Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/17/2009 R December 17,2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida December 17,2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRlTTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERlAL USED IN PRESENT A TIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION ERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAfNING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Revisions to the GMP amendment hearing schedule for the Transmittal of the Immokalee Area Master Plan petition CP-2008-5 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 AUIR, SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 AUIR, AND OCTOBER 29, 2009 CONTINUE AUIR TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND GMP AMENDMENT 7. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - DECEMBER 1,2009 8. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 9. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: SV-PL2009-1165, Benderson Properties, Inc., represented by Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, is requesting a variance from Subsection 5.06.04.FA. of the LDC which allows one wall, mansard, canopy or awning sign for each unit in a multi-occupancy parcel to allow two (2) wall, mansard, canopy or awning signs per unit in a multi-occupancy parcel with one sign facing the abutting road and one sign facing the internal parking area. The subject property is located at 13555 Tamiami Trail North and 895 Wiggins Pass Road at the northwest corner of Tamiami Trail North (US 41 North) and Wiggins Pass Road, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) 1 B. Petition: RZ-2008-AR-13951. Olde Florida Golf Cluh. Inc., represented by John Passidomo of Cheffy Passidomo, and Margaret C. Perry, AICP, of Wi]sonMiller Inc., is requesting a standard rezone from the Golf Course (GC) zoning district and the Rura] Fringe Mixed Use District-Neutral Lands Zoning Overlay District to the Agricu]ture (A) zoning district and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District-Neutral Lands Zoning Overlay District. The subject property, consisting of 553.6H acres, is located on the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, approximately 2 miles east of the Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862) and Collier Bonlevard (CR 951) intersection, in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) C. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-11398, Shoesop Properties, LLC, represented by Timothy Hancock, AICP, of Davidson Engineering, Inc. is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District for a 25,000 square-foot commercia] retail and office development to be known as Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD. The 5.46-acre subject property is located at the northwest corner of the Golden Gate Boulevard (CR 876) and Everglades Boulevard intersection in Section 6, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordiuator: John-David Moss, AICP) 10. ADVERTISED PU8LIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-12294, Theresa Cook, Executive Director of the Collier County Airport Authority and CDC Land Investments, Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, A]CP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, requests a rezone from the Industrial (I) and the Rural Agricultura] with a Mobi]e Home Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning Districts to the Airport Operations Planned Unit Development Zoning District (AOPUD) for a project to be known as the Immokalee Regional Airport Planned Unit Development. This project proposes to allow development of a maximum of 5,000,000 square feet of aviation and non-aviation development on ] ,484* acres of land located north of CR 846, in Sections 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, and Sections 2 and 3, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Dcselem, AICP) (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER, 19,2009) 8. Petition: V A-PL2009-1460, Michel Saadeh of the Vineyards Development Corporation is requesting a Variance of 34.6 feet from the minimum 50-foot setback requirement from abutting residential districts of Ordinance No. 9]-75 (the Vineyards PUD) to allow a ]5.4-foot setback for a maintenance building from an ahutting residential district; and a Variance Irom the IO-foot wide buffer width requirement of Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 4.06.02 C.I. to allow all ofthe required plant material to be located in separate I O-foot wide buffer areas adjacent to the aforementioned abutting residential district. The 1.21- acre subject property is located at 400 Vineyards Boulevard, in Section 5, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, A]CP) C. Petition: PUDA-PL2009-781, Craig T. Bouchard of Tennis Realty, LLC represented by Michael R. Fernandez, AICP of Planning Development Inc., is requesting an amendment to the Nap]es 8ath and Tennis Club Planned Unit Development (PUD) (Ord. No. 8]-61) to revise the site development plan approval process for the transient lodging facilities accessory use and adding development standards for transient lodging facilities, by amending the development plan cover page; by amending Section II, Project Development, Subsection 2.3.8.; by amending Section IV, Tract B: Rccreationa] Club Development, Subsection 4.3.8.3); by amending Section IX. Development Standards, adding Section 9.12, Transportation Improvements and any other stipulations or regulations that may result from the amendment process pertaining to transient lodging facility units within the 20* acre Tract 8 of the 153.7 acre project. The subject property is located on the west side of Airport-Pulling Road, between Pine Ridge Road and Golden Gate Parkway in Section 14, Township 49S, Range 25E, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselcm, AICP) 2 D. Petition: pUDZ-A-2006-AR-I0318. Pawel and Teryl Brzeski, Magnolia Pond Holdings, LLC and Teryl Brzeski, Trustee of the Land Trust # I-B, represented by Davidson Engineering and Patrick White of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP, are requesting a rezone from the Magno]ia Pond Planned Unit Deve]opment (PUD), Ordinance No. 98-49, and Rural Agriculture (A) Zoning Districts to a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as Magnolia Pond MPUD, pennitting 231 multi-family dwelling units and/or an assisted living facility (ALF) at a floor area ratio of .60 with the applicant seeking to add an additional 5 acres to the site. The subject property is 47.0H acres and is located on the north side of the 1-75 right-of-way and half mile west of Collier Boulevard (CR-951) in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) 11. OLD 8USlNESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM ]3. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 11/7/09 cepe AgendaIRay Bellows/ld 3 December 17,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. Okay, everybody, please take your seats. I've got to ask that you refrain from discussion, because there's a lot of people in the room and we have to move through this meeting today. Based on how many are here, looks like it's going to be a long meeting, but that's what we're here for. So with that, would you all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Ko\f1at? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, sir. Page 2 December 17,2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda. Ray, do we have any changes to today's agenda? MR. BELLOWS: None on my part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, just so the audience knows, we have quite a few controversial subjects today, so I don't know who's here for what. But let me tell you what the process is. We have -- the first part of the meeting will be some housekeeping matters, a short discussion of what's called the consent agenda, and that will all be done in a very short period of time. Our advertised public hearings, we have four ofthem. The first one up will be a continued item. And we normally hear continued items first from prior meetings out of fairness, because they were here at a prior meeting waiting to be heard. That one will be up first, and it's the Immokalee Airport Master -- or PUD. The second item is a variance request for the Vineyards; that will be up following the Immokalee one. The third one will be the Naples Bath and Tennis Club. And then the last one will be one called Magnolia Pond, which is a PUD out on 951 and 1-75. And that -- I was kind of filling you in for those of you here for a specific item. The way we handle our meeting -- and I'm going to start talking slower, because I can tell Cherie's getting very impatient with me. We have a court reporter here. Everything is -- minutes are Page 3 December 17,2009 taken, and everything is televised, so we do need to talk a little slower, and we do need to not talk over one another. You all are more than welcome to speak. We're here to listen to you, and we will stay until you're through speaking. We certainly want to hear what everybody has to say today. I've got to ask, though, that you're respectful of the time. And if you simply agree with the party that may have already said something that you were going to say, just say so when you stand up. That will be certainly helpful. Item #4A NEW BUSINESS - REVISIONS TO THE GMP AMENDMENT HEARING SCHEDULE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- well, the first process that we're going to get into is our new business item, which is a discussion of master -- scheduling for the Immokalee Area Master Plan. And David, that's another thing everybody should know, last night the Planning Commission was in Immokalee; I think we left there a little before 8:00. That means we got back and to our homes between 9:00 and 10:00, and I had another meeting after that. So if we seem a little tired or wired on coffee, we've been at it a long time, so -- and David, I know I've got some comments about last night. And I'm assuming you're going to talk to us about scheduling the Immokalee Area Master Plan? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: David, before you start, last night we had it out in Immokalee. The turnout wasn't the best. There was a few people from the public there. I expected more. Our next meeting scheduled in February, I'd like to bring up to the board maybe Page 4 December 17, 2009 having it here rather than us going out in Immokalee. The people in Immokalee had a chance last night to step up to the plate and evidently they don't have a lot of questions to ask. And they can come here next time. So if this room is available and it's okay with the board, I'd suggest having the next meeting here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I think we ought to -- the board members ought to discuss that. Because, you know, we went to Immokalee at the request of the CRA. They heavily advertised the meeting. In fact, I had a pre-meeting with the CRA to discuss the agenda. And even during that meeting I was told that there were some churches that generally meet on Wednesday nights and it was causing a conflict, but they would see to it that their parishioners and everybody as much as they wanted to could attend that meeting that we had last night, because it was that important. As you know, when everybody settled in there was about, I would estimate, 30 to 40 people, maybe 35, something like that. And one of the members of the CRA asked for everybody who was a member of the boards in the community to stand up. Well, that was nice, but we were there to try to see what the public wanted to hear. And when I asked them, I said wait a minute, before you all sit down, just those that are members of a board or members who have been involved with the process sit down and leave remaining those citizens who have not been participatory in this and who are really the citizens we are trying to reach. Well, as you saw, with the exception of Nicole, we had nine or 10 people there last night that were really maybe representative of citizens who had not been aware or involved in the process. As the night went on, we asked for speakers. I think you saw we had predominantly one speaker. And that went on most of the evening. And towards the end of the evening when everything was wrapping up, a gentleman or two stood up to finally say something. It was not the kind of turnout I had expected. 1 was very Page 5 December 17, 2009 disappointed that with all the advertising -- and as you know, going into town there's only a couple roads, and on one of those on the end we came in there was a billboard that was flashing about the meeting. So it wasn't like it wasn't advertised. So I'm willing to move forward with whatever this board wants. It's certainly not a sole decision of the chairman. But I ask that one thing, whatever this board decides this morning, before we lock it in, ifthere's time, I'd like to talk to the commissioner from the district to explain to him what had occurred. Because he was there for the first hour or so or two, maybe, last night, but then he missed the latter part where the public involvement wasn't there. Now, with that in mind, I certainly want to look to the rest of the board members for any discussion on the matter. And Paul, you're from Immokalee, what did you think? If you don't mind me putting you on the spot. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's all right. I think that it's hard for people to understand our proceedings in Immokalee. Not that it's not important, but our meetings are rather abstract. And I think that it might not be too far out ofline if we did come back here. I think that the people who are really concerned with the process would probably come to the meeting out here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we need to be aware too that the next meeting will not be an informal smiley relaxed meeting. It will be a very intense meeting on the sentence-by-sentence, word-for-word, paragraph-by-paragraph of 30 some odd pages of a master plan. Other than us, I don't know anybody in their right mind who would want to sit through all that. So -- and I'm not sure we do either. But it has to be done to do it right. And what does the -- anybody else have any comments? Does anybody object to the request of bringing it back here? Mr. Murray? Page 6 December 17, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will just say that it was a good thing that we attempted to do. It was the right thing to do. But given the cost of all the equipment, all the personnel and everything else relative to what we think we can expect as a turnout out there, especially because this is going to be a very tedious activity, even if people were to show up initially, I suspect in short order they would be leaving. So I do think that it probably should be here where we have the facility, we have the equipment, and if we need additional staffwe can get them really quickly to answer questions. So I think perhaps it's the right thing to do now to stay here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, lacking any objection, I think we ought to look for -- look to try to schedule it in these chambers or at least here in the coastal area at this point. I'll discuss it with the commissioner and explain to him the circumstances so everybody can try to understand the best they can. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- need to ask David a question. David, was it you that said that next time we meet for this that we were going to meet in a community park? MR. WEEKS: Ifwe meet in lmmokalee -- for the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Manager for the county. Ifwe do meet on February 16th in Immokalee, it would have to be at the Immokalee Community Park. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought you said. MR. WEEKS: But the building we were at last night, that room is not available. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And how many people would that have held? MR. WEEKS: That would accommodate over 100. Page 7 December] 7, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But based on last night, I don't think you'd have anybody but us and maybe one person in the audience, so MR. WEEKS: If I might, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: The -- Mr. Murray made a comment that touches on the differences. As far as the expense goes, it's actually not significant. Last night was far more expensive than it would be to hold your hearing there, and the reason for that was because the sound equipment had to be provided by an outside entity, which is much more expensive. It would be no cost if it were provided by county staff. But those facilities were not available, the equipment was not available last night. The other thing was we had a minute taker doing the summary minutes last night. The cost for them is actually -- it's different than for the court reporter. And because we're talking about a regular advertised hearing, the court reporter cost would be the same, regardless of the location. But kind of get to the bottom line on the cost, to hold the meeting out in Immokalee, approximately $100, a little bit over that. The rental of the van to take you out there for those of you interested, and then also for the rental of the meeting facility. The more significant difference is that when you hold your hearing here, it can be broadcast live. If it's held in Immokalee, then it is taped and then replayed at a later date only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I saw a summary of cost prepared by Joe Schmitt. It was nowhere close to the number you're talking about. Last night's meeting, because of staff time -- if you're telling me that for four -- including driving six hours, you only charge the county $100, you're a great employee, and we need more like you. And if that's the rate of pay you're willing to accept, I think that's a Page 8 December 17,2009 good idea. So you've got to factor in that on the master plan hearing, most of the comprehensive staff would have to be there who's involved and a myriad of other support staff. And it would need to be media advertise -- everything would have to be done straight up like we're here. So I don't want to mislead anybody, it's not $100. The van might be, but there's a lot more to it than that. MR. WEEKS: I'll clarify. I'm talking about out-of-pocket expense. Because staff will be paid regardless of where the meeting is at. But you're certainly right, the travel time out and back, 15 minutes to get from our offices down here and 15 minutes back, perhaps, traveling to Immokalee is about an hour each way, but I'll stop there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, what's the matter? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just saying, I think we all get it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I want to continue with the conversation, David. I mean, we're not in a hurry to settle this. This is an important issue for our 16th meeting. We need to get it resolved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, shall we take a vote? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I want David to tell us what's open on the 16th of February. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. MR. WEEKS: These chambers are still open on the 16th. They're still reserved for this body. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At this point let's tentatively keep it reserved. And when is your advertising date? MR. WEEKS: It would be late January. We have time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If something radical changes, we always can -- we'll have another meeting or two before then. We'll get Page 9 December 17, 2009 back with you. Anybody object to that process at all? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, would you like us to put it on the agenda for maybe your first meeting in January? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a check, yeah, that would be a good move. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. Item #5 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is actually going to be next year. And Ray, am I right, in this -- well, am I right, is your calendar right? It says January 5th we have a meeting? MR. BELLOWS: Not on January 5th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on your calendar -- MR. BELLOWS: January 7th meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The calendar that has yellow CCPCICIE adoption hearing at 8:30 on January 5th. So I guess that's not right. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I have I believe the revised calendar. It's not shown on mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I'll cross it off mine then. We're looking at the 7th? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next meeting is our regular meeting on the 7th. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think I might not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, maybe one no, so that's -- that Page 10 December 17,2009 leaves a quorum. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: According to this calendar, we have a CIE adoption hearing on the 5th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we just talked about. Yeah, that's the one that David -- that's not going to happen now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. So that one-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can take that one off our calendars and -- we have a quorum for the 7th, that's what counts. And we'll have a meeting that day, like usual. Item #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 AUIR, SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 AUIR AND OCTOBER 29, 2009 CONTINUED AUIR TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND GMP AMENDMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of minutes. We'll have to take them one at a time. And there's three sets. Is there a motion it approve or correct September 21 st, 2009 AUIR minutes? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 11 December 17,2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. September 23rd, 2009, same. Is there a -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. And October 29th, 2009. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Page 12 December 17, 2009 Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Ray, BCC reports. MR. BELLOWS: Board of County Commissioners met last Tuesday. There were no land use items on their agenda for that meeting, so I have no recap for you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And no chairman's report for today. We have enough on our agenda without that. Item #9 A PETITION: SV-PL2009-1165, BENDERSON PROPERTIES, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consent agenda items. First one up is the Petition SV-PL2009-1165, the Benderson properties. That's on Wiggins Pass Road. Page 13 "_""_"__<_'__'_'M._,.~_"~^_,.,~,, , .<..,c._..____,.."..'.",.""_.._,,._,~_ December 17,2009 Is there corrections, changes, concerns from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve. I would like to ask one question of Mr. Schiffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get a second to your motion first, then we'll go into discussion. Mr. -- who wants to second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now. COMMISSIONER CARON: You had asked to have a change, exhibit change. Is that satisfactory to you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think so, yeah. They've moved the stuff out of the way. COMMISSIONER CARON: Seemed to be to me, so I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's been a motion made, seconded to approve. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 14 December 17,2009 Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Item #9B PETITION: RZ-2008-AR-13951, OLDE FLORIDA GOLF CLUB, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, the Olde Florida Golf Club. It's on Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. Is there a discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? Anybody. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the hand went up first. Ms. Homiak seconded. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Page 15 December 17, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #9C PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-11398, SHOESOP PROPERTIES, LLC CJAIRMAN STRAIN: Next petition for final one on consent, PUDZ-2007-AR-11398, Shoeso Properties, LLC, also known as the Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- motion? Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER CARON: There is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, J.D. MR. MOSS: Yes. Excuse me, Mr. Strain. For the record, I just wanted to draw to your attention that the Exhibit A with this ordinance, number 94 and number 151, staff has included that neither of these uses will contain adult oriented businesses. And that was not something that was recommended by the Planning Commission, but we were afraid that it was something that would come up at the time of Board of County Commissioners hearing. And we spoke with the applicant, he has no objection to us incorporating that. So as long as you all are satisfied with that. The other thing is you had asked us to replace the transportation exhibit that was used as Exhibit C in this PUD document with one that was not -- that had removed all the transportation references to it. And the wrong one was included and I have the correct one here, if I could put it on the visualizer. Page 16 December 17,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. And J.D., on your other item about the adult businesses? MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're prohibited by the GMP. We have a list of prohibitive uses, I believe, in our GMP for Golden Gate. I thought that was one of them. So in that case, that's why -- MR. MOSS: No, sir, I don't see it on the list of prohibited uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? MR. MOSS: Because all of those from the GMP were incorporated into the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, thanks for catching it. I'm going to double check the -- MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I know we had that discussion and it was supposed to be one, but somehow it got missed. MR. MOSS: So those are the only changes I wanted to bring to your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody have any concerns or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Vigliotti, your motion -- did you still want to make a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve with the changes J.D. just brought up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 17 -'-.---""'---- December 17,2009 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #lOA PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12294, IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT PUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that takes us to the first of four of our public hearings. The first one is Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12294. Those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I spoke briefly last night with Mr. Arnold. We haven't really discussed much, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think I had numerous discussions with Mr. Arnold, but I think he's the only one involving the issue. Anybody else? Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I had a lot of discussions with Mr. Arnold. And also Shane -- I forgot your last name. MR. ARNOLD: Shane Johnson -- Page 18 "'-"-"'.--,.,'.", "--~~'-'-'-~-'..' December 17,2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Johnson, thank you. MR. ARNOLD: -- for the record, from Passarella and Associates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that in mind, we'll move forward. Wayne, your presentation? MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor, and I'm representing today the Collier County Airport Authority on their rezoning of the property out at the Immokalee Regional Airport. With me today is Shane Johnson from Passarella and Associates, the environmental consultant on the project. We understand that even though the EAC approved the project, that there were possibly some environmental questions, so Shane is in attendance to answer any questions you may have. Debbie Brueggerman, who is the new interim executive director of the Airport Authority, will be joining us. I don't see her in the audience yet, but she should be there. Oh, there she is. Thank you. Debbie Brueggerman. Thank you. I guess I'll start out with the location exhibit. I know that you were all out in Immokalee last night and probably didn't venture far enough to see the airport property, but the airport consists of about 1,380 acres, plus or minus, today. We're proposing to rezone that acreage that's currently zoned industrial along with about 103 acres that lies immediately east of the airport property that's presently zoned agricultural. So the action today would rezone the entirety of those two parcels to an airport operations planned unit development. And as I start into that, I'd like to maybe talk a little bit about the airport itself and what's there. It's an important asset for the Immokalee community . You heard last night the master planning efforts and the focus on economic amount development. So they're putting a lot of emphasis on the airport as being this hub for future Page 19 December 17,2009 cargo and research and development industrial opportunities. Right now out at the airport you have three runways. Two are active. Both are about 5,000 feet in length. The proposed master plan that we're working on will show opportunities for extension of the east-west runway that's on your screen up there. Presently there are about 10 hangar buildings on the property. There are today three commercial/industrial buildings on the property. There's a general aviation building, there's a fuel farm on-site, there's a caretaker residence and there's also a utility site out there that houses a water treatment facility. And I'll go through that a little more specifically with you on the master plan. One thing I wanted to talk about, and it's a little confusing so I wanted to get it out on the table. Collier County Airport Authority and your Board of County Commissioners have already adopted what's known as an Airport Master Plan. That's a separate document that is done in conjunction with the FAA. County adopted its latest version in April of this past year. That Airport Master Plan looks at existing facilities, it looks at aircraft needs, it looks at maintenance, it looks at operations and then it takes you into the future with a land use program that also then looks at the operational characteristics that the airport will need to respond to future growth. That Airport Master Plan gets updated, I wouldn't say on an annual basis, but it does get updated, and those get adopted by the board. Those master plans do not come to the Planning Commission. That's -- it's an exercise that's conducted between the Airport Authority and the Board of County Commissioners. But what we're attempting to do with the PUD process is to bring forward a master plan that's part of the PUD that looks more similarly to the long-term strategic plan that has already been adopted by your board. Right now you have industrial zoning on the property. You Page 20 December 17, 2009 don't have a master plan of development. That's problematic for the county in a couple of ways. Because one, the county doesn't really have any reference plan to look at because your community development staff is not involved in the former master planning exercise either. So they have conventionally zoned industrial land. But when things like the National Guard or a spec industrial building comes along, they really have no reference point to look at the airport property and determine whether it fits in with the master plan, how it relates to anything else that's happening. And if you have more than one application pending at a time, it's problematic from the way their review process is established. So we hope that at the end of the day, by adopting a PUD master plan and a PUD document that outlines the uses and where things will be located out there, that it makes the economic development that is going to occur out there occur more easily and that process works more seamlessly than it has in the past. So I wanted to get that on the table. Because we use these terms kind of interchangeably as we've been working through Airport Master Plan. But I'm going to try to be very specific. And if I reference Airport Master Plan, that means the document that you all have not reviewed, and I'll refer to the PUD master plan for the item that you're reviewing today. You heard the Immokalee Master Plan last night. That's a copy of the adopted Future Land Use Map for the Immokalee Area Master Plan. You can see the gray shading is the industrial designation for the Immokalee Master Plan. You can see the airport facilities highlighted inside that area. The one area that we're adding is not shown on that, and it's an extension immediately to the east of 103 acres. You probably saw last night that the consultant working for the CRA and working on the master plan update for the Immokalee area does include that 103-acre as what's now going to be known as the Airport Industrial Subdistrict. And we can talk about any of that as Page 21 December I 7, 2009 we need to. I wanted to also talk a little bit about not just the PUD master plan, but I wanted to show you the future what's called the ultimate airport land use plan, and that's out of the document that was known as the Airport Master Plan for the Immokalee Regional Airport. It's sort of similar to a Future Land Use Map, if you will, but just for the airport property. And it identifies by color coding where we're going to have those types of uses that rely directly on the airport and its immediate facilities such as taxiways and the airports, and those are known as aviation related development. The yellow areas are known as some of the industrial development areas -- I'm sorry, the gray areas are the industrial development areas. And those are areas that do not have to have airport access per se and could be standalone manufacturing, industrial or any of the other uses we're proposing in the list of schedule of uses that we have. But I wanted you to see that, because it's sort of the basis for establishing the PUD master plan that we have. And I've got a colorized version of the document that's in your packet. That is our PUD master plan. And it -- we didn't divide this one into aviation related, non-aviation related. We looked at it more of an airport operations, which is the area not only in yellow, but some of the green. I highlighted what's known as a runway protection zone at the end of those runways. They have other development restrictions. They're still part of the airport operations tract, but they have development restrictions with building heights and placement and things like that. So I wanted to highlight those. The other areas that are shown in gray are going to be primarily the industrial development areas for the site. The area to the east that's shown as the 103 acres is known as the expansion tract. And let me talk about that and then get that out of the way and we'll focus on really the airport operations. Page 22 . .....,,--_..----.__.._.~,. December 17, 2009 The 1 03-acre expansion tract is important for the very long-term plan for the airport to have a runway extension. And that would then potentially allow runway extension into that area. It then pushes out a runway protection zone beyond their property boundary. This property, the way we've added it to the PUD document, because that area is technically in your rural lands stewardship program area, we're restricted in our PUD document until that master plan effort is complete and that the line work is changed to only those uses that are allowed today in agricultural zoning, with the exception of what's known as -- we added a reference to -- it's Item E in the list of uses under this tract, and it's listed as navigational aides. And that's really so that beacons or some signage related to the runways and things like that could be placed there. But otherwise, we're restricted to agricultural uses, and there won't be any industrial development there until the future master plan is revised. So for the most part I think our discussion today will focus on the airport property that we have and in ownership today. And I should mention too that that 1 03-acre tract is owned by somebody other than the Collier County Airport Authority. It's owned by Collier Development Corporation. And they've authorized us to represent them as well on this application. The -- also of note on that master plan that's on your screen is the utility tract. That's one change that was made. Mr. Strain and I met, and while it was always shown on our line work as an airport operations tract, it really wasn't identified as the utility site that it's intended to be. So we've labeled that utility site, and it's a small area shown on the western side of the property. We also have an extensive preserve. We have far more preserve than the County's required preserve, because the county's preservation requirements are based on existing native vegetation, and then the preservation of that. We have a preservation area that is much larger than required for Page 23 December 17,2009 a couple of reasons. One, there's already a conservation easement that encumbers all of that property, plus some additional land. So the PUD zoning and a conservation easement that's in place don't exactly match. And I know it's a little bit confusing, but the reason they don't is because they were created for two separate purposes. The conservation easement included some areas that were already cleared, it includes some roads, some ditches and things like that. We took those areas out for the establishment of our preservation area for the zoning document. So I can try to clear up that confusion, and that may be a question we need Shane Johnson from Passarella to further address when we get there. I did want to talk a little bit about the overall process that we've had. We did have a neighborhood information meeting out in Immokalee it was not highly attended. But [ think too as the master planning effort, this process has been ongoing. The Airport Authority has had meetings in Immokalee, so there's been no expressed opposition to the project. There seems to be wide community support for it. And with that, it takes me into a couple of issues that are -- 1 mentioned to you last night and for the public's benefit that's listening today. The airport is intended to allow industrial development and some other uses that we've added to our list of uses that will relate to the long-term development of the airport as an economic hub. But there are a couple of unique characteristics for the airport that are out there today, and we've made provisions for them. And that is on the northern tract right now that's on our master plan, that is a sod farm. And that's a good source of revenue for the Airport Authority. It's a benign use to the airport operations that are ongoing, but it's a unique aspect that I wanted to point out, because it's not a truly industrial use, but it's certainly a revenue stream for the county and has been for some years. The other thing that's ongoing out there is the Immokalee Page 24 December 17,2009 Raceway. And they have -- I think over the years it's been there, it's operating on a I guess weekly basis at the moment. I know that members of your staff have attended and we had conversations about how we keep this use. Because your current master plan talks about needing a conditional use to have race operations. And what I would argues, that that race operation was ongoing at the time in 2007 when the reference to conditional use requirements were put in place. And what we have done to settle on I guess a middle ground, if you will, with your comprehensive planning staff is to restrict the race operations to only the eighth mile track operations that they have today. And that any future expansion of that operation would go through the conditional use process. And that's what's in your document today. We have a long list of uses that are in your PUD document in the Exhibit A. And again, we have an airport operations tract that it was set up specifically to permit all of those direct airport related functions. That's where you'll find reference to also the vehicle racing, because it takes place on one of the abandoned runways. We also have a long list of accessory uses that are meant to supplement and support the airport operation out there. And you'll see in there, that includes things like hangars and administrative offices, some minimal retail sales and even a recreational campground, because camping does take place in conjunction with some of the race events on some of the weekends. We also then have the industrial development tract, which has a long list of permitted uses that also includes all of the airport operation functions and then lists out by SIC Code a long list of uses. And we can talk about any of those you may want. I think most of those are uses that we believe are going to be consistent with the long-term efforts of the master plan. We've also been involved with the consultant for the county's Immokalee Area Master Plan amendments to make sure that the Page 25 December 17, 2009 language there will permit everything we're trying to do through the zoning process here. I can take you through any of the specifics, but I wanted to also mention that we have asked for several deviations from your standard Land Development Code requirements. And I think most of those are simply necessary because of the airport operations itself. They're pretty unique. We don't have the same requirements for architectural elevations on a hangar building, for instance, that you might on a typical commercial building. Landscape requirements should be different because we have a lot of pavement in those areas. Not to say that we can't have some landscaping, but we can't have standard code required landscaping. There are other standards with regard to littoral plantings for the lake system that's out there, and the need to try to not encourage water fowl to be on the airport property because of the safety hazard that presents itself there. And I can go through each of those individually, if you wish, Mr. Strain, or if you want me to respond to questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think just let's get questions from the -- MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Planning Commission. And if you're ready? MR. ARNOLD: I'm ready. I can talk, like I said, about any of the specific components, but that I think's a pretty good overview of where we are and what issues we have on the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we did hear part of it last night, so let's focus on our questions. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: On Page 4 of 13 under principal uses, number -- or letter K, oil and gas exploration. Do you know where the closest oil and gas pumping station or current exploration or Page 26 December 17,2009 MR. ARNOLD: I do not. That language was added because that's how it's listed in the agricultural zoning district, as one of the permitted uses, and that's why it's there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, well, I was just wondering if that -- not that I'm against it. It just kind of caught my eye, knowing the Colliers are pretty well into that. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think as you know, this happens to be on the expansion tract you're looking at, I believe, and that is owned by the Collier family. And there are extensive oil and gas and mineral rights that they do control on a lot of their land holdings. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So they're planning on selling? In the future they may sell to the Airport Authority? MR. ARNOLD: The County is attempting to purchase property from them, yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. And they're just trying to retain the oil and gas rights and mineral rights on that property until and probably after sale? MR. ARNOLD: I think that may be part of it. I think the easy answer is we wanted to present to them the same opportunities they had today for land uses. But your comprehensive planning staff was concerned that until we have revision to the rural land stewardship program to take this 103 acres out, that we needed to keep it consistent with that. And we know that at some point we may be back amending this PUD document. But that only supports and is necessary when the runway expansion occurs, which could be beyond easily a 10-year horizon right now. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Then on 0, which is schools, public, including educational plants, I know it's my failure, and I'm just going to ask you if you could go through that, educational plant. MR. ARNOLD: I'll have to get Land Development Code and Page 27 December 17, 2009 read you the definition, but I believe it is a defined term in the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You're talking about a plant as a green thing or a building? MR. ARNOLD: We might want to ask Mr. Eastman to comment on that. But educational plant was I think meaning more of the support function other than just a schoo\. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, that's the way I took it. I'm sure I didn't think it was a tree. Okay, thank you very much. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have two copies of Exhibit A. One copy had blue and red marks on it, the other did not. Which one are you referring to now? MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure which document you have, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It's Exhibit A. MR. ARNOLD: Oh, the blue and red marks, that's the one that was a strike-through/underlined version. I'm sorry. For the most part, those are very similar documents. They're from the list of uses; there was only a reference. And would it be helpful for me to go through that? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, what-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we just respond to the questions COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- does the blue indicate and what does the red indicate? MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Why don't we work from the one that's red and blue. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: If everybody has that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any questions from that Page 28 December 17,2009 one, Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, Wayne, with regard to that particular document, and I'm talking about -- about to talk about the expansion tract, that would be on Page 3 of 14 of the Exhibit A, I believe it is. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And we have to introduce that, or reintroduce the question of the potential expansion. Although you say it's a 10-year horizon, perhaps it would be sooner. But irrespective of that, on my document it says permitted uses, and one of the principal uses is single-family dwelling. MR. ARNOLD: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And aside from that, if we're going to have an expansion and we're going to give Collier the opportunity to carry out whatever activities it wants to carry out, should the county then or the Airport Authority acquire that property in the future, wouldn't it be a heck of a lot more expensive? Because they'd have to take all those structures and tear them down. I'm trying to understand how that's a good thing for us. That may be very good for Collier, but I'm not sure that that's really good for the county in the long term. Aside from that, I don't know the distance there from the end of the runway. And then there's the green space, that area where presumably a plane, if it had to land on an emergency basis, would get tangled up in that material. But I just -- I have a hard time appreciating that. Could you help me on that? MR. ARNOLD: Well, again, this list of uses tried to replicate what they currently can do on this property today. And the county -- Debbie Brueggerman is here. And I don't -- they've been trying to Page 29 December 17, 2009 negotiate a contract for purchase. I don't know if they're technically under contract or not for the county to purchase the property from Collier Development. That's what's intended to occur. It's intended to occur now. I don't think there's a real concern about constructing a residence there, per se. Doesn't mean that they couldn't if in fact they decide to abandon the idea to sell the property to the county. There may be restrictions on the runway protection zone on what they can build. The FAA does have standards that regulate how tall structures can be within certain distances from the runway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Appreciate. I don't -- I don't know that anybody would even buy a home in the flight line of a plane area, but that's certainly something. I guess dairying, ranching, poultry and egg production, milk, so all of these uses then are to be preserved for them, but you don't have any expectation they'll use them. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think currently there are cattle that are grazing on their holdings. And to the extent that those operations occur, I don't think it would be inconsistent with what the airport used to have, cattle grazing and other farming/ranching activities. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that would be a benign use, I wouldn't have a problem. I'm more concerned with any structures that might be erected and I just wouldn't want to see the county ending up having to pay more for something in the long run. MR. ARNOLD: Right. And I wouldn't either. And the reason I feel comfortable that that's not going to occur is because I think if they haven't a complete contract to purchase, that it's really close. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's my question, thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, just so I understand it, the property that is Collier families -- Collier Enterprises right now is not . . m our possessIOn. Page 30 December 17,2009 MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're willing to allow you to rezone it to PUD as long as they don't lose any of the current rights they have on the property. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we still are in the same position we are, even if it gets rezoned PUD, to negotiate the property just as though we didn't get the PUD; is that a fair statement? MR. ARNOLD: I would say that's a fair statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, does anybody have any other questions? Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'd like to go back to that runway expanSiOn zone. Would it be out of place for us to say that in that runway expansion zone we wouldn't want communication towers or oil exploration there? I mean, that just seems so common sense. Or is that something that we don't have the authority to request? MR. ARNOLD: This is on the expansion tract? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. The same thing we were talking about, Exhibit A. MR. ARNOLD: Right. And I guess my answer is I don't know all the airport operations activities they may need. I'm not an aviation person. Some of you may be. But some of the things that they may need to support it could be an antenna, but it may be a low-level antenna that simply supports a GPS unit that helps tracking. You know, the technology changes. I don't envision that being 1 OO-foot tall communications type tower facility. I know it doesn't say that. But again, we're dealing from a list of permitted uses in the agricultural district. And I guess -- I think the easiest way to compare what we're attempting to do to the alternate scenario is that if we keep the zoning Page 31 December 17,2009 today industrial and we do nothing, the Collier family still has the right to put any of these uses subject to FAA permitting that could be there on their property. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. Well, I won't belabor that point. I want to go to the area of unified control. And I'm not a planner, I don't understand it, but do people feel comfortable with the fact that there are two owners currently? And right now how can you have unified control ifthere's two people who are landowners? What if one owner doesn't agree with what the other one wants to do? It seems to me that before we approve this we should wait until there's real unified control. You're asking for us to do this now I guess because it would be more convenient. But usually the way we do things is we kind of do things by the book. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I don't think it's so uncommon that you have multiple ownerships seeking a rezoning application. It occurs maybe not on every application, but it doesn't occur infrequently. And I think the unifying aspect of this is the PUD document, the ordinance that gets adopted, along with the master plan. And keep in mind too that there's an environmental resource permit that will control any of the development that occurs and will have to have a property owner's association established for long-term maintenance for all of the common elements anyway. I don't see it as a problem. And Mr. Klatzkow, you may be able to add something to that. MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't think it's the preferred way to do it. I mean, I sort of agree with Commissioner Midney that, you know, in the best of worlds we would have acquired that property already. But having said that, we may never voluntarily acquire that property. We may have to eventually condemn it. And the extension of the runway is going to be vital to the future for that airport. So, you know, one way or the other, whether it's through a voluntary purchase or Page 32 December 17, 2009 condemnation, that tract is going to be part of the airport. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I agree with you. And I think that sooner or later it will be done and it should be done. But, you know, what ifit -- what if we have to go that route? But you feel comfortable with going ahead with this anyway, even though there is MR. KLA TZKOW: Only because, you know, I think the reality is, given the importance of the extension of that runway, that sooner or later the Airport Authority will have ownership control over that tract. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. Still talking about that tract, on your map you're showing the runway that's 5,000 feet, and you're thinking of extending it to 10,000. How far into the expansion tract would that go? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All the way. MR. ARNOLD: I believe the 10,000 foot runway extends almost to the eastern end of that expansion tract. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Almost to the eastern. And how much of a safety zone -- how many feet is required at the end of that runway? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think it depends on factors. But I think generally speaking in this particular case we know that with the ultimate runway expansion, the runway protection zone gets pushed into another tract that's about 108 acres in size. And it would then be encumbered with this runway protection zone status. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: This land that we're talking about, the 103 acres, right now it's rural RLSA land, rural stewardship land. And the purpose of that designation is to prevent urban sprawl. You're talking about that you're not thinking about putting any industrial uses on that land until it's annexed by the urban area of Immokalee, after that you're thinking of putting industrial uses on it? MR. ARNOLD: I think the likelihood that it would support industrial uses is limited, as the plans for the airport continue and the Page 33 December 17, 2009 runway gets extended. Because you have the runway protection zone issues. But you do need to probably put more airport supportive facilities there. There will need to be roads, there will need to be some signage and things like that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because my concern is, is the industrial area going to spill over into the RLSA? You also have panther issues there now. Right now that's primary panther habitat. And if you're talking about sort oflike if this is just the beginning but afterwards we're going to be needing more land in that vicinity, then it's sort of like a Trojan horse kind of thing. You know, we're asking for 103 acres now, but is this the beginning of wanting to get more annexation in a larger industrial zone? Because the purpose ofRLSA is to avoid premature conversion of agricultural land. And is this going to be the start of -- of that taking place? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think I look at this as a little bit ofa refinement over the RLSA program we had. When that program was adopted several years ago you didn't have the Jmmokalee area master planning effort that's ongoing. You now have a new 2009 updated Airport Master Plan effort that shows the runway extensions and expanSiOns. So I'd like to think this is just kind of the continual housekeeping that you do for your planning efforts throughout the county. The 103 acres is a very, very small component of your RLSA program. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It is. MR. ARNOLD: I think to the extent that this property may ultimately support a runway, I don't think you find that the runway protection zone doesn't necessarily translate to having physical improvements on it. But J would also say keep in mind that under your current zoning and permitted uses under the RLSA program you could have much more intense uses than typical agricultural, should they take advantage Page 34 December 17, 2009 of every opportunity they have in that program. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I think that ifit'sjust kept in its natural state that will best serve as the runway protection zone. And I can see that it could be compatible with conservation in that area, as long as it's not developed. I'm just worried that there's a contemplation that there's going to be a further industrial intensification on that eastern edge of the airport. And it's not spelled out. Corby Schmidt, when I had spoken to him before the meeting, there was in his notes -- he mentioned that there were two large tracts of land near that area. And I wasn't sure if that was in the context that this would also be something that would be wanted to be converted to industrial or not. So I just sort of have kind of a doubt about what is the ultimate intention in this area. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that ultimate intentions may change as the county continues to update all of its master plans. But I think for the foreseeable future this represents everything that the county needs for its airport operations in Immokalee. The -- any further expansion is going to require a Growth Management Plan amendment to both the Immokalee Area Master Plan and your Future Land Use Map, and it would require us to come back through the rezoning process here to amend the PUD. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All right, another issue that I have is the racetrack. Would you say that that racetrack was ever legally permitted? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I'm not sure how to answer that exactly, other than I believe that it's being leased by Collier County -- or Collier County leases to the operator of the racetrack operations. The racetrack operations were never specifically permitted or prohibited under the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and I believe that racetrack operations were permitted as a conditional use in the Page 35 December 17, 2009 industrial zoning district, which I think is how we had Swamp Buggy when it was located off of Radio Road and things of that nature. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: In the correspondence that kind of went back and forth between you and the staff, you talked about a public meeting that sort of legitimized this. I was at that public meeting, and it was packed with people. But I went out in the break, two-thirds of the license plates were not even Collier County license plates. These were people who were there to promote the racetrack. I actually went, this was several years ago, with the intention of talking about the noise issues. But I actually felt intimidated by the people, because even when they talked about the fact that they were wanting to do noise studies, people were booing, and it was a very raucous group of people, very intimidating. It wasn't a neighborhood meeting at all, it was really a meeting that was promoted to sort of force this through. So I don't think that that meeting could have possibly legitimized what took place. And I think that the racetrack is something that we've gotten used to. This planning board has had a lot of discussion about noises, and there's noises that are pleasant or unpleasant. It sort of depends on your cultural point of view. And we've talked about how thunderstorms can be much louder than dynamite and how, you know, some people just don't like the sound of revving motors in the evening, you know, on a quiet evening when you're sitting outside. But to other people, that's a very relaxing sound, it's something that gives them pleasure. Some people would like to be sitting on the end of a beach and hear the surf pounding, which is also noisy, and, you know, so it's kind of a cultural thing. But I think that if it actually went before -- they actually did apply for this, that it would be approved, because in Immokalee, like it or not, we've kind of gotten used to that sound by now. It may not be something we look forward to hearing, it is quite loud, but it doesn't Page 36 December 17,2009 violate the noise ordinance. It's not that loud, it's more of just something that you hear. MR. ARNOLD: I guess I would add too that, you know, I would like to think that this process legitimizes the existing facility to the extent that it can, because it is listed in our schedule of uses. We've talked about it at the neighborhood information meeting. It's discussed on the airport plans that it's a source of revenue for them. So I think there's been a lot of public acknowledgment that this facility exists and we're restricting its operations to the eighth mile track operations that they've been utilizing. And to expend that operation, then we go through another process which obviously we'll vet it in the public again. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, again, just like the unified control thing, it's something that we're doing like for convenience. But I don't know if that's really the way we're supposed to operate here. I don't know, what do you think, Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: I think that if this thing works out, you're going to have more planes coming in and out of there, you know, than you might think. I mean, the whole point of expanding this runway and putting five million square feet of industrial uses to make this an economic engine in your area, and, you know, you're going to get a lot of noise. You know, you're worried about a drag race event every now and then. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, it's every weekend. MR. KLATZKOW: But planes are going to be every day. They'll be more and more frequent. So this is what you're looking at. I mean, this airport, the way it's designed, the hope here is that it's going to change and it's going to change radically. So I don't know what to tell you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I agree with that. My question is, is should we do things by the book or should we just sort Page 37 December 17, 2009 of let this slide? MR. KLA TZKOW: We are doing things by the book. That's why we're having this public hearing, this whole process. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I mean, this will go -- I guess if this goes through, us and the Collier County Commission, it will sort of legitimize the racetrack. But is this the right way for us to do it? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I suppose if you don't want the racetrack, the recommendation should be, you know, to, you know, recommend this petition without the racetrack and that would be the end of it. So I guess this is the time right now to decide whether or not you want this. And if you don't want it, you know -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I don't know if it's really gone through the process of a true, you know, neighborhood meeting which was, you know, not dominated by the people who are in favor of it. And if it was, you know, permitted the right way in the first place, or if it's an illegal nonconforming use. MR. KLATZKOW: There's nothing illegal about it right now. But we're going through the public process right now, and if the public in Immokalee does not want that racetrack, you know, they need to come down here and be heard. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. And then the last thing has to do with the preserve. And I've talked quite a bit with Shane Johnson about this. In order to allow the runway expansion that took place before this, in Immokalee we have something that's rather unique, and things that are actually unique are rare, because usually whether you talk about a preserve or a cypress strand, they're all sort of comparable. This airport property has something that is not found anywhere else in Collier County, and that is the last population of Florida scrub jays in this area. And it comes to -- in order to get the airport expansion that they got the last time, they had to ask permission for Page 38 December 17,2009 incidental take from the Fish & Wildlife Service. And there was an extensive biological opinion that basically decided that yes, you would lose some scrub jays; yes, they are endangered; yes, there are only a few of them left. But you're going to have to maintain the scrub property in as good a condition as you can and give us a report every year, do a study to see how the jays are doing. The last report that was done was in 2004. Basically what Fish & Wildlife said was as a criterion of success you have to show that there are at least five families of Florida scrub jays that are still able to inhabit the site. And the 2004 study found exactly five families. Since then a significant area of part of the scrub jay area was cleared for line of sight areas in the center of the airport, and so the -- two of the five scrub jay families were actually on the east side of the airport, which was not even in the preserve. Those -- you know, some people will think, oh, scrub jays, what a nuisance. Here we have -- they're holding up the whole industrial expansion ofImmokalee. But it's not just the Immokalee Airport scrub jays. Those are part of the natural heritage of Immokalee and it's something that's unique. And as the Airport Authority was legally bound to try to give some protection to those birds, what kind of protection or stewardship have they done? Since the 2004 study, they haven't done any studies to see if the scrub jays are still there, after they did that clearing ofland, which encompassed two of the scrub jay family habitats. Controlled burns were supposed to be done on a regular basis. None have been done since 2006. And I just question the commitment of the Airport Authority based upon their record to really preserving this in accordance with what Fish & Wildlife had stipulated. And so I do have reservations about their stewardship of this area. And the record has not been very helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a statement or a question? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's a statement. Page 39 December 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that the last item you have? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Let's see. Yeah, I have something else too. The transportation concurrency. Apparently there's parts of this that are subject to concurrency and parts of it are not. And at last night's meeting of the Immokalee Area Master Plan we talked about the road problems there and the fact that we're trying to improve access to allow industrialization to take place. But right now all we have are two-lane roads going into Immokalee and no plans to improve those for the next several years. And we have a possible major expansion of the Seminole Casino bringing in 4,000 new jobs, a 22-story hotel, and they're having no obligation to contribute to any of the road improvements. And I'm wondering if we're setting up a situation where in the future we may have gridlock in Immokalee because the roads, some of them are near failing now. If the Seminoles go through with their plans to vastly expand their operation, will there be any road capacity to allow any of in other industrialization to take place? I guess that's a question for county staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then let's wait till we get staff up here and then you can ask that of them. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, then I'm ready to stop. MR. ARNOLD: If! might just add one thing, Mr. Midney. Your transportation staff did add a condition that required us to do traffic impact analyses at each next building opportunity out at the airport to look at operational and safety characteristics of the roadway, even if we are not subject to concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, we're not going to hear from staff until we finish with questions of Mr. Arnold. Go ahead, Wayne, I'm sorry. MR. ARNOLD: All right, I'm sorry. That was my response. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Shakes head negatively.) Page 40 December 17,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I think you were next? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I am. Couple of quick things here. Under principal uses, A, does that also include aircraft hangars? In other words, it's an accessory use, but I wouldn't want that to be just an accessory use. MR. ARNOLD: Just so I understand the question, does principal use airport facilities also include hangars? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Could a guy go out and build just an aircraft hangar? MR. ARNOLD: No, I think honestly the way that it's set up for the airport operations tract, because all the physical improvements of the runway and the terminal building and most of the hangars have already been established in that tract, all of those things are really accessory to the airport operation itself. And I think that's how staff probably has viewed that as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So essentially then it is a sub-use of A always -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and a standalone aircraft hangar. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other thing is on Exhibit B, which is your chart of setbacks and things. You have a separation of distance. But I think that should be a minimum. The way it's worded you would actually require all buildings to be fixed at those dimensions, and -- MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that would be -- in the design of aircraft hangars that would be a real bad thing. MR. ARNOLD: Would it be helpful then on Exhibit B under separation of structures in that column just to simply add minimum in Page 41 ._------,---"~._-_.~.--- December 17,2009 parenthesis? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: However. Just the way it's worded, it's a fixed number. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant before we go to county staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, I have a few. Let's go to Page 1 of 14 on the strike-through exhibit you passed out. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You added essential service operations to 2.F. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It already exists in 2.H. Is there a reason to have it listed separately in 2.F? MR. ARNOLD: Well, the only reason I placed it in there, I used a different word, I used the word operations because I wasn't sure if I just needed to simply reference the water treatment plants or ifthere might be some need to expand the water treatment operation to also include something else, I didn't really know. I used it -- maybe it's not even critical that it's added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your belief, 2.H where it says essential services according to the Land Development Code does not include essential service operations? MR. ARNOLD: I don't -- I don't know. I mean, I don't get to interpret that code. Staff gets to interpret that. I f we can all agree here today that I'm covered, then I have no problem deleting the four words that I added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just curious as to why you repeated it with two lines. If it adds additional clarification for the needs in the future, then it's not hurting anything. MR. ARNOLD: I was hoping it added a little bit of flexibility, Page 42 December 17, 2009 honestly, for the airport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under I, you have retail sales under accessory uses or display areas as accessory to the principal use. In the Airport Master Plan that was adopted on March, 2009 by the Board of County Commissioners under airport zoning it says the following concerning -- the purpose of this district is to provide industrial type uses. And it goes on to list some of those, but not to include retail as described in the Land Development Code for the industrial and business park zoning districts. That paragraph you have there is verbatim out of the Land Development Code for the industrial zoning district. So how can that be consistent then with the Airport Master Plan? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think it can because it also references industrial development. And if you go to the Immokalee Area Master Plan industrial land use designation, it talks about not allowing -- excluding retail uses as a permitted principal use, but as an accessory to those. And it specifically then talks about having limited retail sales. Because I think the situation we don't want to get into is that you can't have a cafe or a sundry shop or something that supports the airport. Because I don't think that was the intent. If we're going to have that much industrial, I think you'll find references in the existing Immokalee Area Master Plan to having specifically things like restaurants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then what specific zoning references in the Land Development Code for the industrial and business park zoning districts was that sentence in the adopted Airport Master Plan referring to; do you know? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, until we find that out, how do we know if you're not including or including it? Because basically that's the only reference I could find with the words retail in it in both Page 43 December 17, 2009 districts. And I ran a word search on it. So if this is not referring to that, then I'd certainly like to know what it's referring to. MR. ARNOLD: Just so I'm clear, Mr. Strain, your reference was to the conventional industrial zoning district, not finding that language either? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm reading out of section two of the adopted March, 2009 Immokalee Airport Master Plan. It's under 2.8, airport zoning. It's a paragraph that describes the intention of the zoning district that's to be there. The last sentence, after it lists the types of manufacturing uses that they deem to be acceptable, says but not to include retail as described in the LDC for the industrial and business park zoning districts. MR. ARNOLD: I see exactly what -- they are referring you directly back to the Immokalee Area Master Plan language. That language, if I could read it, it simply says right now in the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and it says it allows business services, limited commercial uses such as child care centers, restaurants and other basic commercial uses except retail uses, as described in the Land Development Code. I think they excerpted a portion of that into the Airport Master Plan. But if you continue to read on that paragraph that's in the adopted Immokalee Area Master Plan, it simply says accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the uses allowed in the subdistrict but are not limited to offices, retail sales, campgrounds accessory to vehicle racing and campgrounds accessory to special events at the airport, such as air shows. So I think you do find that in the adopted master plan today there is a reference to having accessory retail sales there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree with you. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this paragraph in the adopted Airport Page 44 December 17, 2009 Master Plan says but not to include those. That's my point. You just verified what I'm trying to understand. MR. ARNOLD: I think, you know, if we want to look at that document and read the entirety of that paragraph, I'm just looking at it, Mr. Strain, it does talk about the PUD retaining the broad range of uses described in the Immokalee Area Master Plan and as those permitted by the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm willing to move forward. I don't see the problem with the retail. I only see the problem with the inconsistency between what the adopted plan is and what you're proposmg. Between now and consent, assuming this goes forward, would you check that with whoever wrote the adopted Immokalee Master Plan and make sure there's a clarification there? MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I'm seeking. MR. ARNOLD: All right, fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That also appears under two sections, your airport operations tract and your industrial development tract. So do you know who Ed Scott is? How's that for a shot out of the dark. MR. ARNOLD: I don't believe I know Ed Scott. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You should. Because he's the owner of the entire Immokalee Airport. His name is on the tax assessor's rolls as the owner of the airport. So can you help me clarify who Ed Scott is and why he's listed as the owner of the airport? Because he's certainly not on your application. MR. ARNOLD: I cannot. I don't know that without maybe looking at some of our additional information, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, what do we need in order to suffice proof that the applicant is the proper applicant? MR. KLA TZKOW: It's always been my understanding that we Page 45 December 17,2009 own the airport, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you. MR. KLATZKOW: It's news to everybody in this room ifMr. Scott has bought us out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't -- I absolutely agree with you, I'm just a little surprised the tax assessor is sending the tax assessment bill to Ed Scott. And I have no idea who he is. I think it ought to be straightened out, though, because whoever that gentleman is, he's on the tax rolls. MR. KLA TZKOW: We'll look at it during a break, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Arnold, I got the folio, if you'd like to see it during break. MR. ARNOLD: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the Immokalee Airport Master Plan that has been adopted, there are two sections of land that are inconsistent with the master plan for the PUD that you're presenting us today. One is a further extension of the runway extension that you are adding that is currently part of the RLSA. It actually shows another section maybe even longer than that added to the runway. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then on the opposite side, which is the west side of the runway, there's a future land acquisition of8.4 acres on the opposite side of Alachua Road that would be another extension of the runway. Because we're going to be acquiring it. Now, how do you go about acquiring that in the future? Why wouldn't you then included in your -- at least included in your rights to your PUD application now instead of saving -- and that would save time and money as you go down the road. MR. ARNOLD: Well, unlike the 103 acres that is a part of this application, the county does not have and is not under contract with those two property owners. We looked at what is known as -- east of the 1 03-acre tract is an approximate 1 08-acre tract that we looked at. Page 46 December 17, 2009 The county and that property owner were unable to reach a satisfactory agreement to go to contract. I don't know the status of the parcel to the west. But again, both of those would be PUD amendments in the future if the county can acquire those parcels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just more work and cost to have it done in the future. The property owner to the east is the same property owner that you're negotiating with and the one adjacent to it. So it's the same group of people. MR. ARNOLD: It is. And unfortunately too, you know, dollars are tight for everybody, including Collier County government right now. So there's not an unlimited supply of money to go buy everything that they would like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all the questions I have at this time of the applicant. Anybody else have any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll have staff presentation. And during that process, Mr. Midney certainly has a question that's waiting to be answered by transportation. So Kay? MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. We also have staff members here: From compo planning, Corby Schmidt; from transportation, John Podczerwinsky; and Susan Mason from the environmental staff. You do have the staff report that's dated last revised 10/3/09. The staff report explains the ownership information, the requested action, the location and the purpose and description of the project as noted in that document and as already discussed by the petitioner. It also shows the surrounding land uses and zonings. And it has a discussion at great length of the growth management consistency issues. And you also had a memo from Corby Schmidt that addresses it specifically. The growth management discussion also goes into the economic element, the transportation element and the conservation and coastal Page 47 December 17,2009 management element. And staff is recommending that this project be found consistent with all aspects of the Growth Management Plan. There is an analysis of the request beginning on Page 8 of the staff report, and that includes the environmental review, stormwater management review, transportation, utility, emergency management, affordable housing and the zoning review. The zoning review includes PUD findings and rezone findings, and staff's conclusion is that this is consistent with those findings, they are all affirmative. As already mentioned by the petitioner, he is requesting six deviations from Land Development Code requirements. Staff has reviewed those and analyzed those and is recommending approval of all of those. And staff is recommending approval of the overall rezoning. And if you have any other questions or you want me to go into more detail, I'd be happy to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start with what you provided so far. Are there any questions of staff? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'd like to ask Corby Schmidt a question about his comment that we had discussed on the waym. MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's on Page 11 of your comments. And Section A, Exhibit F, it's item three, it says the draft conceptual 2025 roadway network for Eastern Collier County for the RLSA committee does indicate two large tracts of land in the vicinity of the 1 03-acre addition designated as runway extension. And then you say, please update to indicate any status proposals of update to the Immokalee urban boundary. Why did you reference those two large tracts of land? What were you getting at? MR. SCHMIDT: Those two tracts of land are the very same pieces you've been discussing in the last few moments. They're the Page 48 December 17, 2009 runway protection zone on one map that's been referenced. And it's adjacent to the runway extension property that is the 103 acres. That's what we were referring to with those adjacent tracts or those other large tracts. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The two adjacent tracts, are they both to the east of the runway extension or are they north or south? MR. SCHMIDT: To the east. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you're just talking about continuing to go on in a straight line? MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Does anybody else have any further questions of Corby? (No response.) COMMISSIONER CARON: Of staff? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Transportation. COMMISSIONER CARON: And yes, we'll bring transportation up next. Nobody has any further questions of Kay, though? (No response.) COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, then it's John's turn. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning. And could you restate the question for me? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, my question basically was that it says that parts of this are subject to concurrency and parts are not. Could you explain which are and which are not and why? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. The portions of this PUD that are going to be subject to concurrency are those that are not related to any form of public transit uses or in direct support of the airport, the airport functions. And that meaning basically anything that would take trips off the Page 49 '"...."..__.-__.~...".- December 17, 2009 road. Alternative modes of transportation such as, I'm trying to think, buses, anything that's a transit related use when buses are dropping people off to the airport. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So basically everything is concurrency. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It's going to be primarily the industrial uses, any commercial uses that they have. You know, some of those things that are not related to specifically the airport uses. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And do you imagine that there will be any problem in the future with the roadway if this goes forward, this expansion goes forward as planned? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I can't speculate on than at the moment. I can give you the levels of service that we have on those roadways and how much remaining capacity that we have on those roadways. There is something I want to point out before I go into that, and this might answer your question ahead of time. The zoning action that's in front of us today actually the way that we're reviewing this, this actually puts a cap on the total allowable commercial or industrial square footage that could occur on this site. The current zoning, there's no limitation on that. What they're doing with this zoning action is putting basically a maximum limit on it. So that's why -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Five million square feet. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, well, in today's condition there's no limit on the square footage. So from the transportation standpoint, this is -- it's somewhat of a good idea to all right, let's establish a maximum cap on what could be produced here -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But that could be-- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- and work backwards from there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- always be raised later on too by another action. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I can only discuss the action that's in Page 50 December 17, 2009 front of us today, so if you'd like, I can go through the numbers from the AUIR and discuss some of the retaining capacity that's available on the adjacent network, if you want me to. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But basically what you're saying is that any time these actual industrial expansions come on line to go in they would have to be reevaluated in terms of the traffic grade capacity . MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That is correct, yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of anybody in staff? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just to follow up. Today you've stated that there are no limits on how much industrial and that this is putting a cap on it. But aren't there some built-in limits? I mean, what is the actual difference? What would the maximum build-out be if they could build to the maximum under today's standards? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I would actually have to refer you probably to a land planner who would be better able to answer the question how many square feet they could put on the property, but-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll ask Wayne, that's all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then before we bring Wayne back up, is there any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Wayne, would you mind responding to that question. MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, for the record. Could you repeat the question, just so I understand exactly what your -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, we keep referring to this five million square feet of industrial as a cap on what could be there today. Page 51 December 17, 2009 What could be there today? What is the difference? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think that's an easy calculation. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, are we going from 100 million square feet to five million or from -- MR. ARNOLD: I think when you look at what's over 700 acres of industrial supportive development on here, if you take out just the airport operations, and even if you started applying a number of 10,000 square feet per acre, which is really low for industrial, you're going to find that five million square feet disappears quickly when you start really looking at a yield of industrial square footage to acreage. And the number, that five million, was settled on by URS Corporation that was working on the master plan. I don't know all the history of that, Ms. Caron, but it came about by looking at how much true developable industrial land there could be and how much physical land there would be to put buildings on. They applied a floor area ratio to that number and then converted it to a number of square feet, and that's where the five million came from. But I do think it's -- that five million number is lower than the potential you could have under conventional industrial zoning. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sure that's right, I was just trying to get some range. MR. ARNOLD: Maybe by consent I could come back and do some calculations for you, if it helps you, but I think you'll find that the number I think could easily be twice as much. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's good. That would be great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, and then Mr. Midney. MR. KLATZKOW: The marvels of Google. Okay, Ed Scott was a clerk of this county from 1932 to 1959. At one point in time this was known as the Ed Scott Airfield. So I'm sure when the owner was listed, it was the Ed Scott Airfield, and the property assessor just never updated it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how much will he sell us the airport Page 52 December 17,2009 for? It's a good move, former employee. We could make a story about that, Jeff. But thank you for researching on who he was. So you think that needs to be corrected with the tax assessor's office? MR. KLATZKOW: Sure, we'll let him know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, if we're going to have records, they ought to be accurate. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, going to the table four of exhibit, I think it's F, the preserve tract development standards. You talk about setbacks, height of buildings and even though the preserve -- the conservation easement says no buildings, no roads, you still have here principal structures and accessory structures. I think if -- if we're going to approve this, we should just take structures out of it. Because we should be guided by the conservation easement which says no structures. So would you be willing to take those out? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that that's a practical problem at all for -- because all of the preserve is encumbered in the conservation easement. I don't think that's a problem. I can certainly consult with Debbie Brueggerman to see if she has a different perspective. But from mine, I don't think that's an issue. Because as you notice too, that one of the revisions we made was to take out the standard types of uses and just says (sic) native vegetation preserve in accordance with that approved deed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. And I don't see why you need to have development standards that says maximum zoned height of structures in there. Structures, you've already said that you're not going to have structures. So if that could be removed. MR. ARNOLD: Maybe if we're going to do that, we might want to so note directly under that preserve tract designation to indicate that Page 53 December 17,2009 there would be no structures permitted. And that way somebody wouldn't be looking for a development standard, if that makes sense to you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, because that's in the conservation easement which we have to be guided by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant before we go to any public speakers? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one question on that. But are there -- then would you have to add setbacks from preserves in your other tables? I think you would. So I think you just need to look at all of that. MR. ARNOLD: Okay, I will. I think they are in there, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because that's where it should be. lt should be in the other tables, not in a -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. I believe that is a course that we'd want to do as staff for the protection of the preserve. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, if I've been following this correctly and can hear correctly, the issue we're talking about is the expansion tract as well? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Because I really -- I think we need to remove certainly at the minimum the issue of single- family homes. But structures in general, that's the question you're going to ask? MR. ARNOLD: Well, the reference to Ms. Caron was in the preserve tract, not the expansion tract. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, I -- Page 54 _.~.._,--~'..<~,._-~.- -~...,-- ,-'- .>..._---- December 17, 2009 MR. ARNOLD: This is on the western preserve area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's why I questioned-- MR. ARNOLD: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- what I was hearing correctly. But I'm going to then address the expansion tract, because I -- you said that you have no expectation whatsoever that they're going to build. And the benign uses of agricultural, grazing cattle, et cetera, I have no problem with. But I certainly do have an issue for structure. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I may not be in a position to answer that on behalf of the county, even though I'm their agent. I think that may be something we want the County Attorney to weigh in on. Because we are looking at going to a contract. And like I said, if we do nothing with the property today and don't include it, they have every right to have a single-family home there. And I would -- I'm just hesitant to want to remove that use. Even though I think it's very unlikely it occurs, the county does not own that property today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. And because the county doesn't own it today, I don't want to legitimize the building of any structures, particularly single-family homes, knowing that ultimately those parcels will be acquired one way or another. MR. KLATZKOW: But they could do it now anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We can't diminish someone's property rights without buying their property. MR. KLATZKOW: They can do it now -- whether or not we do this now or don't do this now, they could put up a house there right now, if they wanted to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine, let them do that. I guess what I'm saying to you, and I don't wish to be argumentative, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you need to use your mic, please. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, excuse me. I don't wish to be argumentative in any way, but yes, if they want Page 55 December 17,2009 to do that, they can. But we're in a public hearing, and they're asking that it be included, and I'm suggesting that it shouldn't be included. MR. KLA TZKOW: But if we don't include it and we take away their rights, you're subjecting the county now to a claim. You're diminishing their property rights. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's being introduced, isn't it, as something for a public hearing? MR. KLA TZKOW: Right. But what I'm telling you is if you start cutting back on what they presently have for developmental rights, you're now opening us up to a claim. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I thought we typically modified people's rights to go forward with things. I'll concede, but I'm not happy with the notion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, the other landowner has authorized you, Mr. Arnold, to represent them, so you can make a representation right now. MR. ARNOLD: They have concurred with the list of uses that is before you. I've not conferred with them regarding elimination of any of those uses. And I would be hesitant to represent that we should take that use out. I know that it's a concern to two of you, but I just don't feel that that's the right thing to do, given the county's attempt to try to purchase the property right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be similar to what's happening in the road corridors in Golden Gate Estates. We try to restrict property rights before we acquire the property. And then by doing the restriction of those property rights, we devalue the property so when we go to buy it, it were more favorably priced. I don't think that's a practice we ought to practice. So with that in mind, let's go forward. Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant before we go to public speakers? (No response.)  Page 56 December 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public wish to speak on the Immokalee area airport PUD? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, Wayne, do you want a rebuttal to nothing that's been said? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think that's necessary, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, then we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion on PUDZ-2007-AR-12294. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, I would move for approval of this motion with some added conditions. The first would be that the Airport Authority resume the controlled burn and exotic maintenance on the preserve acreage. The second would be that they perform a new Florida scrub jay study in coordination with Fish & Wildlife. The third would be that there would be no industrial on the annex area. And the fourth, that they would explicitly state no structures would be built, no expansion of the airport access road in the preserve area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Wayne, did you get all those? And let me know -- first of all, we need a second. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer seconded it. Before we go into discussion, what's the position of the applicant on those requests? One was to restore the control burn and exotic maintenance procedures on the property; do a new scrub jay study; and there will be no industrial on the annexed area. What was the last one, Paul? Page 57 ----'_... December 17,2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No structures in the preserve or expansion of the airport access road in the preserve. MR. ARNOLD: I don't believe any of those are going to be problematic. I think the only question I would have is that when we deal with issues of resuming the burns and the scrub jay study, we are required to look at the scrub jays when we come in for another SDP or something, you have to provide an update. So I'm not sure exactly how that relates. I think we're bound to do that anyway. And with regard to the prescribed burns, I don't know how regularly they're conducted anyway. Maybe the management plan says it's done annually, but maybe it's biannually. I just don't know. And I don't want it to be implied that we have to go out and start burning airport property when it's not necessarily time to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you'll resume those consistent with whatever preserve management plan is in place. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that fair? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, it's my position that they haven't been burning them consistent with the biological opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just -- they'll be consistent with whatever plan they're supposed to be consistent with. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: IfMr. Midney could repeat the third condition. I just want to make sure staff has it right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No industrial development on the annexed property. MR. BELLOWS: On the annex property. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. MR. ARNOLD: Could we -- is that in reference to the expansion tract? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Expansion tract. Page 58 December 17,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just say expansion tract, because that's the terminology used in the PUD. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Could I go back and clarify the scrub jay condition number two? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: You indicated a new scrub jay study. Would that be at the next development order or is it concurrent with their management plan? I just want to make sure that when we get it that we're not just out there going to do a study when we have no intent of building anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But don't you have to do a study when you come in with your development order for whatever parcel that might be affected by the scrub jays? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. But my question is ifI'm not coming in for any development order or any new review, I don't want this to imply that I have to be doing -- conducting a scrub jay study outside of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't know why we would need that. Paul, you were -- with the scrub jay study, you want it at the time they come in and are looking to do something with the property the scrub jays proposedly are on? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm concerned that the management of the scrub jays preserve has sort of fallen by the way. And at present time they need to evaluate if they're already concurring with the biological opinion that they agreed to in '98. And if they're not, they need to intensify their management of that tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think what he's saying is in regards to the scrub jay study, they're just looking for you all to make sure you're maintaining consistency with a study that's already been done; Page 59 December 17,2009 is that a fair statement? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that -- Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Can we put a note or a clarification to that, that that determination is made at the subsequent development orders when they come in -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sure. MR. BELLOWS: -- when an environmental statement is reviewed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: May I please clarify something? On Paul's number three, is oil and gas exploration considered industrial? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would exempt that, since it's already something that they're allowed to do. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm just talking about additional things, more than what's in the RLSA. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Gotcha. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have a motion, we've had a second, we've had discussion. The applicant has accepted the stipulation -- Ms. Caron, you have a question? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just want to make sure that also included is that they change their standards table so that you have setbacks from your preserves, which -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: And that will be there. And I believe if you look at the revised table where we combine the two that's on Page 7 of 14, you'll see that we have a preserve tract setback now. And it's 25 for principal, 10 for accessory, which is typical of your code. Page 60 December 17,2009 And then I think the other comment was to delete the development standards on Page 8 of 14 that relate to the preserve tract. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. I think I was just looking at the old one and not the -- MR. ARNOLD: All right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- underlined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are we -- does staff understand the stipulations? A nod of the head okay. Are we all set here? Any further -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One tiny thing. Ray, you are going to put down that -- a minimum separation, correct? MR. ARNOLD: I've got that noted on mine, too. I didn't know if you wanted me to run down my list, Mr. Strain. I don't know, you may have a separate list you're proposed to read too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't have a separate list. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we seem to be there. Everybody content? All those in favor of the motion as stipulated, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 61 December 17,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will take a break to 10:15 and come back and then we'll go on the Vineyards variance request. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody please take your seats, we're going to try to announce something about our schedule that may help some of you here. Because we have two groups of people that I know of here today, one of course is Naples Bath and Tennis and the other is Clubs ide, in Vineyards, and I know you both are probably as impatient to hear this as we're trying to get to hear it, so I want to ask, first of all, the applicant I guess for the Vineyards, Mr. Saadeh, is there any -- are you going to go forward with your project today, or are you so -- MR. SAADEH: I have every intention of doing so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because someone had mentioned earlier that you might continue. I didn't know if that was the case or not. MR. SAADEH: No, sir, that's not accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that in mind, everybody that is here for Naples Bath and Tennis, I can guarantee you right now, we will not hear your project before 12:00. Now, because ofthe Vineyards request, we will be hearing -- I know that they'll take at least a half an hour, but with Tony Pires, it could take three hours. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Forever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whenever they end, we will take an hour break for lunch. If they end at 11 :30, we'll come back here at 12:30. If they end at 11 :00, we'll come back at 12:00. So what I'm trying to tell you is to be safe I can guarantee you we won't hear the Naples Bath and Tennis Club until noon. Now, it may be later than that, but it won't be before that. So those of you that are here for that case, and if you want, Page 62 December 17, 2009 there's a nice cafeteria downstairs if you want to go to lunch or breakfast, a late breakfast, feel free. If we do get some time, we're just going to ourselves go to lunch and we'll back here then early. But noon will be the earliest, just so all of you who are interested. Item # lOB PETITION: V A-PL2009-1460, VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that in mind, all those wishing to discuss the -- yeah, testify on behalf of the next item, which is -- let me get back to my normal routine here. This is Petition V A-PL-2009-1460, Michael Saadeh of the Vineyards Development Corporation, and it's for a variance at 400 Vineyards Boulevard. And before I ask everybody to stand, because everybody is, we'll just wait for a minute. All those folks with the Naples Bath and Tennis that are leaving, please try to do so quietly and expeditiously. Okay, all those wishing to testify on behalf of the Vineyards variance petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I had a meeting with Mr. Pires and some residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a meeting with Mr. Pires and some residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I spoke with Mr. Saadeh. Page 63 December 17, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had conversations with Mr. Saadeh, and I received a packet from the -- Tony Pires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had meetings with Mr. Pires and some residents. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I didn't speak to him, but I had numerous e-mails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we've got a lot ofe-mails. But I believe they've all been sent to staff and they're all part of the record. And my guess was right, there's about as many people for this one as there was for the other one. So I'm -- because there was some discussion about moving one forward, and I thought we should leave it like it is, so I'm glad we did. With that in mind, Mr. Saadeh, it's all yours. MR. SAADEH: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Michael Saadeh, I'm the president and CEO of Vineyards Development Corporation. It's also the same entity that owns Vineyards Country Club. I've been with the Vineyards since its inception in 1986, so I have a little bit more history than I'm confident anybody in this room on the other side. Back in '87 we started construction at the Vineyards and we started construction of the club, and with that we started building the support facilities, which is the existing maintenance facility that you see on the wall right here with the white roof. At the same time we built a berm around this, the berm comes and wraps around from Vineyards Boulevard all the way around the site, all the way through the club parking lot. And the reason it wraps on kind of like a U-shape, backward U-shape, because the other side of the berm -- I point out this area. This area was at the time the same parcel wide open throughout, and this site was being used at the time for a water and sewer treatment plant, because the county did not have Page 64 -,.",,,..,,....---......- ....~.,,~...~_._._- December 17,2009 any sewer facilities or water facilities to this location, to the Vineyards. So the berm was built from day one right here and continued all the way to here and here. But then it kept open here, not knowing at the time what was going to be about with this parcel. Moving forward a few years later, the county brought in their facilities, their sewer facilities and water facilities to this site. So we went in and we dismantled the water and sewer plant from the Clubside Reserve site and connected to the county water system and sewer system. A few years after that, which sometime in the mid Nineties, we started contemplating what to do with that parcel, and we decided at the time to turn it to residential parcel. We met with a few people at the county to create a proper buffer. And although there was no requirement for a wall, we built an extensive eight-foot concrete wall with a huge buffer. At the time, again, it was one parcel so we had the option of drawing the line for the property boundary anywhere we needed to. So we drew the line and we put the buffer on the side of Clubside Reserve, and we landscaped that buffer way before we offered a single unit for sale in that neighborhood, or before we even started construction in that neighborhood. And the wall was additional protective, if you would, from the future of that neighborhood. And later on as these folks came in and bought in that area, nobody more or less knew what the history of it was or, you know, what was done. We drew the lines, we put the landscaping in. And I'm going to share with you later on in the discussion the landscaping. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you slow down just a little bit? I've been watching her try to type, and she has to get every word you say. And you do what I do a lot, which is we talk fast, so -- MR. SAADEH: You see I'm emotional about this project Page 65 December 17,2009 because I spent 23 years on it. And I don't present (sic) anybody else, nor do I get hired to present anybody else, so I can't help but be emotional about something we do. Especially in this economy that we have a very exceptional report, considering what's happening all around us. And then you get disappointed seeing what's happening today. Anyhow, we've operated this maintenance facility since '87, '88. It was C.O.'d with the club, and it's been in operation ever since. To my knowledge, and I've been there since, I've never heard a complaint from either Clubside Reserve or anybody else surrounding the maintenance facility that's existing today. Now, due to the recent economic collapse, we are starting to reevaluate our business model. A few year back we've taken ownership of the Country Club, and we've paid the members very handsomely for taking over the club. And at that time we were leasing equipment on regular basis. And the leases expire every few years and then we turn the equipment in and we lease other equipment. And because of the economic downturn, we feel that that plan is not the most economical plan for us, so we decided we're going to start purchasing the equipment and kind of hang on to it a lot more than the three years we've been doing in the past. To do so we do not have ample facilities to store whether existing equipment that we have or future equipment that we need to have. And to avoid, you know, beating it up in the weather and all that, so we decided to come up and build a maintenance facility that will store the rest of the equipment and be -- you know, supplement what we have in place right now. When we started to plan the site and started the planning process, we discovered that the PUD setbacks are extremely stringent. They were requesting -- the PUD called for 50-foot setback for that parcel. And then we started evaluating that and done more research with Page 66 December 17,2009 in-house and with county staff, and we realized -- and this is the most critical point of anything you'll hear today -- we realized that the reason for the 50-foot setback is that parcel and the club parcel allows for a three-story over parking maintenance facility. So anywhere on that site, if you meet that 50-foot setback, you can physically build a three-story over parking. That's anywhere from 35 to 40 foot in height. And, you know, it doesn't make sense to build a 35 or 40-foot high building to store maintenance equipment. Under the current LDC today, the current LDC that you have in front of you today, if you were to build this building at the proposed height of 15 feet at the peak of the roof, the maximum required setback would be seven and a half feet. That's it, seven and a half feet. So we're proposing a 15 and a half foot separation, and hence that's why, you know, the variance is here today. The reason for the variance is, you know, multiple. First and foremost is, I just told you, that the PUD is stringent because it allows much higher height. And so we doing a much smaller size building, much smaller height building. And for that reason we're providing still 15 and a half feet versus the required seven and a half the current LDC but not under the PUD. The other reason is this berm -- and I'm going to show you pictures in a few minutes. This berm has been in place for 22, 23 years. It's very heavily landscaped. It's a gorgeous berm. And it doesn't make any sense at all to any of the members or to us, nor to county staff or anybody who's seen it, I've had multiple people go see it, it didn't make any sense to tear it down just to abide by a 50-foot requirement when we're not building the size building that requires the 50-foot setback. The existing wall and landscape buffer, as I will show you -- I sent you packages bye-mail, but I also gave you colored copies today, and I'm going to put this on the wall for everybody to see. Again, as Page 67 December 17,2009 you will see, that the berm and the -- the buffer and the wall that we built is more than adequate to buffer the neighboring project. As well as I will demonstrate in a second the orientation of the buildings of Clubside Reserve do not face into this site or the berm. As you can clearly see from this picture, all these units are oriented this way. This unit, I'll show it up with a blown-up picture, this one window, another window, this is four-unit building. For each unit building you have just two windows on the back side, one on each unit that will face into the site. And that's a secondary window for a back bedroom. There isn't a single balcony, there isn't a single view or any orientation whatsoever this way. So everybody loads in in the garage, they come in, the balconies, lanais, everything else orients this way. And I'll demonstrate some pictures here of -- on the most -- from all this site here there is one, two, three buildings, maybe even one unit here that has potential of seeing this. This unit, there is no way this back window can see the building, no matter what. There's one, two, three, four, five, six windows have potential seeing the building, if they can actually cross the existing buffer right now. If they can find a little loop in that existing buffer, they might even see that building. Otherwise, there's no way they can see any of that. And I'm going to show you those pictures in here. As well, I've invited the staff early on and senior staff to visit the site, and they did. Mr. Joe Schmitt visited the site, Susan Istenes visited the site, Mr. Bellows visited the site, Mr. J.D. Moss visited the site. And we visited both sides of the site; one from the proposed area where we plan on putting the building and the other visit was on the Clubside Reserve property, to just show them that it's impossible, more or less, to see that building from with the existing vegetation and the existing wall that we provided and built over the years. On October 29 we met with Mr. Webster, who is the president of Page 68 December 17,2009 the homeowners association of Clubs ide Reserve, and a lady called Ms. Ellen Watts. She's also director on the Clubside Reserve Homeowners Association. We shared with them the drawing that you see on the board. We discussed with them what the project is to be, and the extent of what the variance request would be. And their simple reservations at that time was that they had lighting reservations like how would you light the building, you know, what will change on the site as far as use. We were extremely clear to say that the use on -- this is not a zoning change, so the use and existing equipment, the existing operation, the normal way of conduct on a day-to-day basis is not changing. And that we committed that if the lighting was an issue that we will definitely work with staff to do the minimum lighting required to have the least light anywhere, as well I remind you that the only units that might have potential impact are six back windows on the whole site. And again, they have to really look through the hedge, as I'll demonstrate in a second. Past that, they've asked us to send them a copy in writing -- a letter in writing to show their constituents on what the project was going to be about. So we prepared a letter, we sent it to them, it was very small and simple. And the very next time we heard from them was from Mr. Tony Pires that he's being their legal representative and now they've hired counsel and they're going to fight this and defeat it, et cetera, et cetera. There was not one single request of legitimate reason why this thing shouldn't go up. I would like now to go through these slides and show you the few things and the buffer and the building orientation. This first slide shows the back of a typical building in Clubside Reserve facing the site in question. The second slide would be when you stand on the garage front of that building and you look out the site, that's what you would see. This is another picture of again when you stand on the garage -- Page 69 December 17,2009 or the driveway of any of those buildings that I labeled here. Any of those buildings, if you stand on the garage, by the garage door and looked towards the site, that's what you would see. This is an overall view of the berm as we built it back in the mid Nineties and the extensive landscaping on that berm. This is another view looking east. This is another view looking straight at it. This picture gives you a perspective of the height of the berm. The person in the picture is me. The guy that took the picture, just I asked him to take the picture from the garage looking out what my height is. I'm six-foot, three inches. And this is me standing and this is the backdrop of the landscaping behind me, again showing that it's almost impossible to -- it's definitely impossible to see anything from the first floor, but it's almost impossible to see anything from the second floor window of the six windows in question that we're talking about. This is the picture of exactly where the building is proposed to go, where that dumpster is. And right now we store some landscape trimmings in that location. And in the future that won't be an option, so we'll be hauling this out regularly weekly instead of whenever we have enough. This is another picture of the site showing the berm, existing berm behind it on the site of the maintenance facility and the size of the trees on top of that berm. Those are anywhere from 20 to 30 foot tall, upwards of 22 years old that we have planted. This is a picture of the berm coming into the club from the club drive. This is how extensive and how heavily landscaped and how pretty the berm looks. This is another picture of the berm from the actual parking lot of the Vineyards Country Club. This is another picture of the berm from the parking lot of the Vineyards Country Club as well. Page 70 December 17, 2009 Again, showing the extent of the landscaping and the maturity of the landscaping that have to be destroyed completely if we were to move the building to the proper setback. This is a picture of the berm as well with the entrance of the maintenance facility. This is the wall on our side of the property. This is the wall that separates Clubside Reserve from the maintenance complex on our side of the property. Again, the wall was not requirement back in the Nineties when we built it. We built it to give them additional sound buffer, additional protection way before we ever built a unit there or ever sold a unit there. So we planned it properly . We've been neighborly for years. We thought that this is a no-brainer. I mean, we're just adding a building on an existing use for the existing everything and trying to house additional equipment as times changed. And so this wall is all the way around. Again, it's not part of whatever requirement. We never operate on what's just a requirement, we go further with what's practical and what makes sense. So pretty much this is the existing conditions as you see it. This is the existing berm, that if we couldn't get the variance we have to destroy. But the issue today is not whether we will build the building or not. I think anybody in this room, especially the Commissioners, would understand that the zoning is there for the building. The issue is whether it be put where we're proposing to place it or whether we have to destroy the building to place it. And if that was to be the case, we have to revisit the site, we have to revisit the size of the building, we have to revisit the height of the building, among other things. In an effort to keep the meeting orderly and respect your time and everybody else's time, we chose not to bring supporters in here and just come in here and jam the microphone. So what I've done is I have a list here of 52 club members that I will pass on for your record that Page 71 December 17,2009 totally approve and support this position. And what I've been here today, had I not asked them to be here in respect of your time (sic). They're members, they're club members. I'll provide one for the record. Matter of fact, a couple of signatures on that list are people who live in Clubside Reserve and don't see it the way the other folks in this room are seeing it. With that, I'll thank you for your time. I'll be happy to answer any questions. And I would appreciate it if you would give me some time after Mr. Pires and company have their short rebuttal. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We typically do have a rebuttal time, so you certainly will be afforded that. Okay, Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Saadeh, for one, could we get a picture up there from the unit that would be, let's say, centered on the existing maintenance building? Can you find -- I don't know which one of these that would be. In other words, it could be one where you're standing -- MR. SAADEH: Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Because I have a point to make here. MR. SAADEH: This would be typical picture from an existing building across from the existing Clubside Reserve site. That's a typical site. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So in other words that is looking right at the existing maintenance building. MR. SAADEH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Have these people ever complained about noise because you're working on the equipment and so on? MR. SAADEH: To my knowledge they have not. I mean, that's Page 72 December 17, 2009 the best of my knowledge. I've been there for 23 years. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Saadeh, the manila folder that you had and you said you had signatures from members of the club. MR. SAADEH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are every signature from every member of the club also residents in Vineyards? MR. SAADEH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So everyone that signed that is a resident, regardless of where they live. MR. SAADEH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, that was my question. MR. SAADEH: They're club members and residents. The ones who signed the petitions are residents and members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, first question, is the property line that's running -- you're very close to one that's -- I guess you're a foot and a half or 1.4 feet off of that. Would you have a problem unifying those two sites and removing that property line? Because otherwise you should have another setback issue and you're really going to get beat up when you go for a building permit from the fire separation distance. MR. SAADEH: I'm not sure I understand the question, honestly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you see where you're one foot -- 1.4 feet from a -- the eastern property line? I assume that is a platted site and that is a property line. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's a curbed property line. MR. MOSS: Commissioner Schiffer, ifI may, for the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Page 73 December 17,2009 Review. There are no side yard setbacks in the Vineyards PUD. So if this were not -- if this came in as its own SDP, that would not be an issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So he could have a zero setback there. MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Although when he does go to the building department, the fire separation's going to be 1.4 feet and he's going to have a -- MR. MOSS: That's a whole nother issue entirely. I don't know about what the fire setback standards are, but I'm just saying from a zoning perspective it's not an issue, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. SAADEH: We've met with the fire department and they've requested another additional hydrant in a specific location. They've requested a second back flow preventer, which we have one on-site. They've requested a second one so if they put a truck on one end or the other -- because there's an existing driveway there, and that was kind of their barometer. We could physically deed any portion of that property to the other entity, because we own both entities. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SAADEH: So if I have to deed 10 feet this way or 10 feet that way, it doesn't really make any difference. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it would be the building department. Because the type of construction -- you'd have to build that out of probably a three-hour rated wall that close to the property line. And if it's a -- MR. SAADEH: So far we we've met with the building department and the fire department, and that issue was not an issue. Again as well, we can address it by moving the property lines, because we own both sides of the property. Page 74 December 17, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. The other question is, have you ever tried to design a building that didn't require this variance? For example, you know, the back side of this berm is not that good looking. You could have pushed the building into it. 1 mean, in Florida we're used to everything being flat. But people do design buildings, you know, with -- MR. SAADEH: Well, actually, the building is pushed as back against the berm as possible. And there's the proposed retaining wall that would be built behind the building to protect it from any sliding that might ever occur in the berm if we have a hurricane or a big storm. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But the question is, did you ever try to design a building that would fit within the setback? MR. SAADEH: Ifwe scaled it smaller, it won't serve the purpose intended with the expenses of sprinkling the building and doing all the other things and the site work with it. It would not really make, you know, financial sense at all. We would end up with a four or 4,500 square foot building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the type of building, are you just trying to get a metal building to fit in here, is that what this is? MR. SAADEH: It's a prefab metal building, very, very similar to the existing one, newer model, obviously. The height of the roof at the peak is 15 feet. The average height of the ceiling is 14 feet. And again, you know, with every expert we've spoken to in our engineering staff, the closer you put it to the wall, the less likely they can see it. The further away you put it from the wall, the more they're going to see it. Plus on a second-story unit, if you look out, you will see the berm that I showed you with the mature trees. If I took those trees out that would be your backdrop, that will be gone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, isn't the berm between Page 75 December 17, 2009 you and the residences? MR. SAADEH: No, sir, it's not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not? MR. SAADEH: No, the berm is actually-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I know what you mean. That berm, okay. All right, my question was, so essentially have you really tried to design something around it? I mean, obviously it's a uniquely shaped site. But you're actually the one that shaped the site. MR. SAADEH: Again, at the time, I mean, I'm talking 22 years ago in 1987 is when we built the site. At that time we didn't have a need for another maintenance facility. And again, I mean, if this was a current project outside of a PUD with someone coming in under the current LDC, the maximum setback requirement for this building would be seven and a half feet. We're providing 15 and a half. The fact that the PUD asked for 50 is because we're allowed to go up 35 or 40 feet. I mean, basically that's the main reason the 50-foot is there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think John's going to -- MR. MOSS: Yeah, if I just may clarify something for the record. John-David Moss, Department of Zoning. Mr. Saadeh has twice said that the setback of the most conventional district for a golf course maintenance facility would be seven and a half feet. That's not exactly correct. There actually is no minimum setback, so it's just -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, you're going fast. MR. MOSS: I'm sorry, it's contagious. But anyway, there is no minimum setback requirement for golf course maintenance facilities in the most similar conventional zoning district, which would be the golf course zoning district. So he's providing one that's 15 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so say that again? In Page 76 December 17, 2009 other words, we -- in a conventionally zoned golf course you can build maintenance buildings on the property line? MR. MOSS: Yes, there is no minimum setback requirement in the LDC. MR. SAADEH: In your current document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Well, just one more question. When you built the building next door, there's a big issue about between the building and the residential property, that area's supposed to be landscaped. Did that ever come up when you were building the maintenance building to the east? MR. SAADEH: Sir, we built the maintenance building to the east prior to ever putting the wall up or prior to ever putting the landscaping there. At the time we were to develop what was to be known as Clubside Reserve, we met with county staff and we said how about we put the buffer all in one location and landscape it heavily and, you know, we can -- we have the option of drawing that line anywhere. The staff and us at that time reached an agreement that we would put this buffer -- I don't remember if it was 20 or 25 feet -- and properly landscape it. At the time that was as good as anybody was looking for on the county side and our side. And then to make it even better, we built the wall to prevent any noise, additional noise or something. There was no line at the time. We created that line. So it was totally consistent with whatever the county was requiring in those days 13, 14 years ago. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. It is a beautiful buffer. I mean, you couldn't have done it any better. MR. SAADEH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Those lists of owners that you Page 77 December 17,2009 submitted or referenced, were they submitted to the staff? MR. SAADEH: The ones that support our position? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. MR. SAADEH: No, I'll submit them today, if you'd like. For the record. I said that I'll give them a copy for the record. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So we have not seen those. They're not in our packet. MR. SAADEH: No, they're not. I mean, I could have asked them to come today and I can still do that and ask a lot of people to come in today and sit here. I just chose not to do that in respect of your time and our time. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So you're only representing that they take that position; we haven't heard from them or seen anything in writing. MR. SAADEH: The piece of paper they sign, they can read it for you, which I'm going to give you a copy of. It states: We the undersigned residents of the Vineyards and members of Vineyards Country Club are aware that the Vineyards Development Corp. and Vineyards Country Club have requested a variance from the setback requirement -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please slow down. This poor girl's going to have fits over here in a minute. We need to slow down a little bit, everybody, so thank you. MR. SAADEH: Okay. We the undersigned residents of the Vineyards -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You don't have to read it for me. My question really is I guess more to John-David. Why didn't we have a copy of this in our packet so we could be familiar with it? MR. MOSS: Yes, Commissioner Kolflat, I didn't receive a copy of the petition. Obviously he still hasn't submitted it to me yet. But it's my understanding that it was collected after the staff reports were sent to you. Page 78 December 17,2009 I also understand that Mr. Pires has a petition signed by residents that are opposed to it that hasn't been submitted either. But I will get copies of both of those for the record. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So we have two wrongs then. MR. MOSS: Yeah. All I've collected so far are eight letters of objection that were actually e-mailed me. I think most of them you were copied on. And then one letter of support. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Another question, if I might. How many golf courses are there out there at the Vineyards total? MR. SAADEH: Two golf courses. Thirty-six holes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Two I8-hole courses? MR. SAADEH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, how many square feet maintenance area do you generally need for one round of golf? MR. SAADEH: I'm not totally sure. Obviously the one we have is not enough. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What do you mean not enough? MR. SAADEH: I mean we have currently equipment that is not being housed in the building, it's housed outside the building on the same side. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You undertook then no study to ascertain what the amount of coverage you might need? MR. SAADEH: We figured out how much equipment we have and we realized we need a building in the size of 8,000 to 10,000 square feet to house the existing equipment that we need to house. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And as I understand in your answer to Mr. Schiffer, that you made no investigation as to where that building might be located without having violated the setbacks? MR. SAADEH: No, sir, that's not accurate. We said we looked at all avenues. And if we were to place this size building anywhere else but where we're proposing it, we'll have to destroy the berm, thus the reason for the variance. That's why we're requesting a variance, Page 79 December 17, 2009 because we've looked at it any which way and we found out the only way we can do it without destroying the berm is in that proposed location. If we shrunk the building, it won't serve the purpose that we needed to serve. It won't be enough to house the equipment we need to house. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, the total you want now -- you have 12,000 square feet now, is that right, coverage for maintenance? You're asking for 9,000? MR. SAADEH: More or less, yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So it's about 20,000 you're talking about, 21,000. MR. SAADEH: More or less, yes. Whatever it adds up to be. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: All right. And you feel that's kind of common an area of what two golf courses would need? MR. SAADEH: Again, I can't speak for other golf courses. I can give you a general statement. You can physically build a golf course on 85 acres or you can build a golf course on 160 acres. To my knowledge, we have -- the two courses are built on the Vineyards on roughly about 350 acres. So we have one of the largest areas of golf course open space than anybody else has. If you have 90-acre golf course, I'm sure you would need less equipment to maintain it than if you had 150-acre or 165-acre golf course. Ours are very wide, very user friendly. They're designed for the more senior gentleman and lady than the young athlete professional golfer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, the flora that's shown in your pictures are very attractive. I compliment you on these. It has grown up there over the years to look very attractive. However, we're faced with having to be sure that we're granting a variance that meets certain guidelines included in our LDC. And I think that's the thing that worries me more than anything, whether we're meeting the LDC requirements. Page 80 December 17,2009 MR. SAADEH: Well, sir, on the hope of not being redundant, if I was today -- if! didn't have a PUD document today and just came in under the current LDC today, the same document that you're referring to, I would not even have to provide a one foot setback. 1 could put the building right against the wall. Yet I'm offering 15 and a half foot setback, and your current LDC does not require that at all. And again, the 50-foot was placed back in 1986. This PUD dates back to 1986 because it allows for three story over building -- over parking maintenance facility. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I have no more questions at the moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just to get back a little bit to what Mr. Schiffer was talking about and that is the design of the building. You gave us a picture here, and it says equipment to be stored in the proposed building. MR. SAADEH: That's equipment that's currently stored outside. That's where we propose to put it in the new building. COMMISSIONER CARON: Inside the building. MR. SAADEH: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: But in this picture they are under cover, all right. Most of it is -- MR. SAADEH: Some are and some are not. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- under cover. MR. SAADEH: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it possible for you to enclose these buildings and put most of that equipment in here and then build a smaller building on the tract that would meet your setbacks? Why is that not possible? MR. SAADEH: To the best of my knowledge it's not because it would have to go through current regulations, which is certain sprinkler facilities, certain separation. Everything have to be Page 81 December 17,2009 sprinkled. The new building is proposed to be sprinkled. The existing building is not sprinkled. So they require different -- you know, different design altogether. I'm not sure we'll even have the ample space to place them there. These are just mainly just a roof overhang to protect some of the equipment from the elements. Those cannot be permitted today that way. If I was to ask the county to give me permits similar to that, they won't issue them today. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, let me ask you another question then about this. This entire area, I mean, approximately how many square feet are in there, though? MR. SAADEH: I'm not really sure -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Where I'm going, Mr. Saadeh, is could these buildings be taken down and you put the new building there or something -- MR. SAADEH: Well, if you look at the picture closely -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- close to it? MR. SAADEH: -- that's actually driveway, and it goes around the entire building. And the fire department requires this type of access to go all the way around. So I think by the time we ask for something that's -- if you look at the scale of this versus this, by the time we ask for something that's of any magnitude, we will not be able to use the road and the fire department would not approve it. COMMISSIONER CARON: But based on the equipment that's out here, you don't need 9,000 square feet in order to accommodate that equipment. You could put a smaller building on that footprint that exists and still be able to use your driveway and meet your fire codes and put in sprinklers and do all the things that you have to do to bring it up to -- MR. SAADEH: Ma'am, this is not -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- code. Page 82 December 17, 2009 MR. SAADEH: -- the picture of all the equipment that we have on the site. This was taken at a moment in time during the day. There could have been 20 or 30 pieces of equipment on the golf course at the time this was taken. This was not scientifically taken to specifically account for every piece of equipment. This was just a sample of this is what we have, this is one of the challenges we have. So this was not taken like at 6:00 in the morning when every piece of equipment was parked in the barn and outside the barn. This was taken at some moment in time during the day. I've taken this a few weeks ago. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you were bringing equipment from other places on your property? MR. SAADEH: No, ma'am. This -- during the day we have equipment on the golf course on regular basis. So at that time this equipment would have been on the golf course that wouldn't be shown in this picture. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Donna, that was kind of exactly my question is that it looks like you could exactly build what you want in the backyard of this and cover that. You don't have to have 100 percent access around the building. I mean, you and I shouldn't be providing expert testimony on fire codes, but it just seems why couldn't -- did you ever look at building to building just covering exactly that yard? It almost appears to be exactly that size. MR. SAADEH: Well, actually, it wouldn't fit. The other thing I'll tell you, this is a matter of fact, when we proposed this building with the fire department, there's a fire sprinkler right in this location right here. The fire marshal came in and said we want a different one in here. We said, how come? Ifthere's a fire -- and luckily, knock on wood, we haven't had one in 23 years. He said no, ifthere's a fire, we're parking a truck in here, we don't want to go Page 83 December 17, 2009 on the other side of the truck to reach a hydrant, we want one on this side of the truck. So I mean, their regulations, they want a fire hydrant here, which is existing. They want another one here, which is not existing, to be added. So I can't really speak as to what the fire codes are but I can tell you, it's the most stringent regulation that you would go to when you're getting a fire permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But that's not really the point. What the fire marshal is saying is if we're going to build a building on the other side of the road, give me a hydrant also on the other side of the road. My question really is, is that area behind your existing building looks like an area -- I mean, the existing building is bigger than the new building you want. Why couldn't you put this new maintenance building back there? MR. SAADEH: Again, simply it wouldn't fit. I mean, it physically wouldn't fit. If you take the shell in here and superimpose these lines in here, those will be touching. And then this will be blocked and there will be no more road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of course you could touch them. You know, here's the problem, is you're asking for a variance. And there has to be good reasons for the variance. And you can't cause the reasons. You know, you subdivided the lot. The big argument here is that you want to put this size building as opposed to another size building that some architect could take your berm, design the building into the berm and probably get you a lot of square footage. It would certainly not be as easy to build as a rectangular metal building. And then you even mentioned that you would have to sprinkler it. Well, you know, we can't give variances for land use based on avoiding sprinkling. So I mean, we really have to have good hardship Page 84 December 17, 2009 reasons that aren't caused by yourself or not to be convenient for construction. MR. SAADEH: Mr. Schiffer, I would say that again under the current LDC, if I wasn't allowed to go three stories high, I would not need the type of setback that we're requesting a variance for. So basically, I mean, you -- this is a technicality. I'm here stuck on a technicality because my PUD was written in '86 and it called for three-story maintenance facilities. Then I would have to have 50-foot setback. Now I'm proposing a IS-foot building -- IS-foot high building and I'm asked to provide still the 50 feet, which doesn't make any sense at all. I mean, I'm easier off going amending the PUD and removing the 50-foot requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm a little confused. You're giving the impression that there is conventional zoning all over the county for something that's zoned golf course. You are a PUD. You determined your own zoning, your own setbacks. So, I mean, referencing the conventional when you essentially created your own, I'm not sure, why is that supposed to make, you know, the -- MR. SAADEH: Because 23 years later things are not the same. I'm sure you agree with that. Things change and evolve. And at that time we didn't -- I mean, at that time I didn't craft every letter of the document. We had experts do that. Hindsight looking at it, you know, we probably should have done it as the other table in the PUD calls for, the residential table calls for. If you had one story, this is your setback; second story, this is your setback; three stories are more, this is your setback. Unfortunately the PUD only -- the golf course site didn't address that. I have the copy of the PUD, if you'd like to see it. It addressed it perfectly for residential, but it didn't for this site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we have portions of it. And that would -- maybe I would be happier if you were actually in here revising your PUD so that you could make a building that would Page 85 December 17, 2009 fit here. Some of this -- the problem is you're asking for a variance and a variance has to carry a lot of weight as to that you really have a need for it that's certainly not caused by yourself or again to avoid types of construction. But anyway, I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Saadeh, I realize you have a need for the building. If you build it in the position you want and push it back towards the berm, how many feet can you go before you start tearing that berm down? MR. SAADEH: Matter of fact, this corner right here is at the toe of the berm. And there is going to be a retaining wall built along this side of it, almost all the way across. So pretty much this is as far as it can go back without starting to tear into the berm. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. Because the reason I'm bringing it up is I live in that development, I go up and down that road. If that berm had to come down or any trees in that berm had to come down, it would definitely destroy the view all the way down to the clubhouse. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I agree with you, but the toe of the berm is the bottom of the berm, correct? MR. SAADEH: Well, actually, this is the toe of the berm. The toe of the berm is right down here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But-- MR. SAADEH: This is the height of the berm with the pictures I just showed you. And I'd be happy to take you out there and drive you over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he's referring to the toe of the slope of the berm as it moves east and west. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And my point is that you could push that in, Bob. I mean, just based on the pictures you've given me. I think probably the top of the berm is certainly not in the Page 86 December 17,2009 middle. It looks further towards where you want to build. But you could get a building, especially a building of this height, back into that berm. And again, in Florida we're so used to flat sites we can't imagine, you know, building something into a hill. But the rest of the world does build a lot of nice structures into the hills. And it would obviously have a retaining wall. Anyway, just, you know, that study I don't think was ever done. And that would have been fair to the neighbors to try to make it work out without this problem. But anyway, I was done before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, some of the requirements that the LDC cause upon us includes whether it's an unnecessary hardship. In other words, you're maintaining or you believe that you have an unnecessary hardship if you don't follow the setbacks; is that correct? MR. SAADEH: Yes, sir. I don't want to tear down a berm and landscaping that's been there for 23 years. I mean, that's the number one reason. And plus there is -- in our view there is definitely no impact on anybody next door, because they've been there for all these years and nothing changed. I'm not adding zoning, I'm not changing zoning or use, I'm just expanding an existing facility that was there before the project was ever built. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But what I visualize and what I see is that there is no legal unnecessary hardship in this case. Now, the question of course comes to mind is what constitutes a legal unnecessary hardship. In trying to find the standard and the definition of that, I did some research, and I found that our County Attorney has defined this for us, as well as the BCC. For purpose -- and I quote now from our County Attorney: For purposes of supporting a zoning variance, a legal hardship will be found to exist Page 87 December 17,2009 only in those cases where the property is virtually unusable or incapable of yielding a reasonable return when used pursuant to the applicable zoning regulations. And you maintain now that you have an unreasonable hardship; is that correct? MR. SAADEH: I'm maintaining right now that it's the least offensive option to put it where we're requesting to put it versus to tear down a berm, with the understanding that under current rules that the county has today I would not need to have near the setback that I'm providing right now. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But you don't meet this requirement in the LDC. Because I don't believe it's a legal hardship that you have. MR. SAADEH: The requirement of the LDC, unfortunately my PUD supersedes the LDC. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be here today. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, of course you're the original developer for 20 years in this case, and any asserted hardship that is self created by the applicant, this includes the unusually shaped parcel, location of the Curbside community development, PUD setback requirements, et cetera. You've had an opportunity to dictate that all along, since you've been the original owner. MR. SAADEH: Correct. But again, as things evolve with time -- I don't have a crystal ball to foresee what happened. I'm sure nobody here knew what was going to happen last year in the economy or the year before. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But in light of this definition of un -- legal unnecessary hardship, if you cannot tell me what your hardship is and that it is unnecessary, I find it hard to violate the LDC. MR. SAADEH: Well, my hardship is twofold: One is removing a berm and existing facility that's been there for 23 years just to account for a setback that your own LDC does not require today just Page 88 December 17, 2009 doesn't make sense, with all due respect. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That doesn't make it incapable of yielding a reasonable profit or return. MR. SAADEH: I would venture to say that a lot more people and members of the club will be impacted by removing the berm than the few people you have in this room today facing this petition and going against it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, don't bring up the people in the room or what you've sent us, because we haven't gotten any letters from anybody yet, apparently. MR. SAADEH: No, but I mean, you have registered speakers against this, and they have an attorney, so -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's all I had, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Saadeh, would you show us, please, at that map, show us where in the morning and in the evening where the vehicles that are currently used for maintenance travel, their travel line to go out and do their thing. MR. SAADEH: Well, some vehicles come up and down this path and go to the north golf course, because we have two courses. And the ones that service the south golf course come out this way. And there's a concrete path in here. They hug this path and they go out to the southern golf course. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Just remain there if you would, please. The distance from the current building to any residence is approximately what, sir? MR. SAADEH: I'm not 100 percent sure. Way over 100 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And on your proposed new building, what would the distance from any -- the closest point of a building to any residence would be? MR. SAADEH: This dimension would be -- the closest corner of Page 89 December 17,2009 the building to the closest corner of the other building would be 80 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. The vehicles use what type of fuel, sir? MR. SAADEH: I think most mowers are either gas or diesel. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Diesel or gas. And is diesel or gas stored on your property in the other current facility? MR. SAADEH: This is the fuel facility that we have on the property, and it's not proposed to be changed. It will remain right here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so now that new building, the proposed building, would be for the storage and maintenance of these buildings -- of these vehicles? MR. SAADEH: Storage and maintenance of mowers, but no storage of chemical facilities or the fuel. The fuel is supposed to be here, it stays here. And the chemical component is a portion of this building that's designed properly for that, that will stay there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Would the -- at the end of the day when the vehicles are being housed in the proposed new building, would they be driving into the building? MR. SAADEH: Yes, I'm sure -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So there's no door on either side, it's just one entry and exit on one side; am I correct? MR. SAADEH: The proposed doors are on this side. We could have easily -- we could easily add a door on this side, if that makes a difference. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not one -- that's fine, but I want to find out. The vehicles are going to drive into the vehicle -- I'm sorry, into the building? MR. SAADEH: That's correct. Page 90 December 17,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And when they leave in the morning, are they going to back out? MR. SAADEH: I'm not sure what the-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, they're not going to go in an arc, are they? MR. SAADEH: I'm really not there on a daily basis to see the modem, how they operate. I'm sure they either back out or turn around or something. I don't know the -- I mean, I don't know where you're leading with this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm going to tell you where I'm leading. My concerns are for glare, noise, odor. Those are one ofthe other -- those are some of the other characteristics that relate to human beings and their dwellings. And I recognize your perspective about seeing the entirety and benefiting the whole, but just like in democracy, one of tenets is the majority has the obligation to protect the minority. And so those four residents have essentially the same rights as the rest of the folks. My concern is, and I hope that I've led you there for you to understand, is the smell, the noise and during the course of a day if they're performing maintenance, there's other noises associated with it. So I think that's part of this. Would you like to comment on anything I've just related? MR. SAADEH: As it's been for the last 22 years, again, the maintenance for -- the maintenance equipment that services the south golf course drive right by this line, by this wall, all the way out this way. So the traffic you're talking about or the number of equipment you're talking about or the noise you're suggesting or the smell of fuel or whatever, it's already there now and it's been there for 22 years, and not once did we hear one complaint about it. I mean, it's typical in this type of operation. We do not have the type of heavy equipment that -- we use regular mowers and we use, you know, regular trim equipment that if Page 91 December 17, 2009 they hand operate it, they load them on one of these utility service vehicles and they take them out on the course and use them where they need to use them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that, and I'm not going to get into a state of argument with you, but I would just offer that a vehicle passing by allows its penetration of annoyance for a brief period, as opposed to something that is in a cubicle or in a space has to back out, makes noise that way and is stored there and there's inevitably the smell of fuel. That's just my view. And I'm just asking that question, because that's a concern I'm sure you have with respect to your neighbors. You want the people who live there to be comfortable. MR. SAADEH: Sure. And we've done that for all these years. However, I'll say this: I'm kind of catching a little bit of where we're going with this. The mowers that we have, not one of them that I know would have a beeping sound on a reverse cycle. Those sounds are more associated with heavier type equipment, like big back hoe or a big loader or anything that when you put it in reverse it gives you that beeping sound. The mower is just a mower. You put it in reverse, you put it forward, it's the same sound, the motor's the same. It doesn't have that extra sound that we might be suggesting here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's an excellent point for you to have made. But my last question then has me provoked, which is a good question, I think. Looking at that picture, are those all mowers that we're looking at? MR. SAADEH: Mowers and tractors. Tractors are used for mowing, that's what we use them for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I'm looking at what I thought I saw here where there's tractors here, and looks like other type of maintenance vehicles. Page 92 December 17,2009 MR. SAADEH: We have one back hoe and that doesn't get used on a regular basis, it's if we have a leak or if we have to dig a hole when a water line bursts. But that doesn't get used daily or even sometimes weekly. And I can see that this vehicle, if it bothers you, we'll put in the other building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I will stop now with regard to that. But I thought it was important for you to appreciate that. That is something that has to be a concern. MR. SAADEH: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Something came up when Mr. Kolflat was questioning the hardship issue. And what came to me is I had a job for 10 years where I contracted with developers, and I've had an opportunity to visit many, many golf course communities and their of course maintenance facilities. Some lease, some own their equipment. And what I look at is if I lease a car, I'm probably not going to take as good of care of the car as I am something that I own. In other words, the equipment, they're probably keeping the leased equipment outside and they want to keep the equipment that we own inside so that it will last longer. I don't know if that's a hardship. But when I was reading through this, that's what I took away from it. And I just -- I looked at that as a hardship, a financial hardship. So I just wanted to comment on that. And I'm going to have to disagree with you, Mr. Murray, that a portion of the people have to support the other. I don't think that's democracy, that's communism. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's actually our constitution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I don't want to get caught in between the both, but I do agree with you as far as the Page 93 December 17,2009 maintenance sheds. There's going to be a building put up here, it's just a matter of where it's going to go. And the further out it goes, the closer it is towards the berm. And I do feel there is a hardship with that, because of the economy. And leasing versus ownership, I thought the exact same thing as you, if you lease a vehicle you just park it outside in these temporary sheds. But if you want to own them and maintain them -- and as far as the vehicles going by, they have the mowers going by right now all day every day anyway, so that's not going to change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any -- Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Could you put the picture up that has the proposed building site and existing berm buffer? MR. SAADEH: Sure. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The little storage building on the top that has the dumpster in it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Cherie', after today my fast talking to you is going to be slow. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is that lower green portion there, that's where the building is going to go? So it is going to be right up to the berm? MR. SAADEH: Yes, ma'am, the -- actually, the building will go back to the berm as possible. And that's also triggering the building of a small retaining wall to the back of the building to protect it from the toe of the berm. So as far back as we can push it. I mean, it can't push anymore than that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And you're trying to keep the asphalt area -- MR. SAADEH: The some of the asphalt is going to-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- seep through into that a little bit. MR. SAADEH: Yes, some of the asphalt's going to be part of the actual foundation. Page 94 December 17,2009 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you're right in that kind of dug out area. MR. SAADEH: Right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Looks like. MR. SAADEH: I mean, if you notice on this picture, this is some of the asphalt that will be the footer of the building itself. And some of the grass on that back. And so we're eating some of the asphalt as well. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody else have any-- Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, for my colleagues, I want to assure you that what I was reciting as far as the legal necessary hardship was not my definition whatsoever, it's the definition of our County Attorney, and I think he has some credibility in that area making a definition. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: A bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other questions of the applicant from anybody on this panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll have staff report. Thank you, Mr. Saadeh. MR. SAADEH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you'll have an opportunity to come back and rebut at the end of the public discussion. MR. SAADEH: Thank you very much. MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Staff is recommending approval of both of these variances. There is the 15.4- foot setback variance for the building, and also a landscape variance. Normally a lO-foot wide landscape buffer would Page 95 December 17,2009 be required adjacent to the existing buffer. And staff is allowing -- or recommending that the applicant be allowed to provide this buffer in two separate areas, as he's able. And then also the 14 canopy trees that would normally be required to be planted in these two buffer yards. With regard to the petition, staff took a holistic approach to the request when we were evaluating it against the criteria of the LDC. And I just wanted to point out that the proposed building is stipulated to be only 15 feet in height. The PUD allows heights in this golf course district to be three stories over parking, so it's approximately 40 to 45 feet. And staff thought that -- and the reason that the PUD anticipated a 50-foot setback was because these heights were so great. And staff felt that with the applicant willing to limit the height to only 15 feet, that a 15- foot setback would be adequate, since the most conventional comparable zoning district, the golf course zoning district, doesn't have any setback requirements for golf course maintenance facilities. I'd also like to point out that there is an existing vegetative buffer on the adjacent property, and there are pictures of it included in your staff report. And I think Mr. Saadeh has presented some to you today. This canopy is 16 feet in height. And so obviously the proposed building is not going to protrude above the canopy like a 40 to 48- foot building would. So it seemed to staff that this would be something that would be amenable to everyone involved. Staff also didn't want the applicant to remove the berm because of the public benefit it provides, not only to the members of the Vineyards Country Club who pass by it, but also to the adjacent neighbors who are opposing the project, because it presents really an attractive view from their units. And so if it were removed and a 48-story (sic) building put up, it seems like no one would win in that situation. But it is something that Mr. Saadeh is certainly entitled to do according to the PUD document. Page 96 December 17,2009 I'd also like to add that I hadn't heard until today that lighting might be an issue, but we can certainly include a stipulation in the resolution, if this petition gets approved, limiting the lighting that's allowed on the site or the hours of operation of the lighting, that sort of thing. So that is definitely an impact that can be mitigated. And that's all I have. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: J.D., you're recommending approval. I presume then you agree this is a hardship. MR. MOSS: Yes. And I would like to point out that the criteria that are outlined in your staff report, those are just general guidelines that you are supposed to follow when you make recommendation. They're not hard and fast rules, you don't have to agree with everyone, but generally those are the guidelines you're supposed to be following. And so staff considered the berm to be a hardship. The berm was actually built 20 years ago when there was a water plant on the site. And obviously when the site was -- excuse me, when the whole Vineyards PUD was able to connect to the county water and sewer system, that plant was no longer needed and it was removed. But I just didn't see any point in having the applicant destroy this beautiful berm when he's not even proposing a building that's going to be 40 to 48 feet. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree with you totally, to move that berm just wouldn't make any sense. And I live there and I go up and down that all the time. And to move that berm I do consider a hardship. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER CARON: In your global look at this variance, did you ask yourself why anybody would build a 48-foot Page 97 December 17, 2009 building for -- to house a tractor or a lawnmower? MR. MOSS: No, I -- of course I didn't look at that. I looked at the application that was presented. All I'm saying is he was entitled to build a story with a maximum height of up to 48 feet. He could provide parking underneath the building, he could do something above it, I don't know. But I looked at the application as it was proposed and it seemed to me that this was an outcome that would benefit everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, in the original PUD, what was this land area culled out to be? MR. MOSS: It was culled out as a utility tract. It was supposed to be for the -- and it did serve as a water treatment plant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did that have requirements, developments standards in it? MR. MOSS: It did, but the PUD was amended and those were all removed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And at that time this was transferred into a golf course use. MR. MOSS: Yes, the PUD document was amended. This portion was converted to golf course use and the portion below it was converted to residential use, which is the Clubside Reserve which that's adjacent to it now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this is the appropriate category . MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, you're testifying that we have to tear down the berm. I mean, that's an absolute? Has anybody ever realized that you could go into the back of the berm? Right now he's at the toe of it. He could go in a little bit, a little bit. The pictures show it's pretty ragged on the back side. So why aren't we building a wall -- looks like the berm's pretty tall. Looks like you Page 98 December 17,2009 would get essentially the wall of a one-story building into the back of this berm without affecting the aesthetics from the other side at all. MR. MOSS: Yeah, I don't know how the root systems of the trees would be impacted if too much of the berm were removed. But certainly some of the berm could be removed. And some of it is proposed to be removed and a retaining wall constructed so it doesn't slide down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A tiny bit. MR. MOSS: A tiny bit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have the drawings that show. I mean, so, you know, we can't go around saying it's the berm or this building, because it really isn't. In other words, there really is the ability to do a building on this site and not destroy the berm. MR. MOSS: I don't know that, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, but you're asking us to do a variance. And you're saying that there is no hardship that this berm, a 20-year old berm -- first of all, if we made a mistake today it would be cured in 20 years by the proof that you could -- it takes 20 years to make something that valuable. But, I mean, don't you think it's important to have those studies before we -- a variance is a precious thing. That's my problem. I mean, honestly, if he was in here to amend the PUD to allow utility buildings on a golf course and had all these little setback issues, I would probably be much more -- MR. MOSS: No, you're absolutely right, it would be nice to have that information. But we don't have it and so I can't say how much of the berm can be removed before you're actually destroying the vegetation that's planted on it. I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And remember the precedent we do here. I mean, this is a site that they determined the shape, they put a berm on it themselves and now the berm is a hardship, a Page 99 ""~.'<-"""'."".""~''^-~'-~-''-' December 17,2009 hardship that's normally used for, you know, some rock outcropping up north or something, you know. Anyway, when you go through the analysis, I actually don't agree with some of these. First of all, I don't think there's special conditions because he essentially created those special conditions. But you did say -- I mean, he can use the property, it's just solely based on the design of this inexpensive metal -- MR. MOSS: Right, he's not going to lose -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- building is his hardship. He wants -- in other words, he can't get a cheap inexpensive metal building in there without a variance. MR. MOSS: Well, what he told me was that he was unable to accommodate the equipment that he has in a smaller building. Because that was my first recommendation is that a smaller building be constructed that wouldn't require any sort of encroachment into the setback yard. But he said he needed a building of that size in order to fit all the equipment that he has. And he was renting the equipment, or he has been renting the equipment, and as soon as he has a place to store it, he's actually going to be buying it and wanting to take better care of it, like Commissioner Wolfley had mentioned, since he's actually going to be owning it rather than renting it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And a land use variance is based on the ownership or rental of equipment? MR. MOSS: No, no, no, I didn't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what you're saying. MR. MOSS: No, I'm not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You just said that, you know-- MR. MOSS: I'm just saying that's why he says he needs a building that large. Because I asked him why he couldn't build a smaller building, and that was the reason he gave me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there's no proof here that he can't build a building with the exact same square footage if he goes Page 100 A'~,",__,_""",_______""",,_,_ December 17, 2009 into the berm and makes the shape not a square shape. MR. MOSS: That's true, we don't have that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, he could still use metal construction. MR. MOSS: -- information. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, I mean, you know, there has to be a burden on a variance for us, because we can't set a precedence where somebody, just because they don't want to do something, that becomes a reasonable variance. MR. MOSS: No, I accepted his testimony that he needed a building of that size. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that exact shape. MR. MOSS: No, not of that exact shape, but of that size. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because there is no testimony that you can't build a building of that size on the site. MR. MOSS: No, there's not, there's not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm not so sure you can't. I guess I'm done -- well, let me just go to the issue. The issue of the site, the setback. You're comfortable that he does not need any setback? Because now that he's golf course, the only reference to any kind of setback in the golf course zoning is the distance from a residential area. MR. MOSS: Let me be clear. I'm not sure I understand your question. The-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm concerned about that property line that's alongside the building. You know, property line means something in land use. It also means something in building code. So you're comfortable that that's not something that requires any kind of setback issue in land use? Ray's nodding -- MR. MOSS: Ray says it's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Page 10 1 December 17,2009 You're talking about this tract line? MR. MOSS: Oh, the side yard setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not a tract line, it's noted as a property line. MR. BELLOWS: Or property -- MR. MOSS: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that means something. It's a simple word, simple meaning. MR. MOSS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is, in the PUD it states that the area between the residential and the building has to be landscaped. MR. MOSS: It doesn't say that it has to be land -- oh, it does say it has to be landscaped, but not that entire 50 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How do you know? MR. MOSS: Because then it wouldn't say that no parking would not be permitted in there. Because it goes on to say that. And if it were implied that the whole thing was going to be landscaped, then why would they say that parking couldn't be permitted there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me grab it real quick. It says no parking will be allowed in the buffer. It says -- let me read the thing. Building shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from an abutting residential district, and the setback area shall be appropriate (sic) landscaped and maintained to act as a buffer zone. No parking will be allowed in the buffer zone. MR. MOSS: Right. And the appropriate buffer zone in this case would be a 10- foot wide buffer with 14 canopy trees. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it's defining that area as a buffer zone. It's not saying, you know, in the future there's going to be a land use element called a buffer and that's what -- MR. MOSS: I disagree. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Page 102 December 17,2009 Staff has taken the position that the LDC required buffer is the appropriate buffer, as referenced by that language that you just cited. MR. MOSS: Yeah, I think it would have been more appropriate in the PUD document to call it a setback yard. And I think whoever used the choice of calling it a buffer yard has caused confusion by it. But I don't think that was the intent that that whole 50 feet needed to be buffered. Because it just doesn't make sense that they would then say that no parking would be allowed in that 50-foot buffer yard if it were supposed to be vegetative. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think they didn't envision utility buildings when they wrote this, I agree with that. They certainly don't envision, you know, up above parking 45 feet. But read what it says. It says, and shall be appropriate (sic) landscaped and maintained to act as a buffer zone. That's pretty precise to me that that's the buffer. MR. MOSS: A buffer zone, though, doesn't mean that there's vegetative screening. A wall is a buffer too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they're saying that area, you've got to push the building back 50 feet and, by the way, that area in between there is going to help buffer-- MR. MOSS: Is going to act as a buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- whatever you want, you know, whether you put materials, it doesn't have any landscape requirement, it doesn't have wall requirement -- MR. MOSS: Right, that's why it seems like it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it says to have one requirement, no parking. MR. MOSS: Right. And that's why it should be called a setback yard in that document, not a buffer yard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're using contemporary -- you know, we've since evolved our code to have a buffer and you've actually taken the contemporary buffer and trying to make it work in Page 103 December 17,2009 that. But enough said. I mean, I don't see how you could come to that conclusion, but you're there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: J.D., since I like you so well, I want to share with you a memorandum that I hope you'll read -- MR. MOSS: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: This memorandum went to the Board of County Commissioners from Jeffrey A. Klatzkow through David C. Weigel, January 23rd, 2006 entitled variance law, general principles. And you mentioned something about a necessary hardship. That's covered in that particular memorandum. MR. MOSS: I mentioned that? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, you mentioned a necessary hardship, that you felt there was a necessary hardship. MR. MOSS: I felt that there was a hardship. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, this contains a definition of what constitutes a hardship. MR. MOSS: Okay. And all I want to point out is that these criteria that are in the LDC are general guidelines for you to follow. To approve a variance you don't have to agree with every single one of them, they're just general evaluative criteria for you to follow. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And this memorandum is guidelines for what we should do at these hearings. MR. MOSS: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: From our attorney. MR. MOSS: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Staff has reached its position and opinion and rendered it in the staff report. The Planning Commission can come to a completely Page 104 December 17,2009 different finding and we'll note so, and it will be taken to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a final hearing. There's no reason that Planning Commission -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we know the meeting's justified and we'll continue with the process. Everybody will have their say when we vote. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We have heard Mr. Klatzkow's name used several times. Could you please, Jeff, in your opinion, describe this issue, this memorandum that you wrote, and does it pertain to this and -- MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, it pertains to all the variances. I'll be happy to send you a copy of the opinion. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, would you articulate it now so everybody can hear? I mean, was that -- how do you feel about that? MR. KLA TZKOW: If we're talking about the issue of hardship, all right, the -- a legal hardship typically requires a much higher standard than typically we give in this county, okay? We tend to give variances in this county when there's no opposition, would it make sense to us. We really don't focus on the hardship and we tend to deny variances when there is a community revolt against them. Again, we don't really look at the hardships. So customarily this county's approach to variances is a bit different than what the legal standard is. Legal standard is going to come into play should there be a challenge, you know, on a denial. At which case it will be the petitioner's legal need to show to the court that he had a legal hardship here. Now, I don't think he's going to be able to show that, all right, under the legal standard. But the way we've customarily done with variances here and what the legal standard is on granting variances are really two different things. The legal variance is much, much more Page 105 December 17, 2009 conservative than what the county's been doing. Which is fine. But, you know, we've got the right to do this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Wolfley, anything else? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, sort of. So do you agree with Mr. Kolflat's position in this case, this particular case? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat simply read the memo. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you disagree with your memo or do you agree with your memo? MR. KLATZKOW: No, I agree with my memo. But what I'm telling you is that, you know, you need to hear these things and hear all the evidence, you know, weigh everything and then make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Staff approved this and County Attorney must have approved this so it got to here. So evidently everybody is in agreement. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, let's understand that, you know, staff has the application by the petitioner in front of it, okay. Staff does not have the testimony that we haven't heard yet from the community, you know, at this point in time. So, you know, staffs opinion -- staffs opinion's at a moment in time, all right. Now, they don't have the benefit of hearing what the testimony is going to be here, and Lord knows, looks like we're going to get some testimony here against this thing. And then we'll have to see. I mean, staff may rethink its opinion after it hears everything, I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead -- well, Mr. Wolfley, are you finished? Page 106 December 1 7, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I am done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, one thing Bob just said is when you -- the County Attorney never approves these applications, you accept it for -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Form. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- substance and form, right? So when you say that the staff approved it and the County Attorney approved it, two different weights, two different things. So-- MR. KLATZKOW: We're not a decision maker. We don't render opinions on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, J.D. Ray, before we call public speakers, how many public speakers do we have? MR. BELLOWS: We have nine registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there may be more on the register -- unregistered. And one of those is Tony Pires. MR. BELLOWS: He's the first one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, shortest one is first, huh? It's the decision for the Planning Commission we will -- by that many public speakers, we'll certainly be going past noontime. We have people who are going to be showing up here at noon thinking we're done. We won't be. We can take our hour now, be back here at 12:30, then continue with this. Because we probably got another hour at least before this is wrapped up. And then we can go on to the next one if that -- and that kind of will let the people know when they come back we're still in session. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could we ascertain the estimate Page 107 December 17,2009 that Mr. Pires might want to take? That might theoretically take us right up to the 12:00 point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's not going to be taking a half an hour, I can assure you of that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I can assure you that. You know, Tony can be allocated some time because he's a member of the public and he's representing a constituency, but a half an hour's out of the question, especially when there's a series of other people who want to speak as well. Regardless, we're going to continue this one till after lunch. And if we come back at I :00 versus 12:30, I'm just thinking of the people that are going to start showing up here at noon. So does anybody have any objection to breaking now? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I'd say we break now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to break for a one-hour lunch. We'll be back here at 12:30 to resume on this particular variance issue. Thank you. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, thank you. And welcome back from our lunchtime. Now, let me explain to you all what happened for the people from Naples Bath and Tennis. We told you we wouldn't start your issue before noon. Well, we can guarantee you that. The one preceding you which has about the same amount of public interest as yours, we are now approaching the time we are going to hear from the public in that regard. After that then we will have further discussion, a rebuttal by the applicant, and then finally a decision from this board. So we still have a little time to finish up on the first one. Right after that we'll go straight into Naples Bath and Tennis Club. Item#10D Page 108 December 17, 2009 PETITION: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-I0318, MAGNOLIA POND MPUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have one housekeeping matter. Mr. Hancock? MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Tim Hancock. I'm representing Teryl and Pawel Brzeski with the Magnolia Pond PUD amendment. Based on the track of your schedule today, it looks as if there's a minimal chance we might even get heard during the regular hearing today, so I would like to offer, I think it's in everyone's interest to continue our petition to the January 7th meeting. If it's your desire, we'd be -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. MR. HANCOCK: -- happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's -- and we certainly thank you for that offer. Because I don't think we're going to get through with the third one today . Well, we'll get through it but we're not -- certainly I doubt we get to yours, so -- MR. HANCOCK: If I get credit for being gracious when it doesn't matter, I'll accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll continue to the first up on the next agenda in January; is that in agreement with the -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Planning Commission? Made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Ko lfl at. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 109 December 17,2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, thank you very much. MR. HANCOCK: I thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: And thanks for wearing the green jacket. Item #10B (Continued from before lunch recess) PETITION: V A-PL2009-1460, VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we left off at the beginning of the public participation in the variance for Vineyards. And I think Tony wanted to be the first person to speak. Is that what you have on your sheet? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't be shy, Tony. MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker, Tony Pires, to be followed by David Pink. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Tony Pires with the law firm of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo, representing the Clubside Reserve Condominium Association, a residential community established -- well established community immediately adjacent to and south of the subject property. Mr. Chairman, if! could with your indulgence and that of the board take about two minutes to set up a model that was created by Page 110 December 17,2009 one of the residents that will be speaking today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead, sir. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll watch you to make sure you put it together right. MR. BELLOWS: It wouldn't be Christmas if you didn't assemble something. MR. PIRES: I could possibly handle the card table. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: This reminds me of show and tell. MR. KLA TZKOW: He's trying to pull a rabbit out of his hat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody that is coming up to speak, we were all sworn in earlier, so everybody is still under oath. I just wanted to make a reminder as a request from the court reporter. Thank you. Boy, it's a good thing attorneys aren't engineers. MR. PIRES: I don't have my Handy Mandy or my Bob the Builder to put it together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not going to get one. MR. PIRES: I don't blame you. Again, I represent the Clubside Reserve Condominium Association. And again, thank you all for taking the time to consider this application and also take the time to consider the position of my clients on this particular -- because they are immediately adjacent to and adversely affected by this particular project. We have a number of residents who have arrived here today, taking the time out of their day as you take the time out of your day. If you all could stand from Clubside Reserve who are here and in opposition to and to show their support for the opposition to this project. Thank you. Some of them are registered to speak. And I believe you have a number of e-mails hopefully that were sent to you by some of the Page III December 17,2009 residents, again, expressing their opposition to this project. And some of the people may be passionate about their opposition to this project, and so we wish that you bear with them if they do become passionate. Because after all, it is their community, their quality of life that would be impacted by this needless variance request. There might be others also that were not available to be present today and may, with the Chairman's indulgence, a particular speaker may request that a letter be read into the record and made part of the record. And we defer to the Chairman as to that particular protocol. The model is not one that I created, obviously, you can tell by the way I maneuvered it, but by Ellen Watt. And it's a one-eighth inch scaled model of this area. And during the course of the presentation, some of the speakers may be referencing the model in referencing various aspects of this particular project. For the record, I've previously provided to the Planning Commissioners and to staff a copy of my letter indicating various aspects of opposition, and I have extra copies to provide to the court reporter to be made part of this record. And what I would request at the end of this conclusion of to day's hearing, prior to the hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals, is that the custody of that exhibit that we prepared, that I be authorized to maintain it in my office. As a chain of custody and as an officer of the court I will maintain its integrity and make it available for viewing during normal business hours for anybody that wants to come visit and view it, take photographs, measurements, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, do you have any objection to that? MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want it in your house? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No -- well, it would look good under my Christmas tree as something for my kids to play with. Anyway, no, I think we're okay. Page 112 December 17, 2009 MR. KLATZKOW: Okay then. MR. PIRES: Thank you for that particular consideration. Once again, I think what's important in here, we have a number of issues in the presentation from a couple different aspects. One, some background. The PUD language itself, the application and the staff report. And we believe that the pointed issues involved in this particular matter are number one, we believe no variances from the PUD required setbacks should be granted. No variance from the PUD required buffering requirements should be granted without full compliance with the buffering requirements. The Clubside owners and residents will be adversely affected by the activities in and around the proposed maintenance building that is not pursuant to the application, solely limited to golf course maintenance. The staff report talks about this building being a golf course maintenance building. The application talks about a golf course and landscape maintenance building. And this site is zoned golf course and it is to be accessory to the golf course operation. We also assert in part of the discussion that you all have had, there is no legally recognizable hardship. One area of agreement we do have for the staff report, and the staff has a statement in the staff report that if the setback variances were not approved, the petitioner would still have reasonable use of the land. That's at Page 6 of9 of the staff report. And I think that's critical. Even the staff acknowledges they can still use it. You don't have to tear down the berm. Hyperbole, exaggeration, and embellishment. According to the staff report itself, the current berm's about 60 to 70 feet in width, based on some of the documents we previously provided to you. And we'll show them on the ELMO. And based upon the staff report, I believe Mr. Moss referenced that if it wasn't able to be developed, we'd talk about 1,500 square feet at Page 113 December 17,2009 page -- in the staff report it states if the variances were granted, approximately 1,500 square feet of the building will encroach into the southern, i.e. adjacent, residential project setback area. Therefore, the most the applicant is impacted by building pursuant to the setbacks, he can build a 7,500 square foot building without encroaching further into the berm versus a 9,000 square foot building, a reduction in square footage of 17 percent. And what you end up then is a total of about 19,500 square feet of buildings for maintenance activities, counting the existing golf course maintenance building that's currently there. Also we believe, and part of the discussion I think is borne out, and we have additional documentation to support that any hardship asserted, and we dispute that there is any, that exists from a variance perspective is solely self-created by the applicant/developer. This developer has been the sole developer of the Vineyards and a prime developer since its inception, has controlled the zoning of this property and zoning of the community. I think if you recall, based upon prior discussions involving variances, the asserted special conditions peculiar to a parcel cannot result from the actions of the applicant. That's exactly what we have here. It's not a situation of there being erosion resulting from a river bed or spring or creek eroding or from washouts from storms or from some other natural non self-created situation or some governmental action. This is -- the asserted special conditions results solely from the actions of the applicant. Self-created hardship cannot constitute a basis for any variance for multiple variances. That's the law in the State of Florida, I would submit. Granting the requested variances for the maintenance facility and its attendant obnoxious activities will be at the expense of the adjacent residential community. Some background. As I mentioned before and you heard some of the discussion by Mr. Saadeh in his presentation, the owner and Page 114 December 17, 2009 applicant is the original developer of the Vineyards. Any asserted hardship results solely from its development activities over the last 20 years. The applicant/developer created the berm. The purpose of the berm, and Mr. Saadeh indicated that, was to buffer the surrounding properties from the view of the utilities' site. The applicant, in this case the developer, in 1995 with an insubstantial change to the master plan for the Vineyards PDI-95-1, changed the master plan and created this parcel. This parcel used to be a golf course parcel. He changed it to a residential parcel. Therefore, you now have residential abutting golf course. At the time the change occurred in 1995, the maintenance building that's there today existed. And it sits about 80 feet back from the property line beyond the buffer. That building then is consistent with the buffering requirements outlined in the PUD. So the developer changed the designation to residential, resulting in the application of the setbacks contained in the PUD. We don't look to the LDC. I think we've heard that discussion. It doesn't matter what some other golf course might have. We're talking about this golf course. We're talking about this PUD document. And we're talking about a very specific setback and buffering requirements. With full knowledge of the setback and buffering requirements of Section 6.03.01 of the PUD, because the developer's intimately knowledgeable of the contents of the PUD, he created the parcel, he created the adjacent residential district resulting in the need on this parcel to have a building setback 50 feet. The applicant, in this case the developer, approved the Clubside Community development with full knowledge of the PUD setback requirements on the parcels to the north. It is our position that clear and unambiguous language of Section 6.03.01 of the ordinance -- of the PUD ordinance requires this particular setback. And I know Mr. Schiffer read some of the Page 115 December 17,2009 language. I think it's important -- and again, we disagree with staff on this. I've taken the liberty of -- excuse me, of highlighting a portion of the language within the PUD. I think what's important is that it says in 6.03.01.B., buildings shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from abutting residential districts, period. I mean, it says and, but -- that's one concept. Buildings shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from abutting residential districts. And we're here today on the building. And the setback area shall be appropriately landscaped and maintained to act as a buffer zone. There's a -- the variance application in this case is a request for two variances: One from the building being set back a minimum of 50 feet and another one from the 10- foot landscaping requirement of the LDC. I would submit to you there's a third variance that's being requested but not being requested that's at issue here, is that the setback areas shall be appropriately landscaped and maintained to act as a buffer zone. They don't want to put a -- between the building and the wall that currently exists on my client's property, they don't want to put a bush, they don't want to put a tree. If you look at the site plan, it's all paving between the building and the wall. Bear with me, if} get that site plan. Well, I'll go to the -- this is the site plan. This is asphalt paving. This is the wall. This is the Clubside property. In your packet you have a proposed buffering. The buffering is on this side of the golf cart path. And I'm not quite sure where that landscaping -- how that achieves any protection for the adjacent properties. And then there's additional landscaping proposed here, but none in this area. We have this zone of nothingness, as far as barrenness, that is not obviously a buffer and therefore not appropriate landscape to maintain to act as a buffer zone. And so this application is deficient from the perspective that that Page 116 December 17, 2009 particular variance is not being requested. Additionally, 6.03.0 I.A of the PUD, which is on the visualizer, requires that overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosure of structures, location of access streets and parking areas in location and treatment of buffer areas. Again, we submit that is not and does not comply with that particular requirement. The petition itself. We have a concern that the -- without providing any detail or support, the applicant/developer has asserted a need for a 9,000 square foot golf course maintenance building in addition to the existing 12,000 square foot golf course maintenance building on the adjacent parcel to house an undefined amount of maintenance equipment, including landscape maintenance equipment not accessory to the golf course. The photograph that you saw and was submitted in the packet that we provided to you was a photograph submitted to your staff in response to a question about what equipment will you store. I count 12 to 14 pieces of equipment, and that's on the north side of the existing maintenance building. And part of the discussion that ensued this morning was why not build part of the maintenance facility, if you really need to store it, along that northern edge and/or combine the buildings. Again, you know, no need has been shown for a 9,000 square foot building. And no hardship has been shown. A hardship based upon a desire not to remove an unstated amount __ because the application doesn't even say how much of the berm has to be removed other than the hyperbole, embellishment, exaggeration of destroying the entire berm, a 60-foot wide berm. A hardship based upon a desire to not remove an unstated amount of a developer installed berm that only buffers the site from a driveway to the north, golfers to the north and pushing a builder closer to an established residential community is not in our position and our Page 117 December 17, 2009 way of thinking an appropriate hardship. Contrary to the statements in the petition, there is no golf course maintenance facility on this parcel. That's in the petition, it's stated there as not true. The subject property is not surrounded by a large berm of three sides. There's a berm on the north. The berm remnant will not shield this proposed building from views in all directions. The berm remnant on the north and northwest portion does not hide the proposed maintenance building from all angles and views. Again, the berm remnant is located to the north and just will protect drivers going up to the golf club. And again, we're not talking about destroying the berm, we're talking 1,500 square feet, if he really needs a 9,000 square foot building. What is not stated or provided in the petition: Again, the berm located on the property is a remnant of a much larger berm constructed by the applicant/developer for the purposes of buffering adjacent properties from an initial developer owned/operated utility operation. That's an aerial photograph from the Property Appraiser's Office from 1995 where you see the existing maintenance building to the north. It looks like some retention ponds as the utility site was closing down. If you could zoom in a little more, Ray. Thank you. And you can see the berm all the way around. And that's why it was built. And the developer, though, as I said in 1995 submitted through -- we have the plans that were submitted by Coastal Engineering consultant, I think on behalf of Vineyards Development Corporation. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Let Ray do it. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Ray. You can see on there, the crosshatching depicts the berm that was removed to accommodate this development and leaving the remnant Page 118 December 17,2009 berm. Again, that parcel line was created by the developer, by this SDP and by PDI-95-1. And again, the dimensions, might be difficult to read there, but it's approximately 60 to 70 feet in width. So then in developing the Clubside community, the applicant/developer here approved removal and removed most of the berm. Therefore, there's no support for the applicant/developer's bare assertion that the building site is needed. So once again we don't believe there's any hardship. The burden's on the applicant to show that the requested variances conform strictly to the county's Growth Management Plan, its elements and objectives, as well as the conditions for the granting of a variance outlined in the Land Development Code. In listening to -- and we don't believe any of those have been achieved. In listening to the conversation and the presentation by the developer and the discussions back and forth with the Planning Commission, I think what's helpful is and supports our position, the developer said he had the option for drawing the property line anywhere they wanted to. They drew a property line which had a relatively small area between the property line and that berm. They created the condition. We agree. One other interesting aspect is this discussion about they can go there three stories over parking and that's why the 50-foot setback was required. There is no language in the PUD that states that. And there is no differentiation in height between the setback between a 10-foot building, a 20-foot high building, a 30-foot high building. It's a 50-foot setback as to this golf course parcel for any buildings adjacent to a residential district. And again, the existing building is 80 feet away. People get smarter as time goes by. We didn't realize, and my clients didn't realize that the PUD did not allow any parking in the buffer. You see some of the aerial photographs, parking has been in that buffer for a Page 119 December 1 7, 2009 long time. And to the credit of Mr. Saadeh, when it was brought to his attention recently, that parking has now been removed. You can see the parking was along here. Again, it functioned as a buffer. It's such a stringent -- you know, it's a strict requirement, because you don't want to have an impact on the adjacent residential properties, again, a fact well known to the developer since he developed this property and he created the situation. I just probably have a few more comments, Mr. Strain, if I may. An important consideration is it has to be a land-created hardship or land-resulting hardship, and we do not believe there is one in this particular case. What's also interesting is the fact that the staff doesn't -- cannot say how much of the berm would be destroyed to accommodate a 9,000 square foot building. That's missing from the application. But it appears 1,500 square feet is the smallest -- is the reduction in the size of the building in order to achieve the required setback. Again, a 17 percent diminution in building size for an unstated need. This particular model is -- again, this model depicts a one-eighth inch scale. This is the 50-foot setback for a 9,000 square foot building. And this was prepared by Ellen Watts. This is the existing 12,000 square foot maintenance building. So you can see it's about 80 feet from the wall. This represents the closest unit in Clubside. This would be the required setback. This is what they're asking for, leaving a very narrow corridor. And this, no buffering in here. The buffering would be here and the buffering would be in here. Waste land in there. Thank you, Ellen. So in conclusion we assert that the project as proposed with the requested variance is incompatible with the existing adjacent residential Clubside community. It is not complementary to the existing adjacent residential Clubside community as required by Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. There is no hardship. And any asserted hardship is solely self Page 120 December 17, 2009 created by the applicant. The applicant has not shown that it could not build a golf course maintenance building on this property if made to comply with the setback requirements. As the staff report states, if the variances were granted, approximately 1,500 square feet of the building will encroach into the southern, i.e. adjacent, residential project setback area. The most that the applicant will be impacted is a 17 percent reduction in the building size. I'm just making sure I covered all the particular aspects. I think it's also important, going to the questions that you have to ask when determining whether or not a variance would be granted. Question: Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as preexisting conditions? Now, what's interesting, the staff report doesn't say yes or no. I would assert that's a resounding no. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant? Everything here results solely from the actions of the applicant. Other question: Will literal interpretation of the provision of the zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant? Staff answered yes. I would submit to you the answer is no. A possible 17 percent reduction in building size and possible additional cost to take part of the berm, recognizing that the building could also be built on the existing golf course parcel to accommodate the storage of the equipment that he indicates is requested. And again, we do agree with the staff that if the setback variance were not approved for the building, the petitioner would still have reasonable use of the land. We request therefore that the Planning Commission forward this application to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. Page 121 December 17,2009 Available to answer any questions that you all may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions of Tony at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your -- I understand everything you've said. Are you under the belief that you think it's necessary to landscape the maintenance building side of the wall? And what does that have to do with your clients' concern? Because they're buffered by the side that faces them. Let's forget about the setback, that's a whole nother mess we're going to be getting into. But I'mjust -- this landscaping one, why would you want to, in a maintenance area where practically everything gets destroyed anyway, put wasted landscaping on that side of the wall for only the maintenance people to see? MR. PIRES: No, I believe it provides additional buffering. Because again the PUD states -- I'm just going by the language in the PUD, building shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from abutting residential districts, and the setback area shall be appropriately landscaped and maintained to act as a buffer zone. So not having any landscaping is completely contrary to appropriately landscaped and maintained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the existing maintenance facility, what landscaping do they have up against that wall? MR. PIRES: I don't believe there's any. But that was developed prior to the adjustment in the lot line. In other words, that was built in 1987 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand that, Tony. MR. PIRES: -- when there was no adjacent residential district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understand that. I'm just trying to look at the practicality of that issue. I don't -- myself, I didn't see Page 122 December 17,2009 that part of this being a problem. Whether you landscape the side facing the maintenance area or not, as long as the people in Golfside (sic) have a good hedge and it's well buffered for their side, that should be the issue there. But I'll wait to hear more from the public as to what their concerns are, why they would be on the inside of that the parking lot. But thank you. MR. PIRES: Again, from the activities that would be generated within that particular area. You know, you'll hear about the vehicular activity and other activity that goes on that would be of concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of Tony? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't know whether-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- it's for Tony or the petitioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're into public hearings, so you have to wait if it's the petitioner. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next public speaker. And whoever comes up, just use one of the podiums. And for the sake of time, if you could minimize the redundancy, we would appreciate it. MR. BELLOWS: David Pink, to be followed by Robert James Kelly. MR. PINK: If} hand you these, you can do these? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just remind everybody, everybody should have been sworn in earlier. If you did not -- if you came in after the swearing in, please let us know so we can get that accomplished. Thank you. MR. PINK: Okay, my name is David Pink, and I'm the spokesman I think for most of the community here. I think most of the community will agree with most of the items I'm going to talk about today. Page 123 December 17,2009 I live in that unit right over there. And my unit is 60 feet away from this unit. That unit you're talking about is 150 yards -- first of all, I'd like to say thank you for having me here. Okay, that unit is 150 feet, which is 50 yards long. This is half of a football field. That unit's going to be filled with vehicles that -- let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you move that mic a little closer to where you're talking, sir. MR. PINK: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It moves, so -- MR. PINK: Okay. Let me start at the beginning. As I just said, I live in the closest building to the proposed new maintenance building. When I first arrived here in mid November I learned about a maintenance building that was proposed behind the seven- foot wall. Then I found out about the variance that was to bring it to 15.4 feet of the wall, 60 feet from my drive. At first I was shocked and angry, but then I wondered why? Why do they need another maintenance building? Why does it have to be so big? Why do they need it now when the existing building has worked perfectly for the last 20 years? Why does it have to be so close to the wall and my condo? Before I continue, I want to give you some of my background. I'm retired and spend six months of the year at Clubside and the Vineyards. I think I'm representing both, Vineyards and Clubside; to me it's all one in the same. When I go outside I don't say I'm from Clubside, I say I'm from the Vineyards. I have a Master's Degree in urban planning and worked in Michigan as an urban planner for 20 years. I also acted as staff to some of the top Michigan business leaders in Michigan. I owned a successful kitchen remodeling company in Michigan. Last 20 years we did 8,000 kitchens. I am experienced with economic development analysis and business decision-making. Page 124 December 17,2009 I would have not have purchased my unit if I had known a maintenance building was being proposed for this site. I do not want to -- I want to especially thank Ellen Watts for making this scaled model. I worked with her in constructing this, but she did all the actual physical work. I just talked. I'd also like to thank a lot of people back here who helped me in doing this. I don't want to mention their names right now, it's not important. But I just want to thank everybody here that helped me do this. There are many issues which will impact us all in our community. A great increase in noise, and I mean a great increase in noise. An increase in total activity. The whole scope and character of this golf management site will be completely changed. There will be an increase in personnel work in there. They're going to be bringing additional personnel into this community to operate these machines. A substantial increase in pollution. There will be bright lights at night coming through the -- the section I'm in now is pretty dark. The site where the 80-foot setback building is is very bright. There will be an increase in fumes and smells. But before I go into all of these, and I will, and I also describe the exact sound effects in this model. Before I go into that, I think we have to step back and look at the petition itself. When I first read the petition from the Vineyards Development Corporation for the variance, I really didn't get it. I -- it didn't make any sense to me. Building a big building for what? Then I saw Exhibit D. Can we show a -- let's see, I've got all the exhibits here. Okay, Exhibit D. Okay, as you can see, this 14 or 15 vehicles, mostly small, that easily could have been put in those sheds and covered. So there's really -- I don't see why you need a building at all, actually. But -- so take a look at that. And then I think the next item -- I'd like everybody to see this. This is what the petitioner has said, okay. We can put this in here. Page 125 December 17,2009 And as we read this, even with the requested setback reduction, there is no negative -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to talk into the mic., sir. MR. PINK: Oh, I'm sorry. Even with the requested setback reduction, okay, even with the requested setback reduction there is no negative impact whatsoever to the neighboring property. I submit the following: Would I be here today if} thought there would be no negative impact? Would they be here today? I say no. There's going to be major impacts here, and I'm going to go through all of them. Okay, yes, I like this. All right, let's see, where were we? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you like that mic, you need to turn it on. MR. PINK: Oh, okay. Okay. Would it conflict if} had both mics going on at the same time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When Ray gave it to you, he should have showed you that little button, it wasn't on. MR. PINK: Okay, this is good. Can I walk around with this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. MR. PINK: Okay. Well, you know, I'm going to take seven steps here. Okay, that's how far this could be from the wall. That's what 15 feet is. That's how far it is. That's 15 feet, you know. I mean, you know, it's a very short distance. Okay, I'm not going to get into the -- I have a tendency to jump ahead, because I've got a lot to say. Let's see where I am. Okay-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, there are two court reporters here today, and the only time that they can effectively hear you is when that mic is close enough to your mouth, either one of them. So even if you carry that one around, just kind of keep it -- Page 126 December 17,2009 MR. PINK: All right, I will, I will. Okay. Then I saw Exhibit D, the picture of the equipment to be stored. At this point I was confused even more. No additional equipment was said to be needed in the petition. In other words, they're going to have the same amount of equipment now as they did then. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Slow down. MR. PINK: Slow down, okay, I'm sorry, I get excited. So what I'm saying is let's say they have 100 pieces of equipment. A 100 pieces of equipment, all right? And after they get this building they haven't said that we're going to get anymore equipment. So there really isn't more need for building, only that -- those 14 pieces that they show. Okay. So after looking at that, I thought I had to kind of analyze this again. And if you look at the second sentence in -- I think it's number one, let's see right here. If you could put this up. Put that up. Okay. Oh, that first one is kind of messy. Could somebody read that sentence right up there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you got the mic., you have to read it. MR. PINK: Oh, I've got to read it. Okay, this has to do with what they're going to have. They're going to have maintenance equipment, storage and mowers, tractors, golf course landscape maintenance equipment. Now, landscape maintenance equipment really wasn't supposed to be in this area. So I kind of thought about that for a minute. What do they mean by landscape equipment? Okay, so we go on. I was told that landscaping equipment was kept at other sites both in the Vineyards and outside the Vineyards. Now let's take a look at item four in the petition. Okay. And what do they say? They say the proposed building needs to house most of the equipment currently stored in the open. Economic Page 127 December 17, 2009 going to be brought in there, which is going to change that site. It's going to change it both in scope and it's going to change it in character. The next statement I find equally puzzling: Therefore, must be owned and kept to maintain. So basically they're saying that if they buy this thing, they're going to take a lot better care of it than if they lease it. Again, you know, I think I already addressed that. But I can actually suggest a way that they can buy new equipment, keep the same building and keep all the new equipment in the building. It's very easy. You go out, you buy new equipment, you bring it back, you put it in the building, you take five pieces of the leased equipment that you don't like and you put that outside. Now you have all your owned equipment in the building and you have the leased equipment, which apparently they don't care about, outside. That's the crux of this problem. There's no need for -- you know, the reason really that they don't need a variance is because they don't need a building. I mean, to do what the objectives that they are talking about. Now, if their objective is to bring a lot of new equipment in here and a whole different type of equipment, then I think we have a different situation. Okay, because, you know, you're looking at a 75 percent increase in covered capacity and no increase in the amount of equipment they're requesting. All right, let's get right to the -- let's get to the basics here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, sir, we need to kind of get you to wrap up a little bit, because we do have nine or 10 speakers from your area that need to talk. And we generally ask that you be -- MR. PINK: I think I had 10 minutes. And I don't think I've come close to my 10 minutes. MEMBERS FROM THE AUDIENCE: You have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've used over your-- Page 129 December 17, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You went over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, please. We don't try to hold to that strictly. We ask that you stop -- not to be redundant and be respectful of time. MR. PINK: All right, I will, I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I'm asking is that you wrap up. You've been over 10 minutes already. You have other people that want to speak. And I certainly want to be able to hear everybody to be fair today. MR. PINK: Can I just request five minutes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, fine. MR. PINK: Okay, thank you. All right, let's put these on. Let's put this. Okay, you see a lot of storage here. This is really what this is all about. This is at Hammock Isle. This is outdoor storage of a lot of equipment that they have that's used for landscaping. They're going to be using this land shortly to build some luxury homes. They need another site for it. They basically decided to use the golf maintenance building to consolidate all of their landscape -- or a lot of their landscaping facility at the golf place. So this is what -- here's some more. I'll show you other pictures. So if you see these, basically you see what's coming to your neighborhood. This is what's coming to your neighborhood. It's not going to be the same golf equipment, it's going to be this. And I've got -- let's see, what do we have here? This is another real nice picture. I think this is some tanks. But they'll all be coming your way. And okay, now, I would -- you know, I'd like to explain this. I've got -- okay. So basically what I'm saying is that this is not what they said it was. This is not -- has anything to do with that. I'm not going to repeat that. But let's go over and take a look at that just for a minute, okay. All right, what we have here are structures -- this is the new Page 130 December 17, 2009 structure. This new structure will create more noise to this community than this structure right here. There's four doors only, large doors facing the community. This structure has eight doors, the existing structure, five doors on the back-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The mic. MR. PINK: Five doors on the back and three in the front. Almost all the activity is in this area. In other words, when they come in they use this area here. This area is mostly for parking. So this is shielded from us. This right here is a speaker box. And this speaker box will project that sound all over here and all over here, not just the six units they're talking about. There's going to be a lot of people affected by this thing. And there's going to be a lot of people that want to sell their homes. To tell you the truth, I'm considering selling our unit, because I know what's going to happen here. I guess you can prove me right by passing this variance I guess. Because you come back in six months and this is not going to be a nice place to live. Okay, now let me talk about economic effects for one minute. Just take me one minute. Okay, economic effects. Many residents in the homes nearby the new building are already talking about selling, so the effect has already begun. I am one of them. Values throughout our community will drop even more and continue to drop. That's number one. Our community will definitely lose its status as being one of the best places to live in the Vineyards to one of the least desirable. I consider it now to be a five-star community dropped to a three-star. Residents in nearby communities will also be affected in their home values as our community declines. There will be a drop in people continuing to be members of the club. People are already dropping out. Currently 43 of our 84 units are club members. I would expect a large drop in this number. From what I have heard, the club is already having difficulties. Page 13 1 December 17,2009 Many clubs throughout Naples are lowering both golf and tennis membership dues, and people from the Vineyards are going there. Okay, let's go. There's going to be increased activity. That activity in there is going to be about 65 percent greater than the activity that's now there. Because that's -- all the machines there are going to be operated by people. Those people are going to come in and use that activity. So you're going to have probably a 60 to 75 percent increase in the sound levels, maybe more if they get the variance. Back farther it might not be quite as bad, maybe 50 percent increase in sound. That's a big increase in sound. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, we're at that point where you said you'd be finished. MR. PINK: Okay, okay, all right. Thank you very much. I appreciate your listening to me. I'm sorry if} kind of talked too fast and whatever and didn't have the mic. near me, but I think I still have a lot to say. Maybe I can have somebody else finish this off. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's some questions. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: When did you move in, sir? What year? MR. PINK: I moved in in 2005. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: 2005? MR. PINK: Yeah, you know, right before the prices plummeted. So, I mean, we've been hurt already in our community. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But you moved in and that maintenance facility was there. MR. PINK: The existing maintenance facility. The large facility was there. But, I mean, this is going to make it twice as bad, the small one. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. Page 132 December 17,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next speaker. And I'd like to ask the remaining speakers, since this gentleman did represent a large group, he was afforded extra time. I'd like to ask you to be concise with your time and, you know, more to the point as possible to help us get through the rest of the afternoon. Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Robert James Kelly, to be followed by Ellen Watts. MR. KELLER: Commissioners, my name is Jim Kelly. I'm on the board of directors of Clubside Reserve. And I'll speak for the board today. I have been an owner in Clubside Reserve since it spilled out in 1996, '97. We're a community of people who are now over 50 percent year-round residents. Since the board of directors first learned of the variance request from the Vineyards Development, we have been peppered with one key question. That question is, why does Vineyards want to build a 9,000 square foot building that will encroach on Clubside's 50-foot setback and its buffer zone? It's been more than a month now and I still cannot give them a satisfactory answer because of the lack of explanation in the application that Vineyards Development needs 9,000 square feet for storage/maintenance for the 14 or 15 feet pieces of equipment shown in the picture accompanying their application. I can't honestly tell my residents that they need it for storage. The applicant states that he will be buying more equipment and wants to protect it from the elements. He has had the equipment pictured taking care of the golf courses for 20 years. How much more equipment does he need to buy? For me as a lay person, the crux of the situation is the applicant wants the variance granted because of hardship. As hardship has been explained to me by your staff and lawyers, hardship cannot, cannot be granted if it was self-imposed hardship. Page 133 December 17,2009 Vineyards Development was in control of all aspects of the creation of Clubside. They went to the Planning Commission, received the change in land use from the utility to residential. I would think that the commission that granted that change would have insisted on protection for Clubside Reserve from the two adjacent golf course lots. That's whys we have the 50-foot setback in the buffer zone. Vineyards Development surely has sufficient room to build their proposed building on the lot without obtaining a variance to the setback. For economic reasons their positioning of the building in the setback is the cheap way to go. The berm they do not want to cut into insulates the driveway to the applicant owned country club. Nothing residential on that side except a road. Applicant states that the present golf operation facility has operated since 1987 without any registered complaints. Well, for the first nine years I wouldn't expect his water utility plant which occupied the site pre Clubside to register any complaints. Once Clubside was built, there were various complaints registered with Vineyards developer. Regarding odor and noise in relation to noise from the present building, the majority of the doors are on the north side of the facility, away from Clubside. The drawing of the new building is showing all means of egress to be on the south side of the building, facing Clubside. I cannot see the granting of this variance not to be harmful and injurious to the neighborhood and not in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Land Development Code. Another question the residents have asked me, and I would ask you: Would you purchase a condominium ifthere was a 9,000 square foot storage/maintenance facility within 16 feet of your property line? I'd like to end my remarks with a statement from the Vineyards Development website. The statement from the website: Vineyards Development broke ground in Vineyards in 1986 with a mission to create a kinder, gentler living environment that is sensitive to human Page 134 December 17, 2009 needs and expectations, and known for its outstanding architecture, service, value and attention to detail, thereby creating a community of unsurpassed quality of life, enhanced by extravagant amenities and sheer beauty. I think by requesting this variance Vineyards Development has lost sight of their mission. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What was your name again? Excuse me, I'm trying to speak here. MR. KELLER: Legally Robert James Kelly, known as Jim Kelly. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Jim Kelly, okay. And you moved in, in 1996? MR. KELLER: I think I bought in '96, moved in '97. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Now, as in many associations, master associations, there's a time occurs at some point where the residents take over common facilities, if I'm saying that properly. Was that supposed to happen in the Vineyards? I mean, you're on the board and -- MR. KELLER: I'm on the board of Clubside Reserve. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, not the master. MR. KELLER: Not the master association. Oh, no, I don't want to go into that story. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, okay. MR. KELLER: I was never on the Vineyards board and I wasn't down for that, let me just say, debacle. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, we will-- I'll hold off my question then. MR. KELLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray? Thank you, sir. Page 135 December 17, 2009 MR. KELLER: May I indulge you with -- I think Tony had referred to one gentleman, his wife has Parkinson's disease. He wrote a statement, he cannot be here to make it. I would just -- or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you submit that? Do you have it for the record, or is that the only copy? MR. KELLER: No, I can give it to you for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be better. You've already allocated -- your time has been utilized. I'd just as soon we heard some -- we're going to have to get through this afternoon, I need to get to everybody that wants to -- MR. KELLER: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, if you don't mind. MR. KELLER: Who gets it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give it to the young lady right there in the red. MR. KELLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Ellen Watts, to be followed by Jack Cane. MS. WATTS: I'm Ellen Watts and I'm vice president of Clubside Reserve. And Jim really has taken a lot of my comments. I do live in the building, not that particular building, but the one next to it. My bedroom happens to be the one that is over the garages. I do like fresh air and I have my windows open. And the activity, depending on the time of the year, can start at 4:00 in the morning in the present maintenance area. With the new maintenance building going in there, especially if they do -- if they are granted the variance, there will be like a tunnel effect between the new building and the wall with equipment going out to the golf course. And that is the egress to the south course. And if you've ever been in a tunnel you know that cars in a tunnel, even though it's open on the top, you're going to get more Page 136 December 17,2009 noise, and it is going to be louder. And I just wanted to point that out. The other thing is during the hurricane, the last hurricane, the area where this new building was -- or is proposed to go, they brought in a lot of the debris off the golf course and they were chipping it. And chips were coming over the wall onto our roadways, hitting the tiles of our buildings. The board had to deal with that. We did discuss this with Vineyards, and they even came over and closed off our road while they were doing that so no one would get hurt. So they have been notified on different occasions. And they also have used this present area that has no building on it whatsoever now, they've used for storage, and there have been some very bad smells. This has happened many years. They have been spoken to about it. So they have been notified on some things. But we've always tried to deal with the people there. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Jack Cane. MR. CANE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Jack Cane. My unit, number 2104, lies to the north of Clubside Reserve, as shown on this first slide. Right here. So it's just a little bit around the bend. But it is one of the four units most affected by the proposed building. And I request that the Commission deny this petition. The petition refers to an existing berm, which I show on the second slide, which was actually created by the petitioner himself. You've seen -- you've heard about this at length. The berm is primarily intended to shield traffic entering and leaving the Vineyards Country Club from sites and sounds of the maintenance activities taking place on the site. People in cars have only a transitory exposure to the facility, while the residents of my community are exposed to these sounds without any berm or vegetation buffering every hour of every day, Page 137 December 17,2009 every work day. Petitioner has stated that he wants to preserve the berm rather than dig into a portion of it to comply with setback requirements. However, my third slide shows that in another portion of the berm he's done exactly that. He built a retaining wall to allow the construction of open storage bins. It seems to me that the encroachment onto the setback zone is being requested in order to save money and avoid having to construct a retaining wall. The result is that he's creating a nuisance and a hardship for our community in order not to inconvenience himself with regard to construction of the proposed maintenance shed. He's requesting a second variance to waive the requirement of a 10- foot vegetation buffer. We note the absence of any type of existing vegetation buffer on his side of the wall. If that is a requirement, then we request in addition to denying the variance that any existing zoning regulations be enforced with respect to structures and activities now located in the area. Finally, Vineyards Development Corporation has not been a good neighbor, as you've heard already. We've lived here for nearly 12 years, have been subjected to loud noises, starting almost daily at 6:00 in the morning. Sometimes there have been noxious odors from decaying vegetation piled up on the site. And on one occasion as you just heard, there was projectile impact of materials thrown over the wall on to our driveways and our roadway. When we complained the response was to post a guard on our property, denying our access to our own grounds. So I hope you agree that these behaviors do not deserve to be rewarded with any special consideration and that the petitioner be required to meet all planning and zoning requirements without any vanance. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. I'm happy to take your questions. Page 138 December 17,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. I don't think there's any questions. MR. CANE: One last slide, if it's of interest, showing the maintenance area's side of the wall and the parking area which has been discussed. There's about three feet of turf there, which could be available for buffering, vegetative buffering. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next -- MR. BELLOWS: Kenneth Bloom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Kenneth Bloom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, I've got to ask that you refrain from clapping. It just kind of does mess things up a little bit. So let's not continue with that. MR. BLOOM: Okay, I have a present for the board. Commissioners, I waive my time because everything that's been said has been said as far as I'm concerned. And I thank you very much for your time and I enjoyed sitting here watching you listen very intently. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, we appreciate-- MEMBERS FROM THE AUDIENCE: Tell him who you are. MR. BLOOM: Oh, I am Kenneth Bloom. I'm a retired judge of the Superior Court in New Jersey. I have been on the regional planning association for 10 years and I have represented municipalities and boards of adjustment and planning boards for the 25 years before I was ajudge. And I would like you to know that I am very proud to live in Naples with this group representing us. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, we appreciate it. Ray, the next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Richard Casey. MR. CASEY: My name is Richard Casey. I live in Clubside Page 139 December 17,2009 Reserve. My address is -- unit number is 1104. Everything I would like to say today has been covered already, and I know you're looking for time, so I'll just tell you that I am vehemently opposed to this variance, and thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, we appreciate it. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker is Dale Shaughnessy. MS. SHAUGHNESSY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Dale Shaughnessy and I live at 6115 Reserve Circle. I am in building 20, which I think is the model you've been seeing today. And I too would like to thank you all for your very thoughtful questioning, because I think most of my concerns and questions have been covered by you all. I would just like to add my personal experience, that I moved to the Vineyards in 1998 with a 12-year-old son and I purchased a townhouse at the other end of the Vineyards. And after six years of really -- oh, and also was a full equity member of Vineyards Country Club, as I am today. After six years and really investigating all of Vineyards, I chose where supposedly my dream condo would be, and that was Clubs ide Reserve. And I was certainly aware of the existing maintenance shed and the activity. I was there at all times of day to make sure it was still where I wanted to be. And that particular street, which is right across from the privacy wall, was my choice. Rather than going to a new community, I wanted to go and stay in one that was tried and true. My real estate agent at the time -- I sold a condo through Vineyards Realty, purchased a condo through Vineyards Realty, was assured that Vineyards Country Club was built out, when I asked if there was going to be anything further in the maintenance area and was told no, they were done. When I went to Vineyards Development last week, I spoke with Page 140 December 17, 2009 Attorney Rogers and told him that very thing, within that very building was told no more building. He said well, that was probably true at that time. Well, now I have a condo from my own misfortune that is reduced in price 40 percent, because I also purchased in 2005, but that's my sad story. But I don't need further devaluing because the Vineyards is requesting this variance without what I would consider consideration and cooperation for their members and their neighbors. Because I believe there is plenty of room to put an adequate maintenance building. I feel there just hasn't been anyone drawing up the plans that would better suit the land. So I am hopeful that you will deny their request, deny approval, and I would really be joyous if they would go back to the drawing board and come up with another plan that not only wouldn't hurt the residents of Clubside Reserve but as a member as well. I don't see any need to have a maintenance building 14 and a half feet not from my back door, from my front door, because that is on -- Mr. Saadeh said that was our back. That is our front. And also, I don't think the berm has to be dealt with the way they're suggesting. I don't think it's an either/or. So I hope from the questioning that you gave and the comments you've heard you will decline and maybe we can come up with some more suitable cooperative ending to this dilemma. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Kolflat, you had a question -- MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, 1-- MR. BELLOWS: I made a mistake, there is one extra speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figured. I'm going to ask anyway. Thank you, Ray. Go ahead, Mr. Kolflat. Page 141 December 17,2009 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, I've listened to seven speakers now who are affected property owners in this issue. And I have a question for John-David. Was there a neighborhood informational meeting on this project? And ifso (sic), why not? MR. MOSS: Thank you. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. There was not a neighborhood information meeting on this, because the LDC doesn't require them for variance requests. Oh, Ray reminded me there is a letter that's sent out. And Mr. Saadeh did comply with that requirement. He sent out a letter advising people of his intentions. And -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: There was no meeting scheduled, though? MR. MOSS: No, it's not an LDC requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, you want to call that next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, Russell Broad. MR. BROAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to tell you where I live. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You better grab that walk-around speaker. MR. BROAD: Yes, sir. I am in 6115 and unit 2003, right here. I am the closest to the corner of this building. Reside above two previous speakers. First of all, thank you for the time and good afternoon to all of you. I'm a resident, as I said, at 6115 Reserve Circle, unit 2003, and I live on the second floor. I understand that you did not receive a copy of my letter that I sent to Mr. Moss. I'm sorry you didn't get that. But I did send you all a little brief e-mail in the last couple of days in my opposition to this request. As a new resident of Club Reserve as of September, '08, I am the Page 142 December 17, 2009 closest resident to this proposed new building, thus I'll be adversely impacted by the added noise, lights from the trucks exiting the new building and the site of the new building from my second floor location. My condo contains three bedrooms. My two guest bedrooms both face the work site. My guests who stay in these two bedrooms have all complained about the lights from the cars entering the yard to go to work at 6:00 a.m., and especially the noise from the tractors moving along the cement road leading to the south golf course. This new building with doors facing the wall will only create more noise and irritation for my guests. I have visited the site on three occasions last week and took measurements on my last visit. The VDC has put two sticks with blue ribbons on the edge of the berm. The one that's closest to the entryway I measured with a 15-foot tape measure, 135 feet from the edge of the berm to the wall. It seems to me, and as other speakers have had said, there's plenty of room to move that building northward and get it away from the wall. In 2008 I made a substantial personal investment in my second floor coach home in the Club Reserve condominium after losing my wife of 49 years. An additional storage building located a short distance from my second floor windows would have a serious negative impact on the value of my unit. For all these reasons noted above, I respectfully request that you deny this petition by the Vineyards Development Corporation for a zoning variance to construct this large storage building only 15 feet from the wall that separates our high quality residential property from this active work site. Thank you for your time and listening to my argument to deny this zoning code petition. Thanks again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, do we have any other speakers registered? MR. BELLOWS: None with me. Page 143 December 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does any member of the public wish to speak on this issue who has not already spoke? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the gentleman -- I think your first name was Jim, I don't remember your last name. You had a letter you wanted to read? We have -- because of the savings in some time, I'd sure appreciate it if you'd read it for us now. MR. KELLER: I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. This letter is from Don Sartore. It's a statement, actually, not a letter. I want to thank the Planning Commission for allowing me to bring my comments and concerns to you regarding variance V A-PL-2009-1460. I am a registered structural engineer and a registered professional engineer. I was chief engineer design for Burlington Northern Railroad. At the time it was the largest railroad in the United States. I was responsible for design in the areas of structural, architectural, and most importantly for this matter environmental engineering. I presently own and reside full-time in a condo in Clubside Reserve. I would like to point out that the proposed variance is not for a garage type facility to keep equipment out of the weather, the proposal is for a maintenance building, as requested by Mr. Saadeh's petition. If the variance is granted, the facility would be used to maintain equipment, which could conceivably include construction type equipment, in addition to mowers, leaf blowers and shrub trimmers. If approved, the facility would negatively affect our quality of life and consequently the value of Clubside Reserve condos. Noise pollution. The operation of a maintenance facility would include noisy maintenance jobs such as sharpening mower blades, testing, repairing noisy leaf blowers and shrub trimmers. In addition it could include repairing damaged equipment. Page 144 December 17, 2009 I would also point out that since all the equipment is used during daytime hours, it is possible the facility would be used for noisy operations during evening or even nighttime hours. The noise level from a fixed source decreases as the distance from the source increases. The noise level at the Clubside Reserve property line will increase dramatically if located 15.4 feet from our property line, as opposed to the presently allowed 50 feet. I should also point out that while there's an existing wall at the property line, it would not be very effective since sound travels in waves and would go over the wall. Also, the sound generated at 15.4 feet from the approximately seven foot high wall would go directly over the wall to our second floor condos, thus having no effect in reducing noise to these units. Air pollution: The maintenance and testing of internal combustion engines used in the equipment proposed for maintenance at the facility would create a great deal of objectionable exhaust fumes. A facility of the size proposed would have a large number of such exhaust producing engines. Locating the facility 34.6 feet nearer our homes will certainly produce an order of magnitude increase of objectionable fumes which we'll be subject to. Water pollution: A facility of the type proposed will undoubtedly use oil, grease, aromatic cleaning materials such as mineral spirits and most likely gasoline and even diesel fuel, all of which will pollute water. There are at least three existing surface drain openings in the vicinity of the proposed facility . We know the drains run to the lake that 36 of our condo units are built around, although Vineyard's plans do not show these drains to do so. Also, there are at least two existing additional drains we know of, and a search of Vineyards plans do not show where these drains go. In addition, the proposed plan showed two additional proposed drains and a junction box within 20 feet of our property line wall, but do not show where they drain to. Page 145 December 17,2009 We suspect these two present and two proposed drains would also end up in one of our lakes. Any contaminated surface drainage or spill that enters those drains will pollute our lake. Conclusion: There is no doubt in my mind based on the above analysis that approval of the 15.4 setback requested in the variance would increase the objectionable noise and air pollution in our Clubside Reserve community and would certainly increase the probability of polluting our lake. Such approval would of course negatively affect our ability to enjoy our homes and our quality of life and in turn would certainly reduce our property values. I believe that while granting the variance may have some cost advantages to the Vineyards, the environmental damage to Clubside Reserve and the comparatively large reduced property value of our condos far outweighs this advantage. I therefore respectfully urge the Commission to turn down the request for the variance at issue. Thank you for your careful consideration of my comments and concerns. Donald V. Sartore. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have the spelling ofSartore, please? MR. KELLER: Tony had asked me to read this. It's from John-David -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you read anything, let's answer her question first. THE COURT REPORTER: Could you spell the last name? MR. KELLER: S-A-R-T-O-R-E. Donald. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and as far as any more evidence that Mr. Pires would like introduced, this was only to read that letter. So let's just end it there. I think we get the drift of where you people are coming from. So we're good. MR. KELLER: Are you trying to say overkill? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's an old saying, you can snatch success from the jaws of -- something like that. But we're Page 146 December 17,2009 getting close to that right now. So let's go on. Ray, we're done with public speakers. Mr. Saadeh, if you want 10 minutes to rebut, then we're going to close the public hearing. MR. SAADEH: Thank you very much. Just a few quick points that are very, very relevant. A few residents had mentioned that the building would be so many feet from their actual driveways. Some said 15 feet, 20 feet. Actually, if it's built the way it's proposed, the closest corner of the building to the closest corner of any Clubside building would be 80 feet. Second point Mr. Pires made, that there was a rezone back in 1995 and that's where a big portion of the southern portion of the berm that was located somewhere in here was removed. And that's when the time came in for the 50-foot buffer. Actually, that's totally inaccurate. The 50-foot buffer was in the PUD since 1985. If you look at any original PUD ordinance, the 50-foot buffer requirement was there. When we did the PUD, when we did the SOP adjustment for that site itself, PDI-95-1 is when we met with staff on all levels and actually hashed the language in the PUD. And I remember clearly, because I was there. And that's when we proposed this -- I can't recall exactly if this is 20 or 25 feet. But that's when we said, you know, there was no specific size for the buffer to be 10 feet or 20 feet, whatever. We agreed with staff that this would be, you know, the right size buffer on our part. And to further -- you know, to further assist in getting the PDI not just approved but also looking at it from a marketing standpoint what could we sell, we felt we wanted to go as we do in the whole Vineyards; we don't have a minimum landscape standard in the whole Vineyards. Every road we have is double and triple landscaped than what the codes call for. So as you can see from the pictures I showed you earlier, that this Page 147 December 17, 2009 was heavily, heavily landscaped, and the wall was added at the time to enhance, you know, sound barriers and the like. And the wall wasn't any taller, because at the time the ordinance didn't allow any wall to be over this size. I think it's between seven and eight feet, depending on how we worked the finished grade elevation when we built the wall. Another point that's extremely relevant, and it was brought up a million times, that they have 13, 14 pieces of equipment. Some said 10 pieces of equipment. This picture is very deceiving. This was taken, again, during the day at a time where most of the equipment would have been on the golf course. So to say that we have 14 pieces of equipment, I wasn't going to go through this venture and this size building to accommodate 14 pieces of equipment. It was taken at that time when the building was open and the equipment was actually physically on-site. And so I don't have an exact count in my head, but definitely way before we started sizing the building, we went in and looked at the needs of what we have, what we need to have and what the like. Just a clear comment that's not as relevant on some of the people questioning the leasing versus buying and all that. When we leasing equipment, we turn it in in three years. Yeah, we still have to do maintenance, only we still have to maintain it. But it's not the same as when you keep it for five years or 10 years. So anybody who leases a car would know that. If you lease a car for three years, at the end of three years you chunk it, you turn it in, you get something back or you lease something new. In our case we're going to be buying the stuff as we turn it over. As leases become terminated, we would turn into buying mode. And so that was the explanation. And whether it makes sense to some folks, it makes sense to us. Somebody mentioned that the existing building facility have doors just mostly facing this way. Matter of fact, at submittal image, Page 148 December 17, 2009 the doors on this building are actually mirrored on both sides. So if there's four doors here, there's actually four doors on this side. If there's six doors here, there's six doors on this side that are equally used. As a point of clarification, some gentleman put in some pumps and fuel pumps and fuel tanks. The only fuel tank on the site today, and will continue on that site, and we'll go on record saying that, would be the one existing in here. There's no proposed storage of chemicals on this new building, there's no proposed storage of fuel on this new building or anywhere near the site. There's no proposed storage of anything other than mowers and standard equipment that's being used on the golf course, whether it's for cutting grass or maintaining landscaping on the course. Because on 350-acre golf course you definitely have landscaping. Mark, you know that, you live in a community like that. And the last point that I would like to make is the interpretation that Mr. Pires has on the existing buffer is in my view is totally wrong. The existing buffer is -- the reason there's language that you can't have parking and whatever and the staff agreed to this back in 1995 is this is the ample buffer. We built the wall and not a single car can be seen from anyone of these buildings being parked on this side of the wall. If somebody can tell me that and can show me that, then I'll withdraw the petition. The point of it is that that came about now that they hired Tony and he started looking into the site and this and that. The '95 buffer that we created was acceptable by the county, was overkill by any standard of the county and also was helpful for us as a marketing tool. We didn't want these people to look at a maintenance facility, we wanted them to look at a nice landscape buffer. And that was the purpose of it. It wasn't just, you know, to pass some kind of zoning or to pass some kind of permit. It was additionally to have the proper view -- to have the proper visual effects so someone can purchase the Page 149 December 17, 2009 property . Under the maximum interpretation of the code -- of the current required landscaping, as we calculated it, our landscape architect calculated as well, Mr. John-David, we concur that there's 14 trees to be required for the new building. And we suggested to him through Mr. John-David Moss, to Tony and his company that ifhe would like the 14 trees to have the best impact, we will add them on your side of the berm if we can find the space for them. And I'm willing to tell you today, I'll do that. I'll even go from 14 to 20, if that makes any difference to some of the folks that are, you know, opposed to this here. So basically these are the points that I just wanted to clarify. Obviously there's a lot of, you know, emotions involved on both sides of the issue. I do understand, sympathize with the homeowners who feel this can be impacting their units. I haven't really given some thought to -- I don't know if the code allows raising the wall. But if that can satisfy some of the opposition to raising, you know, few blocks on the wall couple three feet of the wall, especially on that side of the site, you know, from somewhere in here, then we would probably be willing to do so to be good neighbors and neighborly. Other than that, I would reiterate that one more time, we had Coastal Engineering working on the property, their planners and several engineers worked on the property, and we've tried multiple, multiple scenarios of how to avoid having a variance. Otherwise I don't like to be here and spending the money just to be here. And there wasn't any that wouldn't intrude on the berm. The fact is nobody knows, not me or anybody else, as what's inside that berm when you start digging into it. You might have some big boulders, you might have some small boulders, you might have some root system. I don't know till I dig into it. And that's why we chose to come for the variance. Thank you for your time, and any questions, I'll be happy to Page 150 December 17, 2009 answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Mr. Wolfley, you had a question? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. Is Vineyards built out, Mr. Saadeh? I mean, are there anymore units to go in somewhere? MR. SAADEH: Technically, yes. There is a neighborhood of Hammock Isles that have some single-family lots that are not built. There's a neighborhood in Venezia Grande that have some single-family lots that are not built. And the only other neighborhood is the site of Vista Pointe, there is a site for two new mid-rise buildings and two kind of low-rise buildings on that site. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So I guess my point -- I mean, what percent do you think you're built out? MR. SAADEH: Probably I would say between 90, 95 percent. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So okay, I just wanted -- that's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It's time for a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What are the hours of operation of the maintenance staff? MR. SAADEH: I believe it's 6:00 in the morning till 3:30 or 4:00 in the afternoon. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so at 6:00 in the morning these guys will be flinging open overhead doors close to that property line? MR. SAADEH: As a matter of fact, in this particular building, if it pleases the Commission and it makes a difference, we're willing to change that to 7:00 in the morning. (Laughter from the audience.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please, ladies and gentlemen. Page 151 December 17, 2009 Go ahead. MR. SAADEH: I mean, I thought you asked me of the existing building. The existing building is 6:00 to 3:00, 3:30. We -- just for the record, some people mentioned some nighttime operations. I don't believe we've ever opened past 5:00 for any reason whatsoever, you know so-- , COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern, we've focused on the visual aspect, but for example, overhead doors are loud, I know that well. So, I mean, I don't think anybody would want an overhead door cranking open at 6:00, 7:00 in the morning near them. But-- MR. SAADEH: Well, unfortunately when you live on a golf course, even the --let's forget this facility completely. If you live in a house on the golf course and a mower passes by, they have to prepare the grounds for the golfers to come in and play. It's not just unique to my development, it's every single development in Collier County and anywhere else in the area for that matter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Saadeh, we saw a picture that showed that the embankment of the slope, that it was cut in and it was concrete there and looked as though it were sectioned. How long is that? How big is that? MR. SAADEH: How long is the structure itself? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, yeah, give me an idea. MR. SAADEH: Probably depth-wise, maybe -- I'm just guessing, I don't know for sure, I'm guessing eight to 10 feet, maybe. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When did that occur then? When was that constructed? MR. SAADEH: That was done in the late Eighties. I don't recall the year, actually. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, but you were aware of its construction? Page 152 December 17, 2009 MR. SAADEH: Yes, I was. I'm not sure again if it was done when the berm was built or after the fact. I'm not really sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you think the berm might have been late in around it, that's possible? MR. SAADEH: That's very possible. I mean, again, I don't know the exact timing. You're taking me back 20 some years. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, wouldn't that be nice if we could do that. MR. SAADEH: That would be beautiful. If you take me back three years I'm happy. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've answered my question, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, would you mind putting that -- I have one question, it comes off the center part of that sheet I gave you during break. Mr. Saadeh, that orange dotted line is the rough outline of your berm. The -- you can see the original building you were proposing underneath it. The yellow building is the same scale as the one I believe you were proposing. If you take the yellow building and place that, a portion of it, in the berm with a retaining wall you then have access to a portion of that building from both sides, which I think would be an advantage to operating a golf course or any kind of maintenance facility, rather than having to back in or out from just one side. This meets your 50-foot setback and you wouldn't have a problem in which you'd need to be here today. Lacking any topo of the berm or soil test showing that something like this is prohibitive. And also, the time you started the Vineyards I was -- I owned a metal building company, and I can tell you, we built metal buildings with retaining walls routinely. So this isn't something that couldn't be done. Page 153 December 17,2009 Did you explore this with Coastal Engineering? MR. SAADEH: Actually, we have. Again, the comment I made earlier was unless we actually get some equipment and start digging into the berm, we wouldn't know how much of it will have to be taken out or -- I would say, Mark, you being in the business, you got this -- you understand the scope of it a little bit different. We dug a lot of lakes in the early, early days. We have upwards of roughly 300 acres of lakes on the property. When that berm was constructed, I don't know specifically by section, that would be totally crazy to guess what kind of boulders we put somewhere. But most of the time with big structures like this and the berm we have along 1-75 in its entirety, we put a lot of boulders in that and we tried to fill the voids and go through the process. I'm not sure, you know, a typical cross-section of that berm, what it would look like. We could -- that's the reason we shied away from it. Because if it was just pure dirt, it would have been no-brainer, I wouldn't be here today. If we have to move boulders -- in those days the spacing on blasting for lakes was a little bit different, so we had boulders yea size. If we have to do that, I don't know how much of the berm we can retain and how much we want. And that's an accurate statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to leave the building in the current position but have to cut back enough to meet the setback requirement, that orange triangle on the south side is approximately what you would lose. And I don't know if you had explored the remaining structure as to your ability to see if that meets your needs or not. MR. SAADEH: It will be short. And then the size is irregular enough to where I'm not sure we can go with a structure with a prefab metal building. We might end up having to go with a specialty designed concrete building that again will impact the cost on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much. Page 154 December 17, 2009 MR. SAADEH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we will close the public hearing and either discussion or a motion, whatever happens to come out. Mr. Kolflat, I think you wanted to -- did you want to make a motion, did you say, earlier? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'd like to make a motion that we recommend Board of County Commissioners to deny Petition V A-PL-2009-1460, Vineyards maintenance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, a motion made by Commissioner Kolflat, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Is there discussion from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- my opinion on this is that the applicant never showed any technical support that the site was unusable as it is right now. And secondly, if it was, that he's benefiting from self-created hardships. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Saadeh stressed so many years of operation and leasing of equipment and now he wants to change his business plan and that is the suggestion for his hardship. Whether the economy picks up again and savings are realized, he might very well return to a lease process that might very well benefit him. And then the folks will have had that building there in its shape. I can't justify a variance on the basis of a change in business plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I've been thinking while I was especially listening to the residents that, you know, the Vineyards is Page 155 December 17, 2009 not built out, that there's a certain amount of equipment. I failed to ask the petitioner if there was any equipment elsewhere that when he completed the development that equipment would need to be relocated to the maintenance facility. But it just seems to me that as a developer grows a community, more equipment is required. And, you know, you have to plan -- as you put in more roads, the boulevards, there's more trees, more grass to maintain and certainly more equipment. And I think Mr. Pink was very generous in saying 100 pieces of equipment rather than 10 or 20. I really don't know what it is. But let's assume it ends up -- maintaining all of Vineyards is going to require more equipment and thus more space. And it just -- I remember reading the newspapers, I don't know when it was, that the developer was going to keep -- agreed to the association, the association could not afford to take over the common facilities. And the developer agreed to continue to take the hidden losses on it. I am not in favor of the motion. I'll be voting against it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I think Mr. Saadeh is trying to build a building that is too large for the site. There are no special conditions which do not result from -- other than from his actions. There's no hardship, and he still has reasonable use of that land. We have no testimony that says that this is the minimum variance, and that to me is very important. I think it would be granting a special privilege to him and I don't believe it's in harmony with the intent or the purpose of the code. I think further I believe that the 50-foot separation that is in the PUD to begin with was probably in recognition of the intensity of use on the site as well as height -- potential height issues. There was a picture that the gentleman in the yellow shirt back there, and I don't remember his name, showed of the road that goes in Page 156 December 17, 2009 front so that you can head to the south golf course. Along that area is a three-foot area that is obviously curbed, which looks to me like it should be landscaped. It looks like that's the reason -- otherwise, why would you bother to even have that curb there, I'm not sure what the point would be. But at any rate, for all those reasons I will be voting with Mr. Kolflat on this denial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will not be voting with the motion. We've heard a lot of details and legalities. From a common sense point of view, if this building gets pushed back towards the north, there will be more of a chance for the people to see it. The noise is still going to be the same, everything's going to be the same. It could have went up three stories, it's only one story. I really can't see where there's a tradeoff here and I will not be voting with the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I -- this board has consistently tried to find compromise between problem areas between neighbors and developers or whoever. Usually the neighborhood informational meeting is a big source for that compromise. That didn't happen here because of the nature of this request, variances don't require those. I wish it had. And I also believe that if we had more information a solution could be found that would be workable. We don't have some of the information that I would like to have seen. I didn't realize that the information would be needed until I heard the testimony today. But it's unfortunate that -- I'm left in no position at this point than I'm going to have to support the motion as well, so -- anybody else? With that in mind, we'll call for the vote, and we'll have -- let's do this by acknowledgment and hand -- raise your hand. All those in favor of the motion to deny the variance request, signify by raising your hand and saying aye. Page 157 December 17, 2009 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four, five, six in favor. All those against? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three against. Motion carries. Recommendation of denial, 6-3. Okay, thank you. We will take a break until 2:15. When we come back we'll start Naples Bath and Tennis. (Recess.) Item # IOC PETITION: PUDA-PL2009-781, NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back from the break. And I bet the remaining people are all here for the Naples Bath and Tennis. We certainly appreciate your patience today. It's been a long meeting, and we will make sure everything -- mine's off. I always turn my cell phone off. Anyway, would those people wishing to testify on behalf of this item please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. You're better off just rising just in case you want to speak and just get sworn in. It doesn't hurt. Page 158 December 17, 2009 Okay, ladies and gentlemen, you've got to quiet down now. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Anybody? Let's start with Ms. Homiak on the end. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Burt Saunders, Craig Bouchard and Joel Singer. MEMBERS FROM THE AUDIENCE: We can't hear. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, I'm sorry. You want me to say it again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to repeat that for the record? Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Burt Saunders, Craig Bouchard and Joel Singer. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I spoke with the two also, and Mr. Busch, Bill Busch from the -- a resident. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I spoke with Mr. Bouchard and Senator and as well the other gentleman, Mr. Busch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I spoke to Mr. Bouchard and the Senator also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I spoke with the applicant, the architect and two attorneys, Burt Saunders being one and Bruce Anderson the other. And I think I got an e-mail from Mr. Singer. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I spoke with Mr. Saunders, I spoke very briefly to Mr. Bouchard, and I spoke to Mr. Busch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, none? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Shakes head negatively.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I talked to Linda Clyde from the U.S.T.A., and Joel Singer, and I had two phone conversations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No ex parte. Page 159 December 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, I also notice we had a package sent to us. So before we start, can someone explain what that is so we know what we're dealing with? MS. SAUNDERS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just real quickly on this package. It's a list of compilation of letters in support of the project that's before you today. At the front of it is a kind of compilation of the survey. And Mr. Bouchard will spend a few moments talking a little bit about how this survey was conducted and the results it of it. But there are 420 -- I'm sorry, 418 affirmative support letters in this package. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the court reporter has a copy for her record? MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. If you want to proceed. MS. SAUNDERS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. Before I start, I spent many years listening to a lot of these petitions when I was on the county commission, and I thought I had a fair amount of patience, but nothing compared to all of you, so I want to thank you for service to the citizens of Collier County and congratulate you on your willingness to provide that service and to listen to all of these petitions. For the record, my name is Burt Saunders. I'm with the Gray-Robinson Law Firm with offices located at 5551 Ridgewood. With me today serving as co-counsel is Mr. R. Bruce Anderson with the Roetzel and Andress Law Firm with offices at 850 Park Shore Drive. Also here this afternoon is the applicant, Tennis Realty LLC, represented by Mr. Craig Bouchard. And the applicant's agent, Mr. Michael Fernandez, with Planning Development, Inc. with offices at 5113 Castello Drive, here in Naples. Page 160 December 17,2009 Mr. Chairman and members, on the visualizer is a map of Tract B which will be explained to you a little bit more fully as we go through the process. Tract B is approximately 20 acres in size and is the area where the club facility is located, the tennis courts and swimming pool, and is the area where the proposed 48 transient lodging units will be housed. Mr. Michael Fernandez in a few moments will tell you a little bit about where those will go and how much distance there is between that project and adjoining or neighboring properties. Mr. Bouchard will address the Planning Commission in just a few minutes also to discuss why this project is so important, not only to the facilities in Tract B, the clubhouse facilities, but also very important to the entire residential community that surrounds that. He will also give you a little history of his involvement in the Naples Bath and Tennis Club. I think all of that's important because the merits of a project are very important to your consideration. We believe that in terms of the legal aspects, there's no question that I think we are moving in the right path in terms of the legal issues. But I think you also need to hear the merits of the project, and you'll hear plenty of that from Mr. Bouchard. Also, before we start, just so everybody understands, the folks here wearing their white T shirts are in support of this project. It doesn't say that they support Naples tennis club project, they say they love Naples Tennis Club and the Sanchez Academy, but they are here in support of this project. And you'll hear from many of them in a few moments. Craig and his investors have spent a great deal of money and a great deal of time renovating and reinvigorating the clubhouse and Naples Bath and Tennis Club. As an example of the recognition of creation efforts, we received -- and this is a very typical letter -- a letter from Mary Goldschmidt, Page 161 December 17,2009 who is a 17-year resident of a condo in Naples Bath and Tennis Club in which she simply states, and I just want to quote one sentence from her letter. Mr. Bouchard has been a model manager of the tennis club in recent years and hence deserves this vote of confident in his vision for a revitalized club. And quite frankly, that's what we're here about. We're here today to talk about how to revitalize this club for the club itself but also for the community. As Mr. Bouchard will point out, there have been literally hundreds of letters and expressions of support for this petition, and the exhibit we've handed out contains those. We have a large number of Naples Bath and Tennis Club members and residents here to show support for this project, but also to show their support for Mr. Craig Bouchard who is simply seeking to ensure the financial viability of the Naples Bath and Tennis Club. Before we hear from Craig, let me give you just a very brief explanation of how we arrived at the current application and what this application does. In 1996, Circuit Judge Ted Brousseau entered an order in Case No. 962513-CA, declaring invalid an approval by the Collier County Planning Commission a petition 96CU-5, which would have authorized the construction of 48 transient lodging units at Naples Bath and Tennis Club. And just so you understand, back in those days when that lawsuit was filed, Ann Dilbone was the principal plaintiff suing Naples Bath and Tennis Club to stop the project. She is one of the supporters here today. So she understands the importance of this project. Judge Brousseau recognized that the original PUD document permitted the construction of those units but found that approval of those units by the Planning Commission after 10 years was in effect a change of the original PUD ordinance by the Planning Commission. The judge opined that the Planning Commission does not have the Page 162 December 17, 2009 authority to override county ordinances. When the new owners, represented by Mr. Craig Bouchard, again applied for the approval of these 48 transient lodging units, the County Attorney issued a letter indicating that the petition should not be heard by the Planning Commission because of the existing order by Judge Brousseau. The County Attorney at that time was simply protecting his client, the County Commission, from any allegations that the County Commission was ignoring an existing court order. In that same letter, the County Attorney suggested to the applicant that the applicant may want to consider seeking a declaratory judgment to clarify what limitations were imposed by Judge Brousseau's order. Mr. Bouchard and the owners of the Naples Bath and Tennis Club were left with no alternative but to seek a declaratory judgment. This past summer Judge Pivacek granted Mr. Bouchard's motion for summary judgment and issued an order stating that -- I think it's important to just give you a short quote from that order -- the Collier County Commission may amend the planned unit development document for the Naples Bath and Tennis Club if it chooses to do so. And the County Commission may allow development of transient lodging units in the Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUD. This eliminated all legal impediment to this Commission and ultimately the Collier County Commission from considering this application before you today. That order is attached to the staff report that you've reviewed. That very thorough staff report also recommends that the Planning Commission forward Petition PUDA-PL-2009-781 on to the Collier County Commission with a recommendation of approval. This is really a very simple application that's in front you today. Let me tell you just two quick things that this does, the two major things: First, the proposed 48 transient lodging units are an approved Page 163 December 17, 2009 accessory use of the Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUD Tract B. Paragraph 4.3.B.3 of the original PUD document is amended to reflect that. And again, this is quoting from the ordinance that's in front you today for consideration: The transient lodging units shall be subject to and review and approval through the county's adopted site development plan procedures as provided in the LDC, Section 10.02.03, or as may be amended. Members, this is the same procedure that is used for approval of accessory uses for most if not all of Collier County's existing PUDs. And remember, this is a PUD that went back to 1981 amendments. So it was one of the first PUDs in the county, and certainly didn't meet the standards of the PUDs that you're looking at today. Second, the proposed amendment provides the criteria to be evaluated by staff as part of the site development review process. Now, these types of criteria are routinely contained in PUDs that are approved today. But again, this was a very old PUD document and was contained in there. The purpose of having those criteria in there is simply to ensure that if the County Commission approves this in its discretion, this PUD amendment and the 48 transient lodging units, if they're applied for and are to be constructed, that there are appropriate standards for your professional staff to review the site development plan that would be present with that. Mr. Chairman and members, I'd like to ask Mr. Fernandez ifhe'd come to the podium to discuss briefly where these units will be in reference to the existing clubhouse and where they'll be located on Tract B. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Michael Fernandez, for the record, with the firm of Planning Development. Just maybe to give you an overall of the area, this is the zoning map, which is part of the staff report. As you can see here, Tract B is Page 164 December 17, 2009 actually totally interior to the Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUD, which is located near the intersection, just south of the intersection of Pine Ridge and Airport Road. As being into the center of the project, it does have access to the perimeter at Airport Road through a common roadway easement that serves the rest of the property. People entering into this Tract B do not have to go by any additional units, pass by any additional units to get into the Tract B development. I put the aerial back on because I think it's worthwhile looking at in terms of what we are proposing. The development standards have -- are enumerated in the proposed ordinance. And in that proposed ordinance, one of the things that is somewhat missed is the isolation of where these potential units can go. In the PUD master plan, or what the equivalent of the PUD master plan is, this is the existing master plan, you'll notice I've highlighted two areas. And those two areas say that this is where the transient lodging units may be located. They're very specific, graphically specific, relative to the club facility and the tennis courts. And if you look at that diagram and then let's look back now at the aerial, you'll see that they're pretty right on. I mean, it's a true representation of what actually got built there. So the two areas then that are available for creating these transient lodging units is here, south of the existing clubhouse around the pool area, and then north of the existing building. And those are the only two areas. So there's -- we're not going to place them over here by the tennis courts, we're not going to place them over here at the northwest quadrant. They'll be in one of those two locations or both. Additionally, those development standards that we have now introduced into the PUD give additional criteria for staff to review. And as you look at that, you'll notice that probably the most significant one will be that the area that is going to be -- that's Page 165 December 17,2009 allocated for development of these transient lodging units is limited to five percent. That's a very small percentage of the overall tract. It's a 20 -- just over a 20-acre tract. So that's the equivalent of one acre. So the development of those units and its associated parking will be located within one acre of development, no more than that. And per the master plan will be located either to the south or to the north of the existing clubhouse. We've created a graphic to further depict a potential location or potential layout of these. And as you can see, again, this graphic representation is identical to the aerial. We've located the two structures to the south, and those two structures would be large enough to accommodate the 48 units which are proposed, and the associated parking would be placed there along an existing driveway. That area that those improvements occupy are less than one acre, which is the maximum that would be allowed per the development standards that have been proposed. The additional development standards that we're talking about are the setbacks, 20 feet from the tract boundaries, 50 feet from residential tract boundaries, a maximum height of two stories or 30 feet. The existing building is two stories and 30 feet. So there's not going to be anything larger than the existing building there. The maximum number of units. We're establishing a maximum number. Within that acre we've done a study that shows that we could accommodate over 100 units within that one acre of area. So this number that we have is a number that's significantly less than what we could have put in that one acre. The parking requirement, which currently the LDC places at 11 parking spaces per 10 rooms. And then landscaping will be met per the LDC requirements. And the architectural design standards would be applicable, the LDC's architectural design standards would be applicable to these improvements that will be placed on the site. If you have any questions about the specifics of these proposed Page 166 December 17, 2009 development standards, I'd be happy to answer them now or at the end of our presentation, after Craig Bouchard has spoken about the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions about -- Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I do. Could you put that diagram where you're showing you're going to put the units? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just wonder if you could leave that up for a minute. MR. FERNANDEZ: Sure. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a question? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I'm sorry, I'm done. I just wanted to see it again. He took it too quickly. COMMISSIONER CARON: Turn it to the north so that it faces north. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions of Mr. Fernandez while he's up there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman, how detailed should we get at this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, down to the minutia, if we can find it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, here's one of the concerns then. Obviously when the original PUD was written, they wanted to bring this back to the Planning Commission to review the design once it was done. And is that what we're doing now, or is this just you telling us about -- because I know you want to get rid of that, and we'll probably have further discussion with that. But this can no way be Page 167 December 17,2009 interpreted as reviewing that design; is that right? MS. SAUNDERS: Originally back in 1996 that was the plan. A petition was brought to the Planning Commission, it was approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the original 1981 PUD document, which called for that rather unusual procedure. Judge Brousseau's entered an order saying that for a variety of reasons we could not use that procedure any longer. We met with the County Attorney's Office and determined -- and with staff and determined that these types of applications today are reviewed to the site development plan process by your professional staff. So we are simply amending the existing PUD document to bring it in line with the existing procedures for these types of accessory use. So we're not in front of you today with specific detail in terms of exactly where the units are going to be in terms of those sorts of things. Those types of details will be reviewed by your professional staff. This will be consistent with the way these types of projects are reviewed going forward. But with the judge's order out there, we were left with really no other alternative but to come back and amend the PUD document. And I'll tell you, and I think the County Attorney will agree, that the County Commission, in the exercise of its police powers, has the ability to amend existing PUD documents. You do it all the time. And so that's what we're doing. We have a simple amendment to the existing PUD document to bring it to the standards that you use today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think one of the concerns, that you want to eliminate the ability to have that public hearing. And I think based on what the neighbors -- the existing neighbors are concerned about, I think rather than a staff procedure, which is administrative, they might want still a public hearing where they can see things while they're in flux and while they can make adjustments Page 168 December 17,2009 to things. And my question is, is that what we're doing today, are we having that hearing where we're going to -- MS. SAUNDERS: Well, that's a very good point. This petitioner, Mr. Bouchard, at no point has tried to avoid any kind of a public hearing process or avoid a hearing process in front of this Planning Commission. As a matter of fact, he was poised about a year or so ago to have that hearing in front of this Planning Commission when the letter from the County Attorney's Office was issued saying that the Planning Commission could not hear this because of that existing order. So we're building into the amendment, the proposed amendment before you today the standards that would guide your professional staff in evaluating a site development plan for this project. We are having a public hearing today, and we will have a second public hearing in front of the Collier County Commission when this goes forward. But it will not be a public hearing on the minutia of a site development plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Hence my original question. So if we're not going to go into that kind of minutia, let's not go into it. But Michael, one question that I will ask that we can -- the building, the existing building is built up high, kind of like a tall berm on a mound? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when you're designing these things, what do you envision these to be? For example, you could put the parking underneath them, couldn't you, and then match the heights of the existing building? MR. FERNANDEZ: We're probably going to be matching the height of the existing building. And they'll be at two stories. They'll Page 169 December 17,2009 be units on two stories and overlooking the existing or redeveloped pool on the south side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because right now the pool would be in the -- where those two join together, just so you're kind of burying it in the building right now. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, this is just a quick graphical representation. We've done other -- other schemes have been done by other firms that have shown maintaining or redeveloping that existing pool. Because of the age of this facility, it was actually built in the Seventies, there's all kinds of fire code issues that are going to have to be dealt with. And that's one of the reasons -- one of the other development standards, the one development standard I didn't mention, is that we have a proximity development standard that says these buildings that get developed that house the transient lodging units have to be within 30 feet of the existing building. That gives us enough time -- or enough space so that we can address some of the fire code issues and a comfort level that it can work well with the existing building, acting, if you will, as the lobby of the hotel in part. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, let me -- there's no detail to go further, so thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, where you were heading was where I thought you were going to go and that is detail. And I explained to the applicant that we used to see -- we're used to seeing site plans in regards -- like a master plan so we know where things are. In fact, the Olde Florida Golf Club was an example. They had to come back with something to give us more of their parameters. You guys have been working on this trying to get it through the system since 1996, and it would be very difficult for me to believe you don't know where you're going to put these units by now. It's only been what, 14 years? So I'd like to know what your site plan is. That's kind of where I'm going. I mentioned that to you as well. So it would Page 170 December 17, 2009 be helpful today to know this is the site plan or this isn't the site plan or where your site plan's going. MS. SAUNDERS: Well, the diagram that you're looking at now does show where these units are going to go. The other possible location would be on the other side of the clubhouse. But other than those two locations, there's no place else that these units would be considered to be placed. And I think the petitioner is certainly willing to make that stipulation, that that's the location, either side of the clubhouse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would be helpful, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, between just you and I talking, the -- which is the only place we can -- the concern I have is that it's referencing the coming before the Planning Commission. One of things that they're asking is to opt out of that, change it to where it just goes to staff, which takes it away from a public hearing process. Do you think the intent is that as this thing does get further detailed that the public does have input in the Planning Commission process to actually discuss the design? Because if it just goes in the staff -- so one thing I don't want to have happen today is them be able to say well, we had that meeting in front of the Planning Commission, they agreed where everything wanted to go. Because this isn't the kind of detail we would want at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I suggested to the applicant that they need to produce as much today as we would normally expect to have to approve a PUD in which we have concerns. And you know some PUDs have come through with complete renderings of buildings, exact locations, very detailed plans. I really -- it's a judgment call on behalf of the applicant whether they want to submit something to that intensity or not and whether or not they get approved as a result of that action. And so I'm expecting today to see as much as they want to reveal Page 171 December 17,2009 to us. And if it's enough to be convincing that that's a site plan that's acceptable, I didn't see them coming back to review an SDP in front of the Planning Commission. That was -- and by the way, in 1972, and I have the code from '72, it's this book right here, that was the standard of the day. SDP's for the most part, especially commercial projects, did come back to the Planning Commission. So that wasn't unusual back then to say that this should come to the Planning Commission. So I can understand why this PUD might have said that. But not everything did, but there were quite a few items that did. I don't have a problem with the SDP part of it if the presentation today is comprehensive enough. And that's what I had told you when I met with you, so -- MS. SAUNDERS: We will put back on the visualizer the standards that are contained in the ordinance and then perhaps that will give the Planning Commission the comfort that you need. And we'll discuss those as we go through the hearing process. We'll give you an opportunity to take a look at those standards that are contained in the draft ordinance that's before you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any question ofMr. Fernandez while he's up there before we go on to the rest of the presentation? (No response.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Let me just follow that up. One of the reasons I think back in the '68, '72 ordinance that they had petitioners bring back site plans is because they had an inadequate amount of development standards for staff to make a good thorough review with measurable standards. And what we have done with this submittal is we have brought back, consistent with staffs direction was, if you'll recall, even in our last submittal to where we didn't get to be heard before the Commissioners, the staff proposal at that time was not for us to come back before you with a site plan but for it to be reviewed administratively as an SDP. Page 172 December 17, 2009 What we've done now, we believe, is created those development standards, a proximity to the existing building, of building height, building size that gives you a level of comfort and gives staff the tools to review this with measurable standards. I can't overemphasize the fact that what we're looking at here is improvements, accessory improvements to an existing development which has nominal impact on the community relative to visual aspects. If you were to go to the club facility now and you were to look to the south, you would not see any structures. And there's actually 50 feet of vegetated area that is in conservation that is managed by the master association that lies between this tract, Tract B, and the nearest residential tract south of the existing clubhouse facility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But aren't you now showing us that you want to pull the road down to the southern part of that tract and build this hotel in that preserve area? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. The 50 feet that I'm speaking about is totally outside of the boundaries. In other words, the tract -- and maybe you can see it a little bit more clearly -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me ask you this, Mike: How much detail do you guys have for what you want to do with these buildings, those two little X that are blocking in the pool -- MR. FERNANDEZ: There was actually a substantial amount of work that was done without understanding the issues relative to having existing assembly of building and adding these units to it. There probably are some challenges that we have to deal with between the two structures. They may not be able to fuse. Craig was going to show you -- there's a rendering, in fact, that shows one layout that has those units at the south end of the clubhouse. And it's on that site rendering with a redefined pool area. And it fully integrates into the existing building, which is something I don't think we're going to be able to accomplish now that there's a better understanding of the codes and the fire codes between the new Page 173 December 17, 2009 structures and the old structures. So it will -- physically we're looking at the same proximity of location, but not to that design. But we feel that what we're talking about here is really a small amendment to a site plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the answer is no, the detail you just showed us is the most. Do you have a layout of the other location, what that would look like? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we don't as far as it -- again, there's a proximity. So what we're looking at is that distance, the distance between the -- any new structure would have to be within 30 feet of the existing buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're making that up. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's a development standard that we have agreed to. We know functionally that that's something that we want to happen, because the lobby is the existing clubhouse facility. These are just accessory units, bed and breakfast units, if you will, to the main facility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that location wouldn't work over there. Which to me would pull it away from the neighbors to the south and put it -- MR. FERNANDEZ: It doesn't work as good and doesn't have the amenity of the pool area. And it wouldn't be as seamless as this is. And there's also some, you know, tennis facilities over there that we don't want to impact. This is actually the preferred area. I think somebody mentioned it's kind of like on a hill -- was it you -- that it's somewhat on a hill. These units would kind of cut into the hill on one side, which we think will be a successful marriage between the building and the structure, the new structure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, that's all the detail as far as I can question. Page 174 December 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Could you put up the two plans side by side. What's there today was one of the first things you put up, and the new one with the "x"'s. MR. FERNANDEZ: Does that help? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, thank you. So you're saying -- you just said to Mr. Schiffer that you would not be going into that preserve area? This totally does not show that. MR. FERNANDEZ: No, the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: On the left. MR. FERNANDEZ: The area within that yellow line is not preserve. The additional distance is outside -- is beyond that preserve boundary, or the yellow line. There is some vegetated area on our site COMMISSIONER CARON: What is the vegetated area within the yellow line to the south of the pool? MR. FERNANDEZ: This area right here? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's part of the Tract B. It's not in preserve. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it part ofa buffering requirement? What-- MR. FERNANDEZ: No, it's not. There's actually -- there's 50 feet beyond -- between -- you can almost see like a tract layout here. There's a tract line for these single-family homes. And there's 50 feet. So there's a setback from the tract line to the actual homes. But there's approximately 50 feet between there and the yellow line in addition to that. COMMISSIONER CARON: And how much from the yellow line to the road? MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm just going to guess right now, you're probably looking at an additional 100 feet or so. Page 175 December 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what this is telling us is that you're going to put a new road in and it's going to be closer to the residential units to the south than the current road. Is that a true statement or not? MR. FERNANDEZ: At this time we don't know if we're going to have to move that road or not. What we've shown with those two "X" boxes is the accommodation of 48 units at a specific size, extending all the way out there instead of putting it and breaking it down into two different locations. So I really can't speak to whether or not it will be necessary. We haven't gone that far into the project to know what the separation requirements are going to be between new structure and old structure. But you do have a 50-foot setback between tracts and an additional 20 feet inside of the yellow line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, look what you've done to the pool with this layout. You've essentially put it in that courtyard. So you're killing the pool here, so you have to rebuild the pool. So was that the reason why you didn't put it in the other place? That doesn't make -- MR. FERNANDEZ: We don't know. Again, these were just a graphic measure of saying that's how big if we were putting all 48 units in that particular area it would take. There have been layouts that have been done that fully incorporate the existing pool. There's others that do not. So we haven't settled on a design yet. But what we have settled on is a general location that will be within 30 feet, consistent with the master plan. It will either be south of the existing building, north, or a combination of the two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the detail, this is like playing Whac-A-Mole, you hit one, it pops up someplace else. Page 176 December 17,2009 So let's move on from this level of design discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm still -- and I'm going to go back to what I told you all when I met with you. You have had 14 years to work on a plan, and you can't tell us if you're going to move the road or not and where you're going to put these buildings today, 14 years later after spending all the money that they would have spent with your firm, with the attorneys, with the lawsuits, with the courts, with the judges? I just find that hard to believe. And it would have been helpful to know more definitively what you plan to do. You've got to know that or you wouldn't have spent the kind of money that got you here today. MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, we'll have a bit more conversation with that when Mr. Bouchard gets up. He's not been involved in this project for 14 years. He became involved with the club just a few years ago. And so the problem is that when we came before the Planning Commission the first time, that hearing was stopