yes-There is no need for tennis facilities in a residential neighborhood. These are currently located near the club house.The best and most appropriate location is to keep them in the area were all recreational activities are focused. 10. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use? Answer-Yes Other sites within the P with equal to or at lower cost. Mike Ramsey in his evaluation indicates that both site 10& !3 are more practicable sites for the tennis courts. Ecological,Environmental,Agricultural Land Management,Permitting,Septic Evaluations ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Ramsey Inc. CWB,CFEA,REPA,BURNING CWB -Certified Wildlife Biologist E-mail: Ramsey.Inc@embarcimail.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 permitting,construction and mitigation between Sites 6, 10& 13. Without cost data it appears construction at Site 6 is the most expensive-Site 13 next and Site 10 cheapest. 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 its Michael R.Ramsey President PROJECT LOCATION MAP • � � TE % QaJ S13 i 5. • cz, v fikw: �IIIII��``II►II C./ -//////I — ilmor 11110/k /MN 41 .°1//P IVAIrill 011 ! JAN HO in 11 2 A .W/11NOtifif,`"1-1. -1 '0.1**-- it ala • s �•• o •• a __ EFFECTED HOMES aii W C. y i i ay = 2 Z = = W '` al IN EN c'• 01a 01 r S z 1,1 441 S7 �rt JO .1 I I I I I lig I iiii 14 •vs ..• '131 im O. J Q i O POLLY J v 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 -- 1(:)=-- CA '' r ( l " ; s'l ' ''* '/""''t, '*"*.‹, 4.8- . In. - 4' i e 'lik ' .. r.4.4 .. , , . ,.... 1,„... I if) 1 . , ,, , t ..--' , .'w' '> s k , ... ' . r#gam ^ s ; �' .+IF 'y!" s Se , ��-fi. - 14 '--_ s.", _ U N B £1 .ttG $.!, -v'* 's4,.. ,,--t '' - a ms: l it } 7tl i - iii {/ TSE m •••fi ' - Ci) !I. ..-s-; 4t .....1 i;.,01, ,iz- -atzt..:it. - , , ,- ..- , . ..,. , ... i. , ,.,.. - -r . ", ill �. a .+ astlt, .{ },w, �^,°as free'4/043, ta #' �`" ' t1 � tJ s "µx ....>.,,.. � � __. *,*..