The URL can be used to link to this page

Naples Heritage corres 17A 6.25.191 McDanielBill From:Dick Unger <ricungr@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, March 23, 2019 1:01 PM To:FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Subject:Median landscaping on David Blvd east of Santa Barbara Attachments:RE: Median landscaping on David Blvd east of Santa Barbara We live in Naples Heritage and were VERY DISAPPOINTED when everyone but Donna Fiala voted to postpone the beautiful median landscaping on Davis Blvd by our community. Santa Barbara, south of Davis, was landscaped and there are no community's yet on that stretch of road way. There are 5 communities on Davis that were slighted and we hope you find funding to complete the work on Davis very soon. Thanks You, Barbara & Richard Unger 612-840-7508 2 McDanielBill From:Ken Gaynor <naplesken@cs.com> Sent:Thursday, March 21, 2019 9:05 PM To:McDanielBill Subject:Naples Heritage Campus Expansion Attachments:RE: Naples Heritage Campus Expansion Bill, I just wanted to provide you with a follow up to our March 7, meeting. Our Expansion votes were counted today and 88% of our 799 members voted and 85% of those votes were in favor of our Campus Expansion Project. Ken Gaynor Sent from my iPad 3 McDanielBill From:Elizabeth Hayes <golfer8575@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, February 4, 2017 3:43 PM To:McDanielBill I have been a resident of Naples Heritage for 20 years. One of the main reasons I purchased here was they were keeping over 500 acres for preserve land. We are fortunate to see a lot of wildlife here, mainly because of our wonderful preserve area. I sincerely hope that does not change now or in the future. Liz Hayes Sent from my iPad 4 McDanielBill From:Noyac001@aol.com Sent:Saturday, January 28, 2017 4:14 PM To:McDanielBill; FialaDonna; TaylorPenny Subject:Naples Heritage Campus Expansion Program Attachments:RE: Naples Heritage Campus Expansion Program My husband and I are among the 799 residences in Naples Heritage. I did not attend the meeting with the commissioners, but I watched the tape replay from our website and was appalled at the fact that the three of you sacrificed the desires of a strong majority of our residents to satisfy a group of 6 homeowners, who are unhappy with the program. When you live in a development such as ours, there are bylaws. The bylaws stipulate that major programs such as the one we proposed are to be voted on by the residents. If a majority of the owners vote for the program, all residents are expected to go along with the majority rule. The people in Colonial Court were perfectly aware of that, but somehow they seem to have won, because three commissioners are making decisions that should not be up to them. As far as I heard, your sole concerns were for the six residences on Colonial Court. It seems to me that you should only have turned us down if you thought that our plan was bad for the environment or impinged on the rights of people outside of our development. Those that are inside had their chance to vote, and in this case the 6 homes in Colonial Court lost the vote. That should be our business, not yours. I also saw in the replay that it was made to sound like the only element in the proposal was for the tennis facility and parking. But actually, the plan involves much more. It involves our ability to expand the administration building and to build a larger, modern fitness center, which can't be built unless the tennis courts are moved elsewhere. The fitness center is something used by a great majority of the community, and there is a need to increase and improve our current outdated fitness center. There also was a lot of talk from the Colonial Court contingency that there would be so much increased traffic on Colonial Court if we moved the tennis center. The reality is quite different. With 6 tennis courts, you would only have a maximum of 24 players at any given time. That does not change when we have an interclub tournament. That does not mean 24 cars. I would say that at least half of the tennis players go to the courts on bicycles or walk. The moving of the tennis courts would not diminish the number who walk or bike. It would just switch which side of the community would do the biking or walking. Also, almost all of the usage of the tennis courts is in the mornings. For the most part, the courts are empty in the afternoon, unless there is a clinic. And a clinic attracts about 6 people. So the idea that these courts would be busy and in use all day long with constant traffic is ridiculous. I presume there is nothing that can be said to change your minds, but I would hope you would give some thought to the fact that it should not be your responsibility to disrupt the results of an election in our community that would have a result that would benefit the great majority of the community. Barbara Freiberg 5 McDanielBill From:Frank Ryan <frankxryan3@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 25, 2017 1:38 PM To:FialaDonna; SolisAndrew; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc:Rebecca Ryan Subject:Naples Heritage Tennis Court Expansion Project Attachments:RE: Naples Heritage Tennis Court Expansion Project Thank you for your time in considering the Naples Heritage request for our PUD change. My wife and I will become Florida residents this year having recently retired. Your decisions to vote against the proposal by a vote of 3-2 seems very unreasonable for the Naples Heritage community. I have outlined my points which I believe the dissenters failed to take into consideration as follows below: 1. When Naples Heritage purchased the property in early 2000 to ensure the residents who would live there if developed would adhere to our HOA. It was stated after the purchase (newsletter 2004 documented this intention) that plans were being investigated for its usage. When the homeowners on Colonial Court purchased they should have known the adjacent property could be developed for multiple uses if they performed any due diligence before their purchase. 2. Our tennis courts are used by our homeowners today for scheduled play six days a week with women on three days a week and men three days a week. These are all senior tennis players who do not play aggressive tennis or involve much cheering or loud noises. The level of play is not quite like slow motion but close to it. 3. The majority of tennis players bike to the tennis courts (at least sixty percent based on previous counts of attendees). With six courts this is approximately 24 players at one time which translates to ten people may drive. 4. The tennis court relocation was required to support the building of a new larger fitness center and additional parking. Our current fitness facility is so overwhelmed in its current state. Our senior focused classes (chair yoga, zumba, fitness in motion, stretching, strengthening classes) require attendees to arrive 30 minutes early to obtain entry. This is a huge negative impact to not only our current residents but this is looked at as an important aspect (now a negative) for potential new buyers. In addition residents are forgoing exercise due to its crowded state. Will let you decide how this negatively impact people's lives. 5. The decision to delay our tennis court relocation may take years to resolve now. This is going to negatively affect our property values so that all 799 residents will see our property desirability decrease due to an antiquated and small fitness center. This also includes the residents across from the tennis courts which due to their own selfishness refused to acknowledge this impact or deemed their needs greater than the good of the overall community. 6. Naples Heritage is an older property opened in 1998 which as residents we are doing our best to keep up our property for our use and enjoyment but at the same time with newer properties and their resulting land use cropping up it is vital that we remain competitive and appealing to new owners. We will be forced to expend considerable funds and valuable time to pursue an option that our experts 6 told us would be turned down. Some expert implies the Army Corp of engineers would approve an alternate plan that all of our professional experts instructed us otherwise. Both times the Collier zoning commission approved our planned usage of the five acres including all environmental impacts which the Board didn't take into consideration in not approving our request. In summary it is disheartening to see the amount of effort from all of the Naples Heritage residents that went into this multi year effort to improve our situation and now face more obstacles. My wif e and I are now considering moving to a different property once the assessment of how long the delay to the expansion will be. Multiple residents are now discussing the viability of Naples Heritage based on the shortcomings your decision has rendered. Needless to say this will depress property values and potentially lower property taxes. I would implore you to reconsider your decision taking into account the negative impacts to Naples Heritage your vote has caused. Sincerely, Frank and Rebecca Ryan 8560 Naples Heritage Drive Unit 726 Naples, Florida 34112 7 McDanielBill From:RicUngr@aol.com Sent:Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:30 AM To:McDanielBill Cc:FialaDonna; SolisAndrew; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny Subject:Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club Mr. McDaniel, I would like to thank you for reading and acknowledging the email I sent you on January, 16th Is there any chance that the board would be willing to reconsider the proposal submitted by Naples Heritage? As it typical with projects of this type hundreds of thousands of dollars have already been spent, thousands of hours of many peoples time have been spent, there was a vote by the community that was approved that assessed over $8,000 per home and now the project cannot move forward. The five homeowners that objected came forward only at the very last minute and people in the community were shocked and angered that the project was denied after many concessions were made in the project design to appease the concerns. At the 3 hour and 44 second mark in the tape of the meeting, this comment is made by a commissioner referring to the 5 acres "we all know it is going to be used for something" and, in fact, that "something" could be a tennis court. Please let our community be the ones that use the land. Thank you for your future consideration, Richard Unger In a message dated 1/16/2017 10:48:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net writes: Mr. Unger, Thank you for your email dated January 16, 2017, and your comments regarding the Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club. Bill William L. McDaniel, Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 www.colliergov.net/CommissionerMcDaniel 8 From: RicUngr@aol.com [mailto:RicUngr@aol.com] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 10:20 AM To: FialaDonna ; SolisAndrew ; SaundersBurt ; McDanielBill ; TaylorPenny Cc: DandNBeiser@MSN.com; naplesken@cs.com; irishmyst49@msn.com; bill60613@comcast.net; mikeoneilnh@aol.com; Cathyduggan39@gmail.com; jfclaeys@aol.com; comdicksan3742@gmail.com; PLEL1988@yahoo.com; gm@nhgcc.com Subject: Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club I am a resident of Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club. I have watched the recorded meeting of the January 10, 2017 Collier County Commissioners at which the proposal for the addition of tennis courts in Naples Heritage was rejected. Right before the vote was taken, there were comments made by a Commissioner about the fact that residents paid extra for their lots on the cul de sac, and it is not right to take their privacy away by building tennis courts on the 5 acres adjacent to their property. There was a comparison drawn that if people bought on a golf course, and the golf course was taken away and developed, residents who bought there would be wronged. I follow all that and agree with that logic. In this case, the people who bought on the cul de sac were indeed buying privacy behind their homes since that land is Preserve. The fact is they knew, or should have researched the fact, that the land where the tennis courts are proposed was indeed available for some type of development in the future. This being the fact, nothing is being taken away from what was originally there when they bought and paid the extra $10,000. No golf course is being vacated and developed, quite simply the land that they knew could be developed was proposed to be just that. As was mentioned at the last meeting of the Planning Commission by one of the Commission members, the tennis court option was in fact a great alternative to what could be built such as multi-family apartment building(s). Taking this to a possible next alternative, if in fact the Naples Heritage Club now chooses to put the site on the market, and a developer buys it and comes to the County Commissioners for approval for the maximum number of units to be built, and that possibly a tennis court could in fact be proposed, will you turn down the request because it takes away the privacy of the residents who paid extra for their lots in Naples Heritage? At the 3 hour and 44 second mark in the tape of the meeting, this comment is made by a commissioner referring to the 5 acres "we all know it is going to be used for something" and, in fact, that "something" could be a tennis court. My question is: Why can someone else put in "something" but Naples Heritage's "something" - which is a tennis court - cannot be put in. 9 At the 3:46 mark, the comment was made by a Commissioner referring to the 5 acres "I don't see the ability to rely upon that it wasn't developed as a basis for denying the application as a legal matter, I think that's problematic." Hopefully the County Commissioners can find a way to review the application and be open to more discussion regarding the proposal presented by Naples Heritage. Thank you in advance for your further consideration, Richard Unger 7605 Arbor Lakes Court Unit 538 Naples, Florida Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 10 McDanielBill From:Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent:Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:09 AM To:McDanielBill Subject:RE: Colonial Court Naples Heritage Commissioner McDaniel, Thanks for your response. Should I learn any other information I will keep you posted. From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] On Behalf Of McDanielBill Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 12:46 PM To: Huber, Joe Subject: RE: Colonial Court Naples Heritage Mr. Huber, Thank you for the update on the Naples Heritage project. Bill William L. McDaniel, Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 www.colliergov.net/CommissionerMcDaniel From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 12:28 PM To: McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Colonial Court Naples Heritage Commissioner McDaniel, For your information, I attended the Board of Directors meeting yesterday, and it appears that they have accepted the results of the vote, and are making an effort to look for alternative sites in fact surveying has begun. I would not anticipate any further efforts at the Commissioner level but should you hear anything I would appreciate it if you would contact me. Again Thank you for your support. From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] On Behalf Of McDanielBill Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 7:07 AM To: Huber, Joe Subject: RE: Colonial Court Naples Heritage Mr. Huber, Thank you for your email and your support. 11 Bill William L. McDaniel, Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 www.colliergov.net/CommissionerMcDaniel From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 7:51 PM To: McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: Colonial Court Naples Heritage Dear Commissioner McDaniel. After the hearing I returned to Pennsylvania on business so I am just writing to you now. I wanted to personally express my appreciation for your openness and willing to take the time to understand the position of the residents of Colonial Court. I thank you for your support. It is heartening to see that the individual property owner has a voice. As I am sure you are aware the Management of the Club is encouraging residents to write the Commissioners painting the picture that this decision will stop their Campus Enhancement Plan . Instead they should devote their energies to find another solution. This is indeed unfortunate. If in the future there is any project in the community I can assist you please don’t hesitate to contact me. Thank you again. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 12 McDanielBill From:Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent:Wednesday, January 18, 2017 12:28 PM To:McDanielBill Subject:RE: Colonial Court Naples Heritage Attachments:RE: Colonial Court Naples Heritage Commissioner McDaniel, For your information, I attended the Board of Directors meeting yesterday, and it appears that they have accepted the results of the vote, and are making an effort to look for alternative sites in fact surveying has begun. I would not anticipate any further efforts at the Commissioner level but should you hear anything I would appreciate it if you would contact me. Again Thank you for your support. From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] On Behalf Of McDanielBill Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 7:07 AM To: Huber, Joe Subject: RE: Colonial Court Naples Heritage Mr. Huber, Thank you for your email and your support. Bill William L. McDaniel, Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 www.colliergov.net/CommissionerMcDaniel From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 7:51 PM To: McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: Colonial Court Naples Heritage Dear Commissioner McDaniel. After the hearing I returned to Pennsylvania on business so I am just writing to you now. I wanted to personally express my appreciation for your openness and willing to take the time to understand the position of the residents of Colonial Court. I thank you for your support. It is heartening to see that the individual property owner has a voice. As I am sure you are aware the Management of the Club is encouraging residents to write the Commissioners painting the picture that this decision will stop their Campus Enhancement Plan . Instead they should devote their energies to find another solution. This is indeed unfortunate. If in the future there is any project in the community I can assist you please don’t hesitate to contact me. Thank you again. 13 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 14 McDanielBill From:Ellen <ellenmucha@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 18, 2017 8:56 AM To:FialaDonna Subject:Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club improvements Attachments:RE: Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club improvements Good morning, As an owner and active member of the Naples Heritage community, my husband Randy and I actively support the proposed improvements of our facilities, including the expansion of our tennis facilities. I hope we are able to work together to reach approval of a plan that will move our community forward in its needs for all types of activities. Thank you very much for your service to Collier County. Ellen Mucha 7655 Arbor Lakes Ct. Unit 2215 Naples, FL 34112 ellenmucha@gmail.com 708-278-0083 15 McDanielBill From:Kathleen Cullen <kathleen_m_cullen@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 18, 2017 7:18 AM To:FialaDonna; SolisAndrew; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject:Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Attachments:RE: Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Dear Commissioners As a homeowner in Naples Heritage Golf Club, I am dismayed at the outcome and the reasons stated by the three commissioners who voted to deny the change in classification of 5 acres owned by Naples Heritage at the hearing held January 10th despite the ample documentation presented by the community and the positive recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission. Based on Commissioner Fiala's comments made at the hearing, it appears her decision was based on Mr Huber's allegation (presented without any proof) that he paid an extra $10,000 for his house on the promise there would never be any future development. I would love to see the purchase contract that includes such language. Commissioners McDaniels and Taylor indicated there were unanswered questions regarding compatibility and yet Commissioner Taylor refused to grant a continuance to allow the community the opportunity to meet with the Corp of Engineers jointly with Mr. Huber's expert. This, despite the admission by Mr. Ramsey, that his analysis was based on limited data. My thanks to Commissioners Saunders and Solis who recognized the validity of our application and the importance of the wishes of the vast majority of homeowners in its willingness to invest $6.8 million in a community that supports the Board's stated Vision "to be the best community in America to live, work and play". Below for your information is my letter to the editor which I hope will be printed in the Naples Daily News Your Kudos and Kicks column sheds light on issues important to the community. I wish to give my personal kudos to the two Collier County Commissioners Burt Saunders and Andy Solis who listened to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of property owners at the Naples Heritage Golf and Tennis Club to enhance our community and improve the future property values of all our members in voting to allow the community to build new tennis courts on land OWNED by Naples Heritage. Kicks go to Commissioners Donna Fiala, William McDaniel, and Penny Taylor who placed the objections of 6 individual members over the majority in this 799 homes community, effectively putting a halt to a member-approved $6.8 million dollar project that would have benefited us all. It may be too late for you to reconsider our request but I hope you will keep in mind the community rights of your constituents as you consider similar requests from other communities. Kathleen Cullen 16 7939 Kilkenny Way Naples, FL 34112 Phone: 203 658 4889 17 McDanielBill From:Dick Hedderick <dickhedderick@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 16, 2017 7:11 PM To:McDanielBill Subject:Naples Heritage Attachments:RE: Naples Heritage Thank you. The decision of the Board of Commissioners to deny the approval of the Tennis Court Location at Naples Heritage was the correct one. Many residents have expressed our dismay to our Board of Directors with the concept of placing a recreation center in the middle of a residential area. Naples Heritage was designed originally with a central activity and clubhouse area surrounded by unique individual residential areas. For an increasing number of residents, this is our home, not just a play area. Negatively affecting someone's enjoyment of their home should not be permitted. Thank you for defeating this proposal. To those who suggest this location should have been approved, think of this: Would you want a tennis complex built next to your home? No! Richard and Joan Hedderick 7667 Naples Heritage Drive Naples, FL 34112 18 McDanielBill From:Russ Smith <smithruss1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 16, 2017 1:01 PM To:FialaDonna; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc:SolisAndrew; SaundersBurt Subject:Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD addition Attachments:RE: Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD addition 8605 Naples Heritage Drive #225 Naples, FL 34112 January 16, 2017 Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Penny Taylor Commissioner William McDaniel cc: Commissioner Andy Solis; Commissioner Burt Saunders 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 Commissioners: We have concerns about your recent vote denying that Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club incorporate 5.2 acres of land into its PUD for use as a tennis site. Objections to the plan were brought to you by 5 of 799 voting units at NHGCC. Because the tennis court site was just one of many capital improvements included in the vote, each improvement to some extent dependent on the others, your denial has put the entire project in jeopardy. It is fair to say that very few residents were in favor of each phase of the project. Many of our residents do not play tennis, do not use the fitness center and do not use the main pool. Residents voted to improve the financial and aesthetic state of the club, thus making our properties more valuable into the future. They voted for what is clearly the best for the club at large. Our long range planning committee and management worked years to develop a plan that would meet the needs of this community. Naples Heritage is a caring community as evidenced by our Audubon certification, the constant work of our Beautification committee (both inside and outside our gates), our erosion mitigation efforts and our extensive work outside the gates to make Collier County a special place to live and work. We care about our community, our environment and especially our neighbors. Commissioner Fiala’s reasons for her “no” vote included her belief that Colonial Court residents bought their lots “knowing” that the proposed site would never be developed. This is incorrect because the land was not owned by NHGCC when the lots were developed. Further, she stated that those lots were worth more than $10,000 because of their seclusion. A lot is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Many at NHGCC who enjoy the expansive views of lake and golf course feel that Colonial Court lots are certainly not “premium.” And Ms. Fiala’s concern that Colonial Court residents have probably paid more in taxes because of their lot cost is hard to prove. In fact, failure to increase the value of 799 units if this project does not move forward may actually have much more tax impact. 19 We at NHGCC are proud of our fiscal responsibility, our willingness to invest in our future and our protection of our wonderful preserves and environmentally friendly golf course. We ask your help in allowing us the opportunity to improve our community. Sincerely, Russell G. Smith Nancy M. Smith Collier County Residents, precinct 332 20 McDanielBill From:RicUngr@aol.com Sent:Monday, January 16, 2017 10:20 AM To:FialaDonna; SolisAndrew; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Cc:DandNBeiser@MSN.com; naplesken@cs.com; irishmyst49@msn.com; bill60613 @comcast.net; mikeoneilnh@aol.com; Cathyduggan39@gmail.com; jfclaeys@aol.com; comdicksan3742@gmail.com; PLEL1988@yahoo.com; gm@nhgcc.com Subject:Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club Attachments:RE: Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club I am a resident of Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club. I have watched the recorded meeting of the January 10, 2017 Collier County Commissioners at which the proposal for the addition of tennis courts in Naples Heritage was rejected. Right before the vote was taken, there were comments made by a Commissioner about the fact that residents paid extra for their lots on the cul de sac, and it is not right to take their privacy away by building tennis courts on the 5 acres adjacent to their property. There was a comparison drawn that if people bought on a golf course, and the golf course was taken away and developed, residents who bought there would be wronged. I follow all that and agree with that logic. In this case, the people who bought on the cul de sac were indeed buying privacy behind their homes since that land is Preserve. The fact is they knew, or should have researched the fact, that the land where the tennis courts are proposed was indeed available for some type of development in the future. This being the fact, nothing is being taken away from what was originally there when they bought and paid the extra $10,000. No golf course is being vacated and developed, quite simply the land that they knew could be developed was proposed to be just that. As was mentioned at the last meeting of the Planning Commission by one of the Commission members, the tennis court option was in fact a great alternative to what could be built such as multi-family apartment building(s). Taking this to a possible next alternative, if in fact the Naples Heritage Club now chooses to put the site on the market, and a developer buys it and comes to the County Commissioners for approval for the maximum number of units to be built, and that possibly a tennis court could in fact be proposed, will you turn down the request because it takes away the privacy of the residents who paid extra for their lots in Naples Heritage? At the 3 hour and 44 second mark in the tape of the meeting, this comment is made by a commissioner referring to the 5 acres "we all know it is going to be used for something" and, in fact, that "something" could be a tennis court. My question is: Why can someone else put in "something" but Naples Heritage's "something" - which is a tennis court - cannot be put in. At the 3:46 mark, the comment was made by a Commissioner referring to the 5 acres "I don't see the ability to rely upon that it wasn't developed as a basis for denying the application as a legal matter, I think that's problematic." Hopefully the County Commissioners can find a way to review the application and be open to more discussion regarding the proposal presented by Naples Heritage. Thank you in advance for your further consideration, Richard Unger 7605 Arbor Lakes Court Unit 538 Naples, Florida 21 McDanielBill From:JOHN BROWN <jbrown7211@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, January 15, 2017 2:59 PM To:FialaDonna; McDanielBill; pennytalor@colliergov.net Subject:NAPLES HERITAGE COUNTRY CLUB Attachments:RE: NAPLES HERITAGE COUNTRY CLUB I am writing to you as a concerned member of the Naples Heritage Community. I question why our proposal failed to pass the County Commission when the large majority of our community voted for the proposed improvements in good faith only after a lot of time and expense to be denied on the side of 6 neighbors living near the land of the proposal. These neighbors did not come forward till near the end of the process and bought their homes near the vacant land knowing that it could be subject to building. The County Commission voted against this proposal after it had passed approval of all appropriate boards and unanimously the Planning Board that has the expertise in this area. The Commission said that we had not seriously considered other available sites,which we had done and hired other experts to do and they were deemed undesirable for that purpose. The community has existing tennis courts and swimming facilities adjacent and across the street from other homes in our community without adverse effects. Are we to believe that these homeowner are more privileged because they have larger homes and more garage space? Lastly I am disappointed in the vote of Donna Fiala, the County Commissioner from East Naples who voted down our proposal. You would think that she would desire to promote the improvements and beautification of the existing facilities of her constituents. It appears to me that the Commission took little time and regard to examine an extremely important proposal to our community and instead favored a few well healed and well prepared opponents. John and Judy Brown 8798 Naples Heritage Drive Naples Florida 22 McDanielBill From:Anne Klintworth <ashierk@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, January 15, 2017 10:00 AM To:FialaDonna; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; SolisAndrew Subject:Collier County Board of Commissioners meeting Attachments:RE: Collier County Board of Commissioners meeting As property owners in Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club, we vigorously protest the Collier County Board of Commissioners turning down our boards request to use five acres near Colonial Court for the expansion of facilities here. Upgrading the facilities here to preserve the value of these properties is of great importance to us all. It is also in the best interest of Collier County as a taxing body. Our board followed every necessary procedure with the Corp of Engineers. Contrary to testimony at the hearing, all options were investigated by the Corp of Engineers and their recommendation was to use the five acres mentioned. This five acres was not the first choice of the Naples Heritage Board. This choice was what the Corp of Engineers said they could approve. Had all of the Commissioners read the detailed information that was provided they would have understood how much work was put into researching the best course of action for the majority of the people in Naples Heritage. The very idea that 6 homeowners have more rights than the other 793 homeowners in Naples Heritage is absurd. All owners have access to the bylaws of this association before they purchase property here. 65% of the people voted for the expansion. The five acres in question belongs to Naples Heritage. It was not purchased to provide a kingdom for 6 houses on one street. Steps should be taken to set aside this decision. It was based on erroneous information indicating all options had not been explored. This decision is completely unfair to the 793 homeowners in Naples Heritage who now have spent well over $300,000 on this plan based on the recommendation of the Corp of Engineers. These homeowners believe they are following the best course of action for all of Naples Heritage residents. Sincerely, Graham and Anne Shier Klintworth 8675 Naples Heritage Drive #414 Naples FL 34112 ashierk@yahoo.com 23 McDanielBill From:Eleanor Ferrie <eleanor.ferrie@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 14, 2017 9:29 PM To:TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject:Naples Heritage Planned Expansion Attachments:RE: Naples Heritage Planned Expansion Dear Ms Taylor and Mr. McDaniel:: I want to express my deep disappointment to your "no" vote on the Naples Heritage expansion. My husband and I just bought a home in Naples Heritage and our decision was based on a large part to the forward thinking expansion plan. I'm not sure why a small number of residents can so unfavorably impact a large majority of residents who voted and voiced their approval of the plan. Our property values should not be held hostage to a small group with a personal agenda. Sincerely, Ellie and Brian Ferrie 24 McDanielBill From:Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent:Saturday, January 14, 2017 7:51 PM To:McDanielBill Subject:Colonial Court Naples Heritage Attachments:RE: Colonial Court Naples Heritage Dear Commissioner McDaniel. After the hearing I returned to Pennsylvania on business so I am just writing to you now. I wanted to personally express my appreciation for your openness and willing to take the time to understand the position of the residents of Colonial Court. I thank you for your support. It is heartening to see that the individual property owner has a voice. As I am sure you are aware the Management of the Club is encouraging residents to write the Commissioners painting the picture that this decision will stop their Campus Enhancement Plan . Instead they should devote their energies to find another solution. This is indeed unfortunate. If in the future there is any project in the community I can assist you please don’t hesitate to contact me. Thank you again. 25 McDanielBill From:Barbara Fine <barbararfine@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 14, 2017 11:27 AM To:FialaDonna Cc:McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Subject:naples heritage expansion project Attachments:RE: naples heritage expansion project Dear commissioners, My wife and I are owner/residents at Naples Heritage. We are dismayed at the commission vote against approval of the expansion project. Those owners that disapprove of this project number less than 1% of the ownership. Our board has addressed their concerns in a friendly, straightforward manner. It does not seem reasonable that such a small minority should be supported by the board. we urge you to reconsider. Sincerely, Barbara & Michael Fine 26 McDanielBill From:Robert <morganduf@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, January 14, 2017 9:44 AM To:FialaDonna Cc:McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; SolisAndrew Subject:Naples Heritage Expansion Plan Attachments:RE: Naples Heritage Expansion Plan It is with profound disappointment that we find our plan declined by the board after receiving positive remarks throughout the approval process. It is difficult to comprehend such an outcome in the face of overwhelming approval (over 480 yes votes) from the residents of Naples Heritage. We are talking about Tennis Courts for goodness sake not some high density use of the site. Additionally every step was taken to landscape and beautify the site. Now our only alternative is to sell the site and who knows what the six residents of Colonial Court will have to deal with then. I respect the fact that your job is a difficult one but I’ll never understand how you came to such a decision. Sadly, Duffy Morgan 7931 Kilkenny Way Naples Heritage 27 McDanielBill From:Djust Realty <djust@djustrealty.com> Sent:Friday, January 13, 2017 7:52 PM To:FialaDonna; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Subject:Naples Heritage Attachments:RE: Naples Heritage Dear Members, I’m surprised and very disappointed in your recent vote to deny the Naples Heritage Application. It appears that you have considered the opinion of one person over the majority of Naples Heritage members. The premium that this member may or may not have paid was for the lot he got and was not a guarantee that nothing would ever change! Maybe he would prefer more residential development instead of a passive tennis court. I really can’t see how this will affect his value!! I recently purchased a property in Naples Heritage because of the improvements that were supposed to be made to the community, what about my property value? I would argue that by giving more consideration to one homeowner you have in fact hurt the value of every owner in Naples Heritage. Please reconsider what you have done and do what’s right for the Naples Heritage homeowners!! Carl Djusberg 7515 Stoneybrook 827 Naples Heritage 216 High St. Abington, MA 02351 Cell 781 799-3388 28 McDanielBill From:Pidge Case <pidgecase@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 13, 2017 4:40 PM To:TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; McDanielBill Subject:Fwd: Naples Heritage Eblast 1-13-17 BOCC info Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Dear Commissioners, Prepare to get some mail. Naples Heritage sent out a second Eblast to all the members of Naples Heritage. We, again, thank you for your vote! You made the right decision! Best regards, Leon and Barbara Case 7685 Colonial Court Naples, FL 34112 From: Amy Gant <membership@nhgcc.com> Date: January 13, 2017 at 3:40:07 PM EST Subject: Naples Heritage Eblast 1-13-17 BOCC info Reply-To: Amy Gant <membership@nhgcc.com> You are receiving this email of the "Upcoming Events and Activities" because you are a valuable member of Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club. View this email in your browser To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Copyright © *2017* Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you are a valued member of Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club. If at any time you would like to opt out of this email list and stop receiving all information from Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club; please contact me directly at 239-417-2555 or membership@nhgcc.com for 29 removal. Our mailing address is: NHGCC 8150 Heritage Club Way Naples FL 34112 Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list This email was sent to pidgecase@gmail.com why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences NHGCC · 8150 Heritage Club Way · Naples, FL 34112 · USA To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp 30 McDanielBill From:Yahoo! <pramundosr@aol.com> Sent:Thursday, January 12, 2017 12:39 PM To:FialaDonna; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject:Naples Heritage I was deeply disappointed by your vote against Naples Heritage's application on January 10, 2017. It represented a policy of "NOT IN MY BACKYARD SYNDROME" in contrast to a greater good of the community. As a result, there will be negative impact on the property values of 799 homeowners when Naples Heritage will not able to compete with other communities in the market place, far greater than the premium paid by the five homeowners on Colonial Court. Your decision failed to recognized other potential uses for the property which would have a far greater intrusion, as well as the unanimous recommendation of your own planning commission. It certainly was a sad day for Naples Heritage and 794 homeowners who were only trying to improve their community. 31 McDanielBill From:Ken Gaynor <naplesken@cs.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 11, 2017 1:08 PM To:McDanielBill Subject:Re: Today's vote on the Naples Heritage proposal Bill, Thanks for getting back to me. One comment however.You stated that " someone " is disappointed. In this case over 700 homeowners are disappointed as the result of your vote in favor of 5 homeowners. Ken Gaynor Sent from my iPad > On Jan 11, 2017, at 9:15 AM, McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> wrote: > > Mr. Gaynor, > > Thank you very much for your email dated January 10, 2017 and your comments regarding the vote on the Naples Heritage proposal. I appreciate receiving your comments whether positive or negative on any issue. Unfortunately, there will always be someone who is disappointed in the outcome. > > Again, thank you and if I can be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact my office. > > Bill > William L. McDaniel, Jr. > Commissioner, District 5 > 3299 Tamiami Trail, East > Naples, FL 34112 > 239-252-8605 > www.colliergov.net/CommissionerMcDaniel > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Gaynor [mailto:naplesken@cs.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 5:06 PM > To: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; TaylorPenny <PennyTaylor@colliergov.net> > Cc: SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; SolisAndrew <AndrewSolis@colliergov.net> > Subject: Today's vote on the Naples Heritage proposal > > Dear Commissioners, > By voting against the Naples Heritage proposal today you helped to devalue the property of all 799 residents of our club. Without the improvements we planned, based on the Commissions approval, we will be unable to compete in this ever changing housing market. I can't believe your decision to vote against our plan took this fact into consideration. > As a long term resident of this community I am extremely disappointed for myself and all of my neighbors. And my thanks to the two Commissioners who voted in our favor. > Ken Gaynor 32 > > Sent from my iPad > ________________________________ > > Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 33 McDanielBill From:Ken Gaynor <naplesken@cs.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 10, 2017 5:06 PM To:FialaDonna; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Cc:SaundersBurt; SolisAndrew Subject:Today's vote on the Naples Heritage proposal Attachments:RE: Today's vote on the Naples Heritage proposal Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Dear Commissioners, By voting against the Naples Heritage proposal today you helped to devalue the property of all 799 residents of our club. Without the improvements we planned, based on the Commissions approval, we will be unable to compete in this ever changing housing market. I can't believe your decision to vote against our plan took this fact into consideration. As a long term resident of this community I am extremely disappointed for myself and all of my neighbors. And my thanks to the two Commissioners who voted in our favor. Ken Gaynor Sent from my iPad 34 McDanielBill From:greatsmiles4you@aol.com Sent:Thursday, January 5, 2017 2:13 PM To:FialaDonna; SolisAndrew; SaundersBurt; PennyTaylor@collier.gov.net; McDanielBill Subject:Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed 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 35 McDanielBill From:greatsmiles4you@aol.com Sent:Thursday, January 5, 2017 1:35 PM To:McDanielBill Subject:Proposed tennis courts at Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club- VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016 001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Attachments:RE: Proposed tennis courts at Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club- VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016 001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Dear Commissioner McDaniel, We are residents at 7681 Colonial Ct., Lot #4, in Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club. We are one of six families who reside on that street. You have received explanations of our concerns, including pictures and proposed plans for the tennis courts from Mr. Joe Huber and others, so no need to include them in this e-mail. As expressed by others, we reside on a small cul-de-sac with a very narrow road. Very private. This was the reason we all purchased these properties and paid more for this luxury. The last thing we want is to have that disturbed, for we enjoy our privacy and the safety that a closed road is safe for our children, and especially our grandchildren, to play, ride bikes etc..without the concern of traffic and intrusions. The proposed entrance to courts is directly across from my driveway. A definite safety issue for my family backing out of driveway and those entering the courts. We are also concerned, due to the limited parking, that when large tournaments are played, cars will be parked on street. A DEFINITE safety issue due to blocked view when leaving driveway. Also, due to lack of sidewalks, residents and tennis players MUST walk on the street. An accident waiting to happen!! Let us emphasize, we are NOT against the "campus expansion". On the contrary, we are 100% for it. Our only concern is the site for the tennis courts, as expressed above, and along with my fellow neighbor's concerns. Due to much research from Joe Huber and Walt Kulbacki, it has been discovered that there are at least two other areas where these courts could be built. Due diligence, in exploring these other areas, was not done by the planning committee, due to our research, contrary to what NHGCC told us. We understand that this is a contentious issue between Colonial Ct. residences and NHCGG. We are only 6 among 799 "doors". However, we are the ONLY ones affected by this development. All we ask is that NHGCC evaluate the other areas fully, before making a final decision, and leave Colonial Ct. as is, so we can continue to enjoy it as we have for a long time. These other areas will be presented at the the meeting on January 10, 2017. Thank you for reading/listening to our concerns, and we ask you to vote favorably on this issue. Sincerely, Thomas & Lois Leonard 36 McDanielBill From:Patrick Dorbad <gm@nhgcc.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 4, 2017 2:23 PM To:FilsonSue Subject:Patrick Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club Dear Ms. Filson, Thank you for taking my call this afternoon. We would like to meet with Commissioner McDaniel in regards to our project at Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club. We are on the agenda for this upcoming Tuesday. We would like to share some information with the Commissioner prior. I will be bringing our current President and past President. Best regards, Patrick J. Dorbad General Manager Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club 37 McDanielBill From:Leon Case <leoncase36@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 3, 2017 4:39 PM To:McDanielBill Subject:VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Attachments:Naples Heritage Plan Exhibit A.pdf; ATT00001.htm; NAPLES HERITAGE PUDA CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN TENNIS CENTER final.pdf; ATT00002.htm; Colonial Court from Naples Heritage Drive.jpg; ATT00003.htm; Close up of proposed entrance tennis.jpg; ATT00004.htm; NHGCC News of Purchase 5+ acre parcel Nov 2004.pdf; ATT00005.htm; Fleming Message.docx; ATT00006.htm Importance:High Subject: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Date: January 3, 2017 at 4:26:24 PM EST Dear Commissioner McDaniel, We are residents residing at 7685 Colonial Court Lot #3. We totally support the opposition to the tennis court location. We fully agree with Joe Huber’s statements in the attached letter. We believe there are much better choices available for this project near the Clubhouse and other amenities, It makes no sense to locate it on a small residential court with six houses. We are also concerned with safety issues that may arise. There will be 6 tennis courts and parking for 20 cars. People may find a need to park on our short, narrow street with no sidewalks. One car would barely have room to get by and it would be difficult for us to exit our drive-way. It would be difficult for service trucks to get down our street. Our main concern, though, is blocking emergency vehicles such as police, fire trucks and 911 responders! Residents have always used our street for walks and riding bikes as it is not busy and very safe. We foresee an accident waiting to happen! Sincerely, Leon and Barbara Case Dear Commissioner McDaniel, This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th. This proposed 38 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 39 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 40 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 41 and traffic will negatively impact the environment for this wildlife. 6) Topographical Concerns including Water Flow- Due to the low level and topographical contour of the land, water flow, containment and sloop of the land considerable fill be required this could negatively impact drainage and create the potential for standing water. 7) Letter of Objection- All of the adjacent property owners have filed objection to the Vacation of the Conservation easement separating Colonial Court form the site. The Executive Summary by the staff list Criteria for considering PUD Amendments. A number of these are relevant in regards to this matter. They include the following: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of developme nt proposed in relation to physical characteris tics of the land , surroundin g areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Inconsiste nt with current use 2. The internal and external compatibili ty of the 42 proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improveme nts, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requireme nts. Incompati ble 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriat e considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropri ate 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 43 adversely influence living conditions in the neighborho od? Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatib le with the surroundin g land uses…. Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 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 neighborho od…? Yes 10. Whether it is impossible 44 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. 45 McDanielBill From:FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent:Tuesday, January 3, 2017 9:49 AM To:Bob Mulhere Subject:RE: Naples Heritage - November 17th CCPC Minutes Mr. Mulhere, thank you very much for your emailed dated January 3, 2017, in reference to the Naples Heritage PUDA scheduled for the January 10th Board of County Commissioner’s meeting. I appreciate you forwarding this information and the CCPC minutes to bring me up-to-date on this issue. I will certainly consider all the information I have received when this issue is brought before the Board. Again, thank you for sharing this information with me. Bill William L. McDnaiel, Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 www.colliergov.net/CommissionerMcDaniel From: Bob Mulhere [mailto:BobMulhere@hmeng.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 9:12 AM To: McDanielBill Subject: Naples Heritage - November 17th CCPC Minutes Commissioner McDaniel: Happy New Year! The Naples Heritage PUDA is scheduled for your January 10 meeting. It was contin ued 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 17 th 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 46 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. 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 239-254-2000 Direct: 239-254-2026 Cell: 239-825-9373 47 McDanielBill From:Bob Mulhere <BobMulhere@hmeng.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 3, 2017 9:12 AM To:McDanielBill Subject:Naples Heritage - November 17th CCPC Minutes Attachments:11-17-2016 CCPC Minutes.pdf; RE: Naples Heritage - November 17th CCPC Minutes Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Commissioner McDaniel: 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 17 th 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 safet y 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. 48  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. 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 239-254-2000 Direct: 239-254-2026 Cell: 239-825-9373 49 McDanielBill From:FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent:Monday, January 2, 2017 6:30 PM To:Bart Boissonneault Subject:RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Mr. Boissonneault, this will acknowledge receipt of the additional information supporting your objections to relocating tennis courts to Colonial Court in the Naples Heritage Complex. I appreciate you forwarding this information to me and I will consider all information when hearing this item at the January 10th Board meeting. I would suggest that you plan to attend that meeting to make your objections public. Again, thank you. Bill William L. McDnaiel, Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 www.colliergov.net/CommissionerMcDaniel From: Bart Boissonneault [mailto:bart.boissonneault@sealedair.com] Sent: Monday, January 2, 2017 8:50 AM To: McDanielBill Subject: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Dear Commissioner McDaniel, 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- 50 This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th. This proposed development (see attachment )is located adjacent to our home (Huber’s=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court. These include, the Boissoneault’s(lot 2), Case’s (Lot 3). Leonard’s (lot 4), Kulbacki’s (lot 5) and Bruckerhoff’s( lot 6). Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half- truths , and broken promises for further review . While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection, they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suited for the community with no adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court. I have attached material indicating the best of these site. The environmental engineers we have consulted believe this alternative site is viable and could be developed at a comparable cost. Looking at this matter on its face it would appear that this is simply an attempt to amend the PUD in order to create a recreational zone in the PUD and gain additional parking : however this is misleading , these matters are part of a project by Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club to erect a new fitness center, and administrative offices near the existing clubhouse restaurant, golf club and swimming pool. In order to accomplish this they seek to eliminate the existing four tennis courts located in the club house area and relocate these and expand to six tennis courts adjacent to our property. Attached is a promotional brochure on the Project as well the proposed site plan. Colonial Court is composed of all single family homes (6)located on the only cul de sac in the single family community of Naples Heritage known as Cypress Point composed of 101 single family homes. There are no (RA)recreational zoned areas in the PUD and other than the homes located on the golf course there are no recreational facilities in Cypress Point The existing tennis courts are located near the existing club house which are nearly 2 miles from this proposed site All of the homes on Colonial Court are currently surrounded by preserve, conservation easements and woods. See pictures One of the misrepresentation made by the applicant initially was that this land was purchased for the purpose of developing a tennis center (initial testimony at Planning Commission) ;however the truth is that the land was purchased in 2004 due to a concern that the property would be developed and that such development could allow traffic from the development to use the roads in the PUD.(see attached) . The irony here is that they purchased it to prevent development , now they seek to do the very thing they attempted to prevent.While management contends that the property would eventually be used for a community purpose, the property could easily be left in a preserve condition and used to trade or exchange for other property currently in preserve as mentioned above. Another significant misrepresentation made during this process has been that the Army Corps of Engineers would not approve any of the alternative sites nor would they consider new property in a trade or exchange for 51 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. 52 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. 53 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. -- -- -- The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Bart Boissonneault Vice President Supply Chain-North America The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 100 Rodgers Bridge Road P: 864-433-3149 Duncan, South Carolina 29334 C: 413-537-9229 Bart.Boissonneault@sealedair.com 54 McDanielBill From:Bart Boissonneault <bart.boissonneault@sealedair.com> Sent:Monday, January 2, 2017 8:50 AM To:McDanielBill Subject:VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Attachments:RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Dear Commissioner McDaniel, 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 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. 55 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 ar eas . 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. 56 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. 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. 57 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. -- -- -- The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Bart Boissonneault Vice President Supply Chain-North America The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 100 Rodgers Bridge Road P: 864-433-3149 Duncan, South Carolina 29334 C: 413-537-9229 Bart.Boissonneault@sealedair.com 58 McDanielBill From:Walt <wkulbacki@msn.com> Sent:Thursday, December 8, 2016 1:46 PM To:McDanielBill; FilsonSue Cc:Walt Subject:RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Sue – Did you receive my email and letter that I sent to Commissioner McDaniel yesterday. I wanted to use this for the focus of our discussion… Thanks, Walt From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] On Behalf Of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 1:23 PM To: Walt Subject: RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Hi Mr. Kulbacki, I am hopeful that you received my voice mail yesterday indicating that your meeting with the Commissioner is at the main County Complex located at 3299 Tamiami Trail. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 From: Walt [mailto:wkulbacki@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 9:20 PM To: McDanielBill Cc: Walt Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Importance: High Dear Commissioner McDaniel – I am forwarding you the below letter that I wrote with Joe Huber which supports my strong objection to relocating tennis courts to a single family residential area, where I am a full time resident, when other more suitable locations could have been selected. I solicit your rejection of this PUD Ordinance to incorporate them as a Recreational area at this location for the specific reasons outlined below and look forward to discussing with you tomorrow. 59 Thanking you for your support in this matter, Walter S. Kulbacki 7677 Colonial Court Dear Commissioner McDaniel- This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the abov e 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 fro m 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 60 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 61 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. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 62 McDanielBill From:Walt <wkulbacki@msn.com> Sent:Thursday, December 8, 2016 1:46 PM To:McDanielBill; FilsonSue Cc:Walt Subject:RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Sue – Did you receive my email and letter that I sent to Commissioner McDaniel yesterday. I wanted to use this for the focus of our discussion… Thanks, Walt From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] On Behalf Of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 1:23 PM To: Walt Subject: RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Hi Mr. Kulbacki, I am hopeful that you received my voice mail yesterday indicating that your meeting with the Commissioner is at the main County Complex located at 3299 Tamiami Trail. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 From: Walt [mailto:wkulbacki@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 9:20 PM To: McDanielBill Cc: Walt Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Importance: High Dear Commissioner McDaniel – I am forwarding you the below letter that I wrote with Joe Huber which supports my strong objection to relocating tennis courts to a single family residential area, where I am a full time resident, when other more suitable locations could have been selected. I solicit your rejection of this PUD Ordinance to incorporate them as a Recreational area at this location for the specific reasons outlined below and look forward to discussing with you tomorrow. Thanking you for your support in this matter, 63 Walter S. Kulbacki 7677 Colonial Court Dear Commissioner McDaniel- This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th. This proposed development (see attachment )is located adjacent to our home (Huber’s=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court. These include, the Boissoneault’s(lot 2), Case’s (Lot 3). Leonard’s (lot 4), Kulbacki’s (lot 5) and Bruckerhoff’s( lot 6). Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half- truths , and broken promises for further review . While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection, they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suited for the community with no adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court. I have attached material indicating the best of these site. The environmental engineers we have consulted believe this alternative site is viable and could be developed at a comparable cost. Looking at this matter on its face it would appear that this is simply an attempt to amend the PUD in order to create a recreational zone in the PUD and gain additional parking : however this is misleading , these matters are part of a project by Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club to erect a new fitness center, and administrative offices near the existing clubhouse restaurant, golf club and swimming pool. In order to accomplish this they seek to eliminate the existing four tennis courts located in the club house area and relocate these and expand to six tennis courts adjacent to our property. Attached is a promotional brochure on the Project as well the proposed site plan. Colonial Court is composed of all single family homes (6)located on the only cul de sac in the single family community of Naples Heritage known as Cypress Point composed of 101 single family homes. There are no (RA)recreational zoned areas in the PUD and other than the homes located on the golf course there are no recreational facilities in Cypress Point The existing tennis courts are located near the existing club house which are nearly 2 miles from this proposed site All of the homes on Colonial Court are currently surrounded by preserve, conservation easements and woods. See pictures One of the misrepresentation made by the applicant initially was that this land was purchased for the purpose of developing a tennis center (initial testimony at Planning Commission) ;however the truth is that the land was purchased in 2004 due to a concern that the property would be developed and that such development could allow traffic from the development to use the roads in the PUD.(see attached) . The irony here is that they purchased it to prevent development , now they seek to do the very thing they attempted to prevent.While management contends that the property would eventually be used for a community purpose, the property could easily be left in a preserve condition and used to trade or exchange for other property currently in preserve as mentioned above. Another significant misrepresentation made during this process has been that the Army Corps of Engineers would not approve any of the alternative sites nor would they consider new property in a trade or exchange for existing preserve or conservation areas . We have learned that Naples Heritage 1)never made an application for an alternative site with the Army Corps of Engineers2) Published the alternative analysis report (April 2016) after the decision and vote on the 64 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, 65 restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropriate 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? Yes . No other RA in PUD 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses…. Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Likely 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? Yes 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood…? Yes 10. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use? Other sites available We believe that any one of these considerations should be sufficient to not approve the above matters. In our view there are more suitable alternative locations to locate the Tennis center . There has not has not been a good faith effort to pursue an alternative location for these courts. The residents of Colonial Court are not objecting to the Campus Improvement Plan merely the location of the tennis center for the reasons set forth above. While much of the applicants arguments for this location has focused on environmental consideration, they have not taken into consideration the environment of the residents of Colonial Court. We believe and have submitted for the record that the alternative site can be used with little or no additional impact on the environment. The Naples Heritage Community approved a Plan that included a new fitness center, administrative offices, enhanced club house and swimming pool as well as the tennis courts. Disapproval by the Board would not jeopardize these plans rather it would require Naples Heritage to choose another location for these tennis courts, one or more we recently learned were identified. This alternative site would be more convenient , less intrusive, safer, and less controversial that the proposed application and allow the residents of Colonial Court to continue to enjoy their resident in the manner they have become accustomed.. There is no public benefit to approving the amendments to the PUD or vacating these easements but rather an adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent properties owners. This matter is being considered by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the South Florida Water Management District We ask that you do not approve the amendments to PUD and refuse to vacate the easements listed above or in the alternative postpone the decision until such time as these agencies approve the applications. I will follow up by phone to discuss the points raised herein. Thanks you for your consideration. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 66 McDanielBill From:Walt <wkulbacki@msn.com> Sent:Thursday, December 8, 2016 1:46 PM To:McDanielBill; FilsonSue Cc:Walt Subject:RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Sue – Did you receive my email and letter that I sent to Commissioner McDaniel yesterday. I wanted to use this for the focus of our discussion… Thanks, Walt From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] On Behalf Of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 1:23 PM To: Walt Subject: RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Hi Mr. Kulbacki, I am hopeful that you received my voice mail yesterday indicating that your meeting with the Commissioner is at the main County Complex located at 3299 Tamiami Trail. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 From: Walt [mailto:wkulbacki@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 9:20 PM To: McDanielBill Cc: Walt Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Importance: High Dear Commissioner McDaniel – 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. 67 I solicit your rejection of this PUD Ordinance to incorporate them as a Recreational area at this location for the specific reasons outlined below and look forward to discussing with you tomorrow. Thanking you for your support in this matter, Walter S. Kulbacki 7677 Colonial Court Dear Commissioner McDaniel- This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the abov e 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 fro m 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. 68 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 69 2. The internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropriate 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? Yes . No other RA in PUD 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses…. Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Likely 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? Yes 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood…? Yes 10. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use? Other sites available We believe that any one of these considerations should be sufficient to not approve the above matters. In our view there are more suitable alternative locations to locate the Tennis center . There has not has not been a good faith effort to pursue an alternative location for these courts. The residents of Colonial Court are not objecting to the Campus Improvement Plan merely the location of the tennis center for the reasons set forth above. While much of the applicants arguments for this location has focused on environmental consideration, they have not taken into consideration the environment of the residents of Colonial Court. We believe and have submitted for the record that the alternative site can be used with little or no additional impact on the environment. The Naples Heritage Community approved a Plan that included a new fitness center, administrative offices, enhanced club house and swimming pool as well as the tennis courts. Disapproval by the Board would not jeopardize these plans rather it would require Naples Heritage to choose another location for these tennis courts, one or more we recently learned were identified. This alternative site would be more convenient , less intrusive, safer, and less controversial that the proposed application and allow the residents of Colonial Court to continue to enjoy their resident in the manner they have become accustomed.. There is no public benefit to approving the amendments to the PUD or vacating these easements but rather an adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent properties owners. This matter is being considered by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the South Florida Water Management District We ask that you do not approve the amendments to PUD and refuse to vacate the easements listed above or in the alternative postpone the decision until such time as these agencies approve the applications. I will follow up by phone to discuss the points raised herein. Thanks you for your consideration. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 70 McDanielBill From:Walt <wkulbacki@msn.com> Sent:Thursday, December 8, 2016 1:33 PM To:McDanielBill; FilsonSue Cc:Walt; Huber, Joe (huber@CCAPGH.org) Subject:RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Sue – I did and appreciate your call. I look forward to meeting both you and Commissioner McDaniel at 3:30 pm ….Also I believe Mr. Joe Huber will be calling in during our meeting. Thanks again, Walt Kulbacki From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] On Behalf Of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 1:23 PM To: Walt Subject: RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Hi Mr. Kulbacki, I am hopeful that you received my voice mail yesterday indicating that your meeting with the Commissioner is at the main County Complex located at 3299 Tamiami Trail. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 From: Walt [mailto:wkulbacki@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 9:20 PM To: McDanielBill Cc: Walt Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Importance: High Dear Commissioner McDaniel – I am forwarding you the below letter that I wrote with Joe Huber which supports my strong objection to relocating tennis courts to a single family residential area, where I am a full time resident, when other more suitable locations could have been selected. I solicit your rejection of this PUD Ordinance to incorporate them as a Recreational area at this location for the specific reasons outlined below and look forward to discussing with you tomorrow. 71 Thanking you for your support in this matter, Walter S. Kulbacki 7677 Colonial Court Dear Commissioner McDaniel- This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th. This proposed development (see attachment )is located adjacent to our home (Huber’s=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court. These include, the Boissoneault’s(lot 2), Case’s (Lot 3). Leonard’s (lot 4), Kulbacki’s (lot 5) and Bruckerhoff’s( lot 6). Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half- truths , and broken promises for further review . While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection, they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suited for the community with no adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court. I have attached material indicating the best of these site. The environmental engineers we have consulted believe this alternative site is viable and could be developed at a comparable cost. Looking at this matter on its face it would appear that this is simply an attempt to amend the PUD in order to create a recreational zone in the PUD and gain additional parking : however this is misleading , these matters are part of a project by Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club to erect a new fitness center, and administrative offices near the existing clubhouse restaurant, golf club and swimming pool. In order to accomplish this they seek to eliminate the existing four tennis courts located in the club house area and relocate these and expand to six tennis courts adjacent to our property. Attached is a promotional brochure on the Project as well the proposed site plan. Colonial Court is composed of all single family homes (6)located on the only cul de sac in the single family community of Naples Heritage known as Cypress Point composed of 101 single family homes. There are no (RA)recreational zoned areas in the PUD and other than the homes located on the golf course there are no recreational facilities in Cypress Point The existing tennis courts are located near the existing club house which are nearly 2 miles from this proposed site All of the homes on Colonial Court are currently surrounded by preserve, conservation easements and woods. See pictures One of the misrepresentation made by the applicant initially was that this land was purchased for the purpose of developing a tennis center (initial testimony at Planning Commission) ;however the truth is that the land was purchased in 2004 due to a concern that the property would be developed and that such development could allow traffic from the development to use the roads in the PUD.(see attached) . The irony here is that they purchased it to prevent development , now they seek to do the very thing they attempted to prevent.While management contends that the property would eventually be used for a community purpose, the property could easily be left in a preserve condition and used to trade or exchange for other property currently in preserve as mentioned above. Another significant misrepresentation made during this process has been that the Army Corps of Engineers would not approve any of the alternative sites nor would they consider new property in a trade or exchange for existing preserve or conservation areas . We have learned that Naples Heritage 1)never made an application for an alternative site with the Army Corps of Engineers2) Published the alternative analysis report (April 2016) after the decision and vote on the 72 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 73 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. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 74 McDanielBill From:Walt <wkulbacki@msn.com> Sent:Thursday, December 8, 2016 1:33 PM To:McDanielBill; FilsonSue Cc:Walt; Huber, Joe (huber@CCAPGH.org) Subject:RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Sue – I did and appreciate your call. I look forward to meeting both you and Commissioner McDaniel at 3:30 pm ….Also I believe Mr. Joe Huber will be calling in during our meeting. Thanks again, Walt Kulbacki From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] On Behalf Of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 1:23 PM To: Walt Subject: RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Hi Mr. Kulbacki, I am hopeful that you received my voice mail yesterday indicating that your meeting with the Commissioner is at the main County Complex located at 3299 Tamiami Trail. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 From: Walt [mailto:wkulbacki@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 9:20 PM To: McDanielBill Cc: Walt Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Importance: High Dear Commissioner McDaniel – 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. 75 I solicit your rejection of this PUD Ordinance to incorporate them as a Recreational area at this location for the specific reasons outlined below and look forward to discussing with you tomorrow. Thanking you for your support in this matter, Walter S. Kulbacki 7677 Colonial Court Dear Commissioner McDaniel- This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th. This proposed development (see attachment )is located adjacent to our home (Huber’s=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court. These include, the Boissoneault’s(lot 2), Case’s (Lot 3). Leonard’s (lot 4), Kulbacki’s (lot 5) and Bruckerhoff’s( lot 6). Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half- truths , and broken promises for further review . While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection, they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suited for the community with no adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court. I have attached material indicating the best of these site. The environmental engineers we have consulted believe this alternative site is viable and could be developed at a comparable cost. Looking at this matter on its face it would appear that this is simply an attempt to amend the PUD in order to create a recreational zone in the PUD and gain additional parking : however this is misleading , these matters are part of a project by Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club to erect a new fitness center, and administrative offices near the existing clubhouse restaurant, golf club and swimming pool. In order to accomplish this they seek to eliminate the existing four tennis courts located in the club house area and relocate these and expand to six tennis courts adjacent to our property. Attached is a promotional brochure on the Project as well the proposed site plan. Colonial Court is composed of all single family homes (6)located on the only cul de sac in the single family community of Naples Heritage known as Cypress Point composed of 101 single family homes. There are no (RA)recreational zoned areas in the PUD and other than the homes located on the golf course there are no recreational facilities in Cypress Point The existing tennis courts are located near the existing club house which are nearly 2 miles from this proposed site All of the homes on Colonial Court are currently surrounded by preserve, conservation easements and woods. See pictures One of the misrepresentation made by the applicant initially was that this land was purchased for the purpose of developing a tennis center (initial testimony at Planning Commission) ;however the truth is that the land was purchased in 2004 due to a concern that the property would be developed and that such development could allow traffic from the development to use the roads in the PUD.(see attached) . The irony here is that they purchased it to prevent development , now they seek to do the very thing they attempted to prevent.While management contends that the property would eventually be used for a community purpose, the property could easily be left in a preserve condition and used to trade or exchange for other property currently in preserve as mentioned above. 76 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 77 2. The internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropriate 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? Yes . No other RA in PUD 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses…. Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Likely 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? Yes 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood…? Yes 10. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use? Other sites available We believe that any one of these considerations should be sufficient to not approve the above matters. In our view there are more suitable alternative locations to locate the Tennis center . There has not has not been a good faith effort to pursue an alternative location for these courts. The residents of Colonial Court are not objecting to the Campus Improvement Plan merely the location of the tennis center for the reasons set forth above. While much of the applicants arguments for this location has focused on environmental consideration, they have not taken into consideration the environment of the residents of Colonial Court. We believe and have submitted for the record that the alternative site can be used with little or no additional impact on the environment. The Naples Heritage Community approved a Plan that included a new fitness center, administrative offices, enhanced club house and swimming pool as well as the tennis courts. Disapproval by the Board would not jeopardize these plans rather it would require Naples Heritage to choose another location for these tennis courts, one or more we recently learned were identified. This alternative site would be more convenient , less intrusive, safer, and less controversial that the proposed application and allow the residents of Colonial Court to continue to enjoy their resident in the manner they have become accustomed.. There is no public benefit to approving the amendments to the PUD or vacating these easements but rather an adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent properties owners. This matter is being considered by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the South Florida Water Management District We ask that you do not approve the amendments to PUD and refuse to vacate the easements listed above or in the alternative postpone the decision until such time as these agencies approve the applications. I will follow up by phone to discuss the points raised herein. Thanks you for your consideration. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 78 McDanielBill From:FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent:Thursday, December 8, 2016 1:23 PM To:'Walt' Subject:RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Hi Mr. Kulbacki, I am hopeful that you received my voice mail yesterday indicating that your meeting with the Commissioner is at the main County Complex located at 3299 Tamiami Trail. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 From: Walt [mailto:wkulbacki@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 9:20 PM To: McDanielBill Cc: Walt Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Importance: High Dear Commissioner McDaniel – I am forwarding you the below letter that I wrote with Joe Huber which supports my strong objection to relocating tennis courts to a single family residential area, where I am a full time resident, when other more suitable locations could have been selected. I solicit your rejection of this PUD Ordinance to incorporate them as a Recreational area at this location for the specific reasons outlined below and look forward to discussing with you tomorrow. Thanking you for your support in this matter, Walter S. Kulbacki 7677 Colonial Court Dear Commissioner McDaniel- This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th. This proposed development (see attachment )is located adjacent to our home (Huber’s=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court. These include, the 79 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 communit y 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 80 will be two intersection within 75 feet. The tennis community holds competition with other clubs several times a year. This will inevitably lead to increase traffic and inadequate parking. Having the tennis courts located near the clubhouse where there is adequate parking and designed road network to handle this type of traffic flow would be a better alternative. 3) Buffer Inadequacy. While the buffer has been increased since our objections have been raised, they will be inadequate to prevent noise , visibility and disruption cause by locating the tennis center at this site. The entrance is off Colonial Court near residents driveway entrance. Providing a landscape buffer fails to address the end result of permanently altering the character of the neighborhood. 4) Failure to Make a Good Faith Effort for Alternative sites- As pointed out above the whole premises of this being the only suitable site is false. Management and the Board have failed to pursue a solution that would better serve the entire community without negatively impacting the residents of Colonial Court. No application was ever made for these alternatives even though their own report shows alternatives existed. Alternatives we believe are better suited and cost effective for the entire community 5) Bird and Wildlife Impact- All the land to the south, east and west of the residences on Colonial Court is currently either wooded, conservation or preserve. Residents commonly see birds, deer , squirrels, raccoons and occasionally panthers. The development of this site as a recreation with the attendant noise and traffic will negatively impact the environment for this wildlife. 6) Topographical Concerns including Water Flow- Due to the low level and topographical contour of the land, water flow, containment and sloop of the land considerable fill be required this could negatively impact drainage and create the potential for standing water. 7) Letter of Objection- All of the adjacent property owners have filed objection to the Vacation of the Conservation easement separating Colonial Court form the site. The Executive Summary by the staff list Criteria for considering PUD Amendments. A number of these are relevant in regards to this matter. They include the following: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land , surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Inconsistent with current use 2. The internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropriate 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? Yes . No other RA in PUD 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses…. Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Likely 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? Yes 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood…? Yes 81 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. 82 McDanielBill From:FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent:Thursday, December 8, 2016 12:51 PM To:Bob Mulhere Subject:RE: Naples Heritage PUDA (on BCC Agenda Dec 13, 2016) Mr. Mulhere, thank you for providing me with the additional information pertaining to the Naples Heritage PUDA for the December 13, 2016 agenda. William L. McDaniel, Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 From: Bob Mulhere [mailto:BobMulhere@hmeng.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 4:35 PM To: McDanielBill Cc: FilsonSue Subject: Naples Heritage PUDA (on BCC Agenda Dec 13, 2016) Commissioner McDaniel: 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. 83  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. Bob Mulhere, FAICP Vice President, Planning Services 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Office: 239.254.2000 Direct: 239.254.2026 Fax: 239.254.2099 Cell: 239-825-9373 Serving Clients throughout Southwest Florida Since 1966 Hole Montes, Inc. intends for this electronically stored data attached to this message to be accurate and reliable; however, due to the complex issues concerning electronic data transfers and data translators, Hole Montes, Inc. cannot control the procedures used in retrieving and manipulating data on your computers. Hole Montes, Inc. cannot and does not warrant or verify the accuracy, currentness, completeness, noninfringement, merchantability, or fitness of any of the electronically stored data attached to this message. Hole Montes, Inc. reserves the right to revise and improve electronically stored data at any time without notice and assumes no liability for any damages incurred directly or indirectly which may arise at any time as a result of the use of this data. The user agrees to verify the data to ascertain its accuracy for their intended purpose. The user agrees to consult with their engineer or other professional to ensure the applicability of the information. Hole Montes, Inc. makes every effort to ensure that the data is virus free. However, Hole Montes, Inc. assumes no responsibility for damages incurred directly or i ndirectly 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. 84 McDanielBill From:Walt <wkulbacki@msn.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 7, 2016 9:20 PM To:McDanielBill Cc:Walt Subject:FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Attachments:Naples Heritage Plan Exhibit A.pdf; NAPLES HERITAGE PUDA CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN TENNIS CENTER final.pdf; Colonial Court from Naples Heritage Drive.jpg; Close up of proposed entrance tennis.jpg; Fleming Message.docx Importance:High Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Dear Commissioner McDaniel – I am forwarding you the below letter that I wrote with Joe Huber which supports my strong objection to relocating tennis courts to a single family residential area, where I am a full time resident, when other more suitable locations could have been selected. I solicit your rejection of this PUD Ordinance to incorporate them as a Recreational area at this location for the specific reasons outlined below and look forward to discussing with you tomorrow. Thanking you for your support in this matter, Walter S. Kulbacki 7677 Colonial Court Dear Commissioner McDaniel- This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th. This proposed development (see attachment )is located adjacent to our home (Huber’s=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court. These include, the Boissoneault’s(lot 2), Case’s (Lot 3). Leonard’s (lot 4), Kulbacki’s (lot 5) and Bruckerhoff’s( lot 6). Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half- truths , and broken promises for further review . While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection, they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suited for the community with no adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court. I have attached material indicating the best of these site. The environmental engineers we have consulted believe this alternative site is viable and could be developed at a comparable cost. 85 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. 86 4) Failure to Make a Good Faith Effort for Alternative sites- As pointed out above the whole premises of this being the only suitable site is false. Management and the Board have failed to pursue a solution that would better serve the entire community without negatively impacting the residents of Colonial Court. No application was ever made for these alternatives even though their own report shows alternatives existed. Alternatives we believe are better suited and cost effective for the entire community 5) Bird and Wildlife Impact- All the land to the south, east and west of the residences on Colonial Court is currently either wooded, conservation or preserve. Residents commonly see birds, deer , squirrels, raccoons and occasionally panthers. The development of this site as a recreation with the attendant noise and traffic will negatively impact the environment for this wildlife. 6) Topographical Concerns including Water Flow- Due to the low level and topographical contour of the land, water flow, containment and sloop of the land considerable fill be required this could negatively impact drainage and create the potential for standing water. 7) Letter of Objection- All of the adjacent property owners have filed objection to the Vacation of the Conservation easement separating Colonial Court form the site. The Executive Summary by the staff list Criteria for considering PUD Amendments. A number of these are relevant in regards to this matter. They include the following: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land , surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Inconsistent with current use 2. The internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropriate 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? Yes . No other RA in PUD 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses…. Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Likely 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? Yes 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood…? Yes 10. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use? Other sites available 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. 87 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. 88 McDanielBill From:FilsonSue Sent:Tuesday, December 6, 2016 5:46 PM To:Bob Mulhere Subject:Re: Naples Heritage PUDA (on BCC Agenda Dec 13, 2016) Thanks Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 6, 2016, at 5:44 PM, Bob Mulhere <BobMulhere@hmeng.com> wrote: > > Ditto, congratulations on the new position! 😄 > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 6, 2016, at 5:42 PM, FilsonSue <SueFilson@colliergov.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Bob, thank you for the information. I'll make sure to add this to the Commissioner's backup for your meeting. Looking forward to seeing you. >> >> Sue >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Dec 6, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Bob Mulhere <BobMulhere@hmeng.com<mailto:BobMulhere@hmeng.com>> wrote: >> >> Commissioner McDaniel: >> >> 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; 89 >> >> · 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. >> >> >> Bob Mulhere, FAICP >> Vice President, Planning Services >> <image001.jpg> >> 950 Encore Way >> Naples, FL 34110 >> Office: 239.254.2000 >> Direct: 239.254.2026 >> Fax: 239.254.2099 >> Cell: 239-825-9373 >> >> Serving Clients throughout Southwest Florida Since 1966 >> >> Hole Montes, Inc. intends for this electronically stored data attached to this message to be accurate and reliable; however, due to the complex issues concerning electronic data transfers and data translators, Hole Montes, Inc. cannot control the procedures used in retrieving and manipulating data on your computers. Hole Montes, Inc. cannot and does not warrant or verify the accuracy, currentness, completeness, noninfringement, merchantability, or fitness of any of the electronically stored data attached to this message. >> Hole Montes, Inc. reserves the right to revise and improve electronically stored data at any time without notice and assumes no liability for any damages incurred directly or indirectly which may arise at any time as a result of the use of this data. >> The user agrees to verify the data to ascertain its accuracy for their intended purpose. The user agrees to consult with their engineer or other professional to ensure the applicability of the information. >> Hole Montes, Inc. makes every effort to ensure that the data is virus free. However, Hole Montes, Inc. assumes no responsibility for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the installation or use of this information. Use of the data indicates that the user accepts the above conditions; if these 90 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<mailto:postmaster@hmeng.com> or by telephone at 239-254-2000. Thank you. >> >> >> ________________________________ >> Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 91 McDanielBill From:Bob Mulhere <BobMulhere@hmeng.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 6, 2016 5:43 PM To:FilsonSue Subject:Re: Naples Heritage PUDA (on BCC Agenda Dec 13, 2016) Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged Ditto, congratulations on the new position! 😄 Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 6, 2016, at 5:42 PM, FilsonSue <SueFilson@colliergov.net> wrote: > > Hi Bob, thank you for the information. I'll make sure to add this to the Commissioner's backup for your meeting. Looking forward to seeing you. > > Sue > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 6, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Bob Mulhere <BobMulhere@hmeng.com<mailto:BobMulhere@hmeng.com>> wrote: > > Commissioner McDaniel: > > 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); > 92 > · 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. > > > Bob Mulhere, FAICP > Vice President, Planning Services > <image001.jpg> > 950 Encore Way > Naples, FL 34110 > Office: 239.254.2000 > Direct: 239.254.2026 > Fax: 239.254.2099 > Cell: 239-825-9373 > > Serving Clients throughout Southwest Florida Since 1966 > > Hole Montes, Inc. intends for this electronically stored data attached to this message to be accurate and reliable; however, due to the complex issues concerning electronic data transfers and data translators, Hole Montes, Inc. cannot control the procedures used in retrieving and manipulating data on your computers. Hole Montes, Inc. cannot and does not warrant or verify the accuracy, currentness, completeness, noninfringement, merchantability, or fitness of any of the electronically stored data attached to this message. > Hole Montes, Inc. reserves the right to revise and improve electronically stored data at any time without notice and assumes no liability for any damages incurred directly or indirectly which may arise at any time as a result of the use of this data. > The user agrees to verify the data to ascertain its accuracy for their intended purpose. The user agrees to consult with their engineer or other professional to ensure the applicability of the information. > Hole Montes, Inc. makes every effort to ensure that the data is virus free. However, Hole Montes, Inc. assumes no responsibility for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the installation or use of this information. Use of the data indicates that the user accepts the above conditions; if these conditions are unacceptable, the data should be returned promptly to Hole Montes, Inc., 950 Encore Way, Naples, FL 34110 and all copies should be destroyed. > This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the employer or 93 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<mailto:postmaster@hmeng.com> or by telephone at 239-254-2000. Thank you. > > > ________________________________ > Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 94 McDanielBill From:FilsonSue Sent:Tuesday, December 6, 2016 5:44 PM To:Bob Mulhere Subject:Re: Naples Heritage PUDA (on BCC Agenda Dec 13, 2016) Hi Bob, thank you for the information. I'll make sure to add this to the Commissioner's backup for your meeting. Looking forward to seeing you. Sue Sent from my iPhone On Dec 6, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Bob Mulhere <BobMulhere@hmeng.com> wrote: Commissioner McDaniel: 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 95 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. Bob Mulhere, FAICP Vice President, Planning Services 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Office: 239.254.2000 Direct: 239.254.2026 Fax: 239.254.2099 Cell: 239-825-9373 Serving Clients throughout Southwest Florida Since 1966 Hole Montes, Inc. intends for this electronically stored data attached to this message to be accurate and reliable; however, due to the complex issues concerning electronic data transfers and data translators, Hole Montes, Inc. cannot control the procedures used in retrieving and manipulating data on your computers. Hole Montes, Inc. cannot and does not warrant or verify the accuracy, currentness, completeness, noninfringement, merchantability, or fitness of any of the electronically stored data attached to this message. Hole Montes, Inc. reserves the right to revise and improve electronically stored data at any time without notice and assumes no liability for any damages incurred directly or indirectly which may arise at any time as a result of the use of this data. The user agrees to verify the data to ascertain its accuracy for their intended purpose. The user agrees to consult with their engineer or other professional to ensure the applicability of the information. Hole Montes, Inc. makes every effort to ensure that the data is virus free. However, Hole Montes, Inc. assumes no responsibility for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the installation or use of this information. Use of the data indicates that the user accepts the above conditions; if these conditions are unacceptable, the data should be returned promptly to Hole Montes, Inc., 950 Encore Way, Naples, FL 34110 and all copies should be destroyed. This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, this serves as notice to you that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately via email at postmaster@hmeng.com or by telephone at 239-254-2000. Thank you. 96 McDanielBill From:Bob Mulhere <BobMulhere@hmeng.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 6, 2016 4:35 PM To:McDanielBill Cc:FilsonSue Subject:Naples Heritage PUDA (on BCC Agenda Dec 13, 2016) Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged Commissioner McDaniel: 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. 97 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. Bob Mulhere, FAICP Vice President, Planning Services 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Office: 239.254.2000 Direct: 239.254.2026 Fax: 239.254.2099 Cell: 239-825-9373 Serving Clients throughout Southwest Florida Since 1966 Hole Montes, Inc. intends for this electronically stored data attached to this message to be accurate and reliable; however, due to the complex issues concerning electronic data transfers and data translators, Hole Montes, Inc. cannot control the procedures used in retrieving and manipulating data on your computers. Hole Montes, Inc. cannot and does not warrant or verify the accuracy, currentness, completeness, noninfringement, merchantability, or fitness of any of the electronically stored data attached to this message. Hole Montes, Inc. reserves the right to revise and improve electronically stored data at any time without notice and assumes no liability for any damages incurred directly or indirectly which may arise at any time as a result of the use of this data. The user agrees to verify the data to ascertain its accuracy for their intended purpose. The user agrees to consult with their engineer or other professional to ensure the applicability of the information. Hole Montes, Inc. makes every effort to ensure that the data is virus free. However, Hole Montes, Inc. assumes no responsibility for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the installa tion 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. 98 McDanielBill From:Bob Mulhere <BobMulhere@hmeng.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 6, 2016 4:35 PM To:McDanielBill Cc:FilsonSue Subject:Naples Heritage PUDA (on BCC Agenda Dec 13, 2016) Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Commissioner McDaniel: 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. 99 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. Bob Mulhere, FAICP Vice President, Planning Services 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Office: 239.254.2000 Direct: 239.254.2026 Fax: 239.254.2099 Cell: 239-825-9373 Serving Clients throughout Southwest Florida Since 1966 Hole Montes, Inc. intends for this electronically stored data attached to this message to be accurate and reliable; however, due to the complex issues concerning electronic data transfers and data translators, Hole Montes, Inc. cannot control the procedures used in retrieving and manipulating data on your computers. Hole Montes, Inc. cannot and does not warrant or verify the accuracy, currentness, completeness, noninfringement, merchantability, or fitness of any of the electronically stored data attached to this message. Hole Montes, Inc. reserves the right to revise and improve electronically stored data at any time without notice and assumes no liability for any damages incurred directly or indirectly which may arise at any time as a result of the use of this data. The user agrees to verify the data to ascertain its accuracy for their intended purpose. The user agrees to consult with their engineer or other professional to ensure the applicability of the information. Hole Montes, Inc. makes every effort to ensure that the data is virus free. However, Hole Montes, Inc. assumes no responsibility for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the installa tion 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. 100 McDanielBill From:Bob Mulhere <BobMulhere@hmeng.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 6, 2016 4:35 PM To:McDanielBill Cc:FilsonSue Subject:Naples Heritage PUDA (on BCC Agenda Dec 13, 2016) Commissioner McDaniel: 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 17 th 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. Bob Mulhere, FAICP 101 Vice President, Planning Services 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Office: 239.254.2000 Direct: 239.254.2026 Fax: 239.254.2099 Cell: 239-825-9373 Serving Clients throughout Southwest Florida Since 1966 Hole Montes, Inc. intends for this electronically stored data attached to this message to be accurate and reliable; however, due to the complex issues concerning electronic data transfers and data translators, Hole Montes, Inc. cannot control the procedures used in retrieving and manipulating data on your computers. Hole Montes, Inc. cannot and does not warrant or verify the accuracy, currentness, completeness, noninfringement, merchantability, or fitness of any of the electronically stored data attached to this message. Hole Montes, Inc. reserves the right to revise and improve electronically stored data at any time without notice and assumes no liability for any damages incurred directly or indirectly which may arise at any time as a result of the use of this data. The user agrees to verify the data to ascertain its accuracy for their intended purpose. The user agrees to consult with their engineer or other professional to ensure the applicability of the information. Hole Montes, Inc. makes every effort to ensure that the data is virus free. However, Hole Montes, Inc. assumes no responsibility for damages incurred directly or indirectl y 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 co nditions; 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. 102 McDanielBill From:Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent:Tuesday, December 6, 2016 3:48 PM To:FilsonSue Subject:RE: Naples Heritage Documents You too. -----Original Message----- From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:47 PM To: Huber, Joe Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents No problem, have a nice evening. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:46 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Sue, Was not sure the attachments made it through. Another person I sent them to did not get attachments.Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:45 PM To: Huber, Joe Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Yes and I sent you a confirmation. See below. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:42 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Sue, Did you get the other email with the attachments? -----Original Message----- From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:15 PM 103 To: Huber, Joe Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Thank you, I will provide this information to the commissioner. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 -----Original Message----- From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:10 PM To: FilsonSue Cc: Walt & Kathy Kulbacki (Wkulbacki@msn.com) Subject: FW: Naples Heritage Documents Dear Sue, I am sending you several additional documents that were not included in my original message to you in preparation for our meeting with Mr Kulbacki and myself on Thursday on Monday. The aerial view shows how the Colonial Court neighborhood is surrounded by preserve, conservation and wooded area. This makes our neighborhood unique. The overall Plan shows that no other recreational area are located within the single family residential neighborhood. Finally the document from Gina Green shows the alternative location for the tennis courts identified in their alternative site analysis that is located near the clubhouse and the existing tennis courts. I know I have sent a lot of material hopefully they are helpful. Thanks . Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 104 McDanielBill From:Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent:Tuesday, December 6, 2016 3:48 PM To:FilsonSue Subject:RE: Naples Heritage Documents You too. -----Original Message----- From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:47 PM To: Huber, Joe Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents No problem, have a nice evening. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:46 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Sue, Was not sure the attachments made it through. Another person I sent them to did not get attachments.Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:45 PM To: Huber, Joe Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Yes and I sent you a confirmation. See below. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:42 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Sue, Did you get the other email with the attachments? -----Original Message----- From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:15 PM 105 To: Huber, Joe Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Thank you, I will provide this information to the commissioner. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 -----Original Message----- From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:10 PM To: FilsonSue Cc: Walt & Kathy Kulbacki (Wkulbacki@msn.com) Subject: FW: Naples Heritage Documents Dear Sue, I am sending you several additional documents that were not included in my original message to you in preparation for our meeting with Mr Kulbacki and myself on Thursday on Monday. The aerial view shows how the Colonial Court neighborhood is surrounded by preserve, conservation and wooded area. This makes our neighborhood unique. The overall Plan shows that no other recreational area are located within the single family residential neighborhood. Finally the document from Gina Green shows the alternative location for the tennis courts identified in their alternative site analysis that is located near the clubhouse and the existing tennis courts. I know I have sent a lot of material hopefully they are helpful. Thanks . Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 106 McDanielBill From:FilsonSue Sent:Tuesday, December 6, 2016 3:47 PM To:'Huber, Joe' Subject:RE: Naples Heritage Documents No problem, have a nice evening. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:46 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Sue, Was not sure the attachments made it through. Another person I sent them to did not get attachments.Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:45 PM To: Huber, Joe Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Yes and I sent you a confirmation. See below. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:42 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Sue, Did you get the other email with the attachments? -----Original Message----- From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:15 PM To: Huber, Joe Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Thank you, I will provide this information to the commissioner. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 107 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 -----Original Message----- From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:10 PM To: FilsonSue Cc: Walt & Kathy Kulbacki (Wkulbacki@msn.com) Subject: FW: Naples Heritage Documents Dear Sue, I am sending you several additional documents that were not included in my original message to you in preparation for our meeting with Mr Kulbacki and myself on Thursday on Monday. The aerial view shows how the Colonial Court neighborhood is surrounded by preserve, conservation and wooded area. This makes our neighborhood unique. The overall Plan shows that no other recreational area are located within the single family residential neighborhood. Finally the document from Gina Green shows the alternative location for the tennis courts identified in their alternative site analysis that is located near the clubhouse and the existing tennis courts. I know I have sent a lot of material hopefully they are helpful. Thanks . Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 108 McDanielBill From:Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent:Tuesday, December 6, 2016 3:46 PM To:FilsonSue Subject:RE: Naples Heritage Documents Sue, Was not sure the attachments made it through. Another person I sent them to did not get attachments.Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:45 PM To: Huber, Joe Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Yes and I sent you a confirmation. See below. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:42 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Sue, Did you get the other email with the attachments? -----Original Message----- From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:15 PM To: Huber, Joe Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Thank you, I will provide this information to the commissioner. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 -----Original Message----- From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:10 PM To: FilsonSue 109 Cc: Walt & Kathy Kulbacki (Wkulbacki@msn.com) Subject: FW: Naples Heritage Documents Dear Sue, I am sending you several additional documents that were not included in my original message to you in preparation for our meeting with Mr Kulbacki and myself on Thursday on Monday. The aerial view shows how the Colonial Court neighborhood is surrounded by preserve, conservation and wooded area. This makes our neighborhood unique. The overall Plan shows that no other recreational area are located within the single family residential neighborhood. Finally the document from Gina Green shows the alternative location for the tennis courts identified in their alternative site analysis that is located near the clubhouse and the existing tennis courts. I know I have sent a lot of material hopefully they are helpful. Thanks . Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 110 McDanielBill From:FilsonSue Sent:Tuesday, December 6, 2016 3:45 PM To:'Huber, Joe' Subject:RE: Naples Heritage Documents Yes and I sent you a confirmation. See below. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:42 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Sue, Did you get the other email with the attachments? -----Original Message----- From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:15 PM To: Huber, Joe Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Thank you, I will provide this information to the commissioner. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 -----Original Message----- From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:10 PM To: FilsonSue Cc: Walt & Kathy Kulbacki (Wkulbacki@msn.com) Subject: FW: Naples Heritage Documents Dear Sue, I am sending you several additional documents that were not included in my original message to you in preparation for our meeting with Mr Kulbacki and myself on Thursday on Monday. The aerial view shows how the Colonial Court neighborhood is surrounded by preserve, conservation and wooded area. This makes our neighborhood unique. The overall Plan shows that no other recreational area are located within the 111 single family residential neighborhood. Finally the document from Gina Green shows the alternative location for the tennis courts identified in their alternative site analysis that is located near the clubhouse and the existing tennis courts. I know I have sent a lot of material hopefully they are helpful. Thanks . Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 112 McDanielBill From:Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent:Tuesday, December 6, 2016 3:42 PM To:FilsonSue Subject:RE: Naples Heritage Documents Sue, Did you get the other email with the attachments? -----Original Message----- From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:15 PM To: Huber, Joe Subject: RE: Naples Heritage Documents Thank you, I will provide this information to the commissioner. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 -----Original Message----- From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:10 PM To: FilsonSue Cc: Walt & Kathy Kulbacki (Wkulbacki@msn.com) Subject: FW: Naples Heritage Documents Dear Sue, I am sending you several additional documents that were not included in my original message to you in preparation for our meeting with Mr Kulbacki and myself on Thursday on Monday. The aerial view shows how the Colonial Court neighborhood is surrounded by preserve, conservation and wooded area. This makes our neighborhood unique. The overall Plan shows that no other recreational area are located within the single family residential neighborhood. Finally the document from Gina Green shows the alternative location for the tennis courts identified in their alternative site analysis that is located near the clubhouse and the existing tennis courts. I know I have sent a lot of material hopefully they are helpful. Thanks . Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 113 McDanielBill From:FilsonSue Sent:Tuesday, December 6, 2016 3:15 PM To:'Huber, Joe' Subject:RE: Naples Heritage Documents Thank you, I will provide this information to the commissioner. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 -----Original Message----- From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:10 PM To: FilsonSue Cc: Walt & Kathy Kulbacki (Wkulbacki@msn.com) Subject: FW: Naples Heritage Documents Dear Sue, I am sending you several additional documents that were not included in my original message to you in preparation for our meeting with Mr Kulbacki and myself on Thursday on Monday. The aerial view shows how the Colonial Court neighborhood is surrounded by preserve, conservation and wooded area. This makes our neighborhood unique. The overall Plan shows that no other recreational area are located within the single family residential neighborhood. Finally the document from Gina Green shows the alternative location for the tennis courts identified in their alternative site analysis that is located near the clubhouse and the existing tennis courts. I know I have sent a lot of material hopefully they are helpful. Thanks . 114 McDanielBill From:Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent:Tuesday, December 6, 2016 3:10 PM To:FilsonSue Cc:Walt & Kathy Kulbacki (Wkulbacki@msn.com) Subject:FW: Naples Heritage Documents Attachments:CentralMailRoom@ccapgh.org_20161206_143141.pdf Dear Sue, I am sending you several additional documents that were not included in my original message to you in preparation for our meeting with Mr Kulbacki and myself on Thursday on Monday. The aerial view shows how the Colonial Court neighborhood is surrounded by preserve, conservation and wooded area. This makes our neighborhood unique. The overall Plan shows that no other recreational area are located within the single family residential neighborhood. Finally the document from Gina Green shows the alternative location for the tennis courts identified in their alternative site analysis that is located near the clubhouse and the existing tennis courts. I know I have sent a lot of material hopefully they are helpful. Thanks . 115 McDanielBill From:Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent:Tuesday, December 6, 2016 3:10 PM To:FilsonSue Cc:Walt & Kathy Kulbacki (Wkulbacki@msn.com) Subject:FW: Naples Heritage Documents Attachments:CentralMailRoom@ccapgh.org_20161206_143141.pdf Dear Sue, I am sending you several additional documents that were not included in my original message to you in preparation for our meeting with Mr Kulbacki and myself on Thursday on Monday. The aerial view shows how the Colonial Court neighborhood is surrounded by preserve, conservation and wooded area. This makes our neighborhood unique. The overall Plan shows that no other recreational area are located within the single family residential neighborhood. Finally the document from Gina Green shows the alternative location for the tennis courts identified in their alternative site analysis that is located near the clubhouse and the existing tennis courts. I know I have sent a lot of material hopefully they are helpful. Thanks . 116 McDanielBill From:FilsonSue Sent:Monday, December 5, 2016 1:49 PM To:'Huber, Joe' Subject:RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Hi Joe, this will confirm that we spoke on the phone this morning and the appointment is scheduled for Thursday, December 8th at 3:30 p.m. I apologize for all the changes. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 10:47 AM To: FilsonSue Subject: RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Thanks Sue. I look forward to hearing from you. Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: FilsonSue <SueFilson@colliergov.net> Date: 12/5/16 7:30 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "Huber, Joe" <huber@CCAPGH.org> Subject: RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Good Morning Mr. Huber, I hope you had a nice weekend. Thank you very much for the information concerning Heritage PUD. I apologize for all the confusion. As a new commissioner we were unaware of the time constraints for the first couple of weeks. I will get with Commissioner McDaniel and see if we can work out a time frame for your requested meeting and I will get back to you as soon as I can. Again, thank you for the information. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 117 From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 7:17 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Dear Sue, Here is the material I promised you. Sorry about the phone tag. We would still like to meet with Commissioner McDaniel. I will be in town on Monday the 12th. I have a meeting with Commissioner Saunders. Possible we could meet that morning. If not I would like to talk with the commissioner . Thanks for your help. Dear Commissioner McDaniel This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th. This proposed development (see attachment )is located adjacent to our home (Huber’s=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court. These include, the Boissoneault’s(lot 2), Case’s (Lot 3). Leonard’s (lot 4), Kulbacki’s (lot 5) and Bruckerhoff’s( lot 6). Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half- truths , and broken promises for further review . While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection, they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suite d 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 proj ect 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 118 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, 119 restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropriate 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? Yes . No other RA in PUD 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses…. Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Likely 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? Yes 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood…? Yes 10. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use? Other sites available We believe that any one of these considerations should be sufficient to not approve the above matters. In our view there are more suitable alternative locations to locate the Tennis center . There has not has not been a good faith effort to pursue an alternative location for these courts. The residents of Colonial Court are not objecting to the Campus Improvement Plan merely the location of the tennis center for the reasons set forth above. While much of the applicants arguments for this location has focused on environmental consideration, they have not taken into consideration the environment of the residents of Colonial Court. We believe and have submitted for the record that the alternative site can be used with little or no additional impact on the environment. The Naples Heritage Community approved a Plan that included a new fitness center, administrative offices, enhanced club house and swimming pool as well as the tennis courts. Disapproval by the Board would not jeopardize these plans rather it would require Naples Heritage to choose another location for these tennis courts, one or more we recently learned were identified. This alternative site would be more convenient , less intrusive, safer, and less controversial that the proposed application and allow the residents of Colonial Court to continue to enjoy their resident in the manner they have become accustomed.. There is no public benefit to approving the amendments to the PUD or vacating these easements but rather an adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent properties owners. This matter is being considered by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the South Florida Water Management District We ask that you do not approve the amendments to PUD and refuse to vacate the easements listed above or in the alternative postpone the decision until such time as these agencies approve the applications. I will follow up by phone to discuss the points raised herein. Thanks you for your consideration. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 120 McDanielBill From:Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent:Monday, December 5, 2016 11:41 AM To:FilsonSue; Walt & Kathy Kulbacki Subject:RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 We are confirmed for thursday the 8th at 3:30. Mr Walt Kulbacki my neighbor will attend in person. I will participate by phone. Thanks. Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: FilsonSue Date: 12/5/16 7:30 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "Huber, Joe" Subject: RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Good Morning Mr. Huber, I hope you had a nice weekend. Thank you very much for the information concerning Heritage PUD. I apologize for all the confusion. As a new commissioner we were unaware of the time constraints for the first couple of weeks. I will get with Commissioner McDaniel and see if we can work out a time frame for your requested meeting and I will get back to you as soon as I can. Again, thank you for the information. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 7:17 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Dear Sue, Here is the material I promised you. Sorry about the phone tag. We would still like to meet with Commissioner McDaniel. I will be in town on Monday the 12th. I have a meeting with Commissioner Saunders. Possible we could meet that morning. If not I would like to talk with the commissioner . Thanks for your help. Dear Commissioner McDaniel This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th. This proposed development (see attachment )is located adjacent to our home (Huber’s=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court. These include, the Boissoneault’s(lot 2), Case’s (Lot 3). Leonard’s (lot 4), Kulbacki’s (lot 5) and Bruckerhoff’s( lot 6). Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half- truths , and broken promises for further review . While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection, they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suited for the community with no adverse 121 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 122 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. 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 123 become accustomed.. There is no public benefit to approving the amendments to the PUD or vacating these easements but rather an adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent properties owners. This matter is being considered by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the South Florida Water Management District We ask that you do not approve the amendments to PUD and refuse to vacate the easements listed above or in the alternative postpone the decision until such time as these agencies approve the applications. I will follow up by phone to discuss the points raised herein. Thanks you for your consideration. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 124 McDanielBill From:Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent:Monday, December 5, 2016 10:47 AM To:FilsonSue Subject:RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Thanks Sue. I look forward to hearing from you. Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: FilsonSue Date: 12/5/16 7:30 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "Huber, Joe" Subject: RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Good Morning Mr. Huber, I hope you had a nice weekend. Thank you very much for the information concerning Heritage PUD. I apologize for all the confusion. As a new commissioner we were unaware of the time constraints for the first couple of weeks. I will get with Commissioner McDaniel and see if we can work out a time frame for your requested meeting and I will get back to you as soon as I can. Again, thank you for the information. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 7:17 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Dear Sue, Here is the material I promised you. Sorry about the phone tag. We would still like to meet with Commissioner McDaniel. I will be in town on Monday the 12th. I have a meeting with Commissioner Saunders. Possible we could meet that morning. If not I would like to talk with the commissioner . Thanks for your help. Dear Commissioner McDaniel This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th. This proposed development (see attachment )is located adjacent to our home (Huber’s=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court. These include, the Boissoneault’s(lot 2), Case’s (Lot 3). Leonard’s (lot 4), Kulbacki’s (lot 5) and Bruckerhoff’s( lot 6). Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half- truths , and broken promises for further review . While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection, they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suited fo r the community with no adverse 125 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 126 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. 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 127 become accustomed.. There is no public benefit to approving the amendments to the PUD or vacating these easements but rather an adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent properties owners. This matter is being considered by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the South Florida Water Management District We ask that you do not approve the amendments to PUD and refuse to vacate the easements listed above or in the alternative postpone the decision until such time as these agencies approve the applications. I will follow up by phone to discuss the points raised herein. Thanks you for your consideration. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 128 McDanielBill From:FilsonSue Sent:Monday, December 5, 2016 7:30 AM To:'Huber, Joe' Subject:RE: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Good Morning Mr. Huber, I hope you had a nice weekend. Thank you very much for the information concerning Heritage PUD. I apologize for all the confusion. As a new commissioner we were unaware of the time constraints for the first couple of weeks. I will get with Commissioner McDaniel and see if we can work out a time frame for your requested meeting and I will get back to you as soon as I can. Again, thank you for the information. Sue Filson, Executive Coordinator to Commissioner William L. McDaniel, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34120 239-252-8605 From: Huber, Joe [mailto:huber@CCAPGH.org] Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 7:17 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: FW: VAC PL 2016-1406, Vac2016-001043 Naples Heritage PUD ORD 95-74/ 2004/41 Dear Sue, Here is the material I promised you. Sorry about the phone tag. We would still like to meet with Commissioner McDaniel. I will be in town on Monday the 12th. I have a meeting with Commissioner Saunders. Possible we could meet that morning. If not I would like to talk with the commissioner . Thanks for your help. Dear Commissioner McDaniel This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th. This proposed development (see attachment )is located adjacent to our home (Huber’s=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court. These include, the Boissoneault’s(lot 2), Case’s (Lot 3). Leonard’s (lot 4), Kulbacki’s (lot 5) and Bruckerhoff’s( lot 6). Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half- truths , and broken promises for further review . While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection, they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suited for the community with no adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court. I have attached material indicating the best of these site. The environmental engineers we have consulted believe this alternative site is viable and could be developed at a comparable cost. Looking at this matter on its face it would appear that this is simply an attempt to amend the PUD in order to create a recreational zone in the PUD and gain additional parking : however this is misleading , these matters are part of a project 129 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 130 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. 131 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. 132 McDanielBill From:Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent:Sunday, December 4, 2016 7:17 PM To:FilsonSue 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 Sue, Here is the material I promised you. Sorry about the phone tag. We would still like to meet with Commissioner McDaniel. I will be in town on Monday the 12th. I have a meeting with Commissioner Saunders. Possible we could meet that morning. If not I would like to talk with the commissioner . Thanks for your help. Dear Commissioner McDaniel This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th. This proposed development (see attachment )is located adjacent to our home (Huber’s=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court. These include, the Boissoneault’s(lot 2), Case’s (Lot 3). Leonard’s (lot 4), Kulbacki’s (lot 5) and Bruckerhoff’s( lot 6). Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half- truths , and broken promises for further review . While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection, they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suite d 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 proj ect 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 133 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: 134 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land , surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Inconsistent with current use 2. The internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropriate 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? Yes . No other RA in PUD 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses…. Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Likely 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? Yes 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood…? Yes 10. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use? Other sites available We believe that any one of these considerations should be sufficient to not approve the above matters. In our view there are more suitable alternative locations to locate the Tennis center . There has not has not been a good faith effort to pursue an alternative location for these courts. The residents of Colonial Court are not objecting to the Campus Improvement Plan merely the location of the tennis center for the reasons set forth above. While much of the applicants arguments for this location has focused on environmental consideration, they have not taken into consideration the environment of the residents of Colonial Court. We believe and have submitted for the record that the alternative site can be used with little or no additional impact on the environment. The Naples Heritage Community approved a Plan that included a new fitness center, administrative offices, enhanced club house and swimming pool as well as the tennis courts. Disapproval by the Board would not jeopardize these plans rather it would require Naples Heritage to choose another location for these tennis courts, one or more we recently learned were identified. This alternative site would be more convenient , less intrusive, safer, and less controversial that the proposed application and allow the residents of Colonial Court to continue to enjoy their resident in the manner they have become accustomed.. There is no public benefit to approving the amendments to the PUD or vacating these easements but rather an adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent properties owners. This matter is being considered by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the South Florida Water Management District We ask that you do not approve the amendments to PUD and refuse to vacate the easements listed above or in the alternative postpone the decision until such time as these agencies approve the applications. I will follow up by phone to discuss the points raised herein. Thanks you for your consideration. 135 McDanielBill From:Huber, Joe <huber@CCAPGH.org> Sent:Sunday, December 4, 2016 7:17 PM To:FilsonSue 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 Sue, Here is the material I promised you. Sorry about the phone tag. We would still like to meet with Commissioner McDaniel. I will be in town on Monday the 12th. I have a meeting with Commissioner Saunders. Possible we could meet that morning. If not I would like to talk with the commissioner . Thanks for your help. Dear Commissioner McDaniel This message is follow up to my conversation with your staff about the upcoming matters I am writing you to express my opposition and as spokesperson for all the residents of Colonial Court to the above listed matters that are on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 13th. This proposed development (see attachment )is located adjacent to our home (Huber’s=lot 1) and across the street from the other homes on Colonial Court. These include, the Boissoneault’s(lot 2), Case’s (Lot 3). Leonard’s (lot 4), Kulbacki’s (lot 5) and Bruckerhoff’s( lot 6). Other residents living in close proximity to the development are opposed as well. This matter was previously before the Board in October the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission for a hearing due to many misrepresentation, half- truths , and broken promises for further review . While the applicant has made significant modification to the proposed plan to deal with some of the residents objection, they refuse to consider viable alternative sites they themselves have identified which would be better suited for the community with no adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court. I have attached material indicating the best of these site. The environmental engineers we have consulted believe this alternative site is viable and could be developed at a comparable cost. Looking at this matter on its face it would appear that this is simply an attempt to amend the PUD in order to create a recreational zone in the PUD and gain additional parking : however this is misleading , these matters are part of a project by Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club to erect a new fitness center, and administrative offices near the existing clubhouse restaurant, golf club and swimming pool. In order to accomplish this they seek to eliminate the existing four tennis courts located in the club house area and relocate these and expand to six tennis courts adjacent to our property. Attached is a promotional brochure on the Project as well the proposed site plan. Colonial Court is composed of all single family homes (6)located on the only cul de sac in the single family community of Naples Heritage known as Cypress Point composed of 101 single family homes. There are no (RA)recreational zoned areas in the PUD and other than the homes located on the golf course there are no recreational facilities in Cypress Point The existing tennis courts are located near the existing club house which are nearly 2 miles from this proposed site All of the homes on Colonial Court are currently surrounded by preserve, conservation easements and woods. See pictures One of the misrepresentation made by the applicant initially was that this land was purchased for the purpose of developing a tennis center (initial testimony at Planning Commission) ;however the truth is that the land was purchased in 2004 due to a concern that the property would be developed and that such development could allow traffic from the development to use the roads in the PUD.(see attached) . The irony here is that they purchased it to prevent development , now they seek to do the very thing they attempted to prevent.While management contends that the 136 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: 137 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land , surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Inconsistent with current use 2. The internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Incompatible 3. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Inappropriate 4. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? Yes . No other RA in PUD 5. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? Yes 6. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses…. Yes 7. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Likely 8. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? Yes 9. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood…? Yes 10. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use? Other sites available We believe that any one of these considerations should be sufficient to not approve the above matters. In our view there are more suitable alternative locations to locate the Tennis center . There has not has not been a good faith effort to pursue an alternative location for these courts. The residents of Colonial Court are not objecting to the Campus Improvement Plan merely the location of the tennis center for the reasons set forth above. While much of the applicants arguments for this location has focused on environmental consideration, they have not taken into consideration the environment of the residents of Colonial Court. We believe and have submitted for the record that the alternative site can be used with little or no additional impact on the environment. The Naples Heritage Community approved a Plan that included a new fitness center, administrative offices, enhanced club house and swimming pool as well as the tennis courts. Disapproval by the Board would not jeopardize these plans rather it would require Naples Heritage to choose another location for these tennis courts, one or more we recently learned were identified. This alternative site would be more convenient , less intrusive, safer, and less controversial that the proposed application and allow the residents of Colonial Court to continue to enjoy their resident in the manner they have become accustomed.. There is no public benefit to approving the amendments to the PUD or vacating these easements but rather an adverse impact on the residents of Colonial Court and adjacent properties owners. This matter is being considered by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the South Florida Water Management District We ask that you do not approve the amendments to PUD and refuse to vacate the easements listed above or in the alternative postpone the decision until such time as these agencies approve the applications. I will follow up by phone to discuss the points raised herein. Thanks you for your consideration. 138 McDanielBill From:FilsonSue Sent:Monday, November 28, 2016 12:32 PM To:'Bill Mcdaniel' Subject:RE: FW: Joe Huber (412-680-0509) and Walter Kulbacki - Naples Heritage PUD Okay, See you just can’t give me 4 days off. From: Bill Mcdaniel [mailto:mcdanielbill1@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 12:29 PM To: FilsonSue Subject: Re: FW: Joe Huber (412-680-0509) and Walter Kulbacki - Naples Heritage PUD I already have appointments on the 8th till noon. ..I can do the 9th William L. McDaniel Jr. 7000 Big Island Ranch Rd Napled Fl. 34120 Cell 239-253-1617 votebillmcdaniel.com lazysprings.com On Nov 28, 2016 10:10 AM, "FilsonSue" <SueFilson@colliergov.net> wrote: They are residents of Colonial Court and have concerns regarding the PUD. They will send information ahead of time. Also, this came before the BCC and was sent back to CCPC. It is on the 12/13/16 BCC meeting. I scheduled this meeting for you for December 8th at 10:00 a.m. Sue Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: McDanielBill <BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net> To: Cc: 139 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:05:18 -0500 Subject: Joe Huber (412-680-0509) and Walter Kulbacki - Naples Heritage PUD They are residents of Colonial Court and have concerns regarding the PUD. They will send information ahead of time. Also, thi s came before the BCC and was sent back to CCPC. It is on the 12/13/16 BCC meeting. 140 McDanielBill From:FilsonSue Sent:Monday, November 28, 2016 10:10 AM To:'Bill Mcdaniel' Subject:FW: Joe Huber (412-680-0509) and Walter Kulbacki - Naples Heritage PUD Attachments:Joe Huber (412-680-0509) and Walter Kulbacki - Naples Heritage PUD They are residents of Colonial Court and have concerns regarding the PUD. They will send information ahead of time. Also, this came before the BCC and was sent back to CCPC. It is on the 12/13/16 BCC meeting. I scheduled this meeting for you for December 8th at 10:00 a.m. Sue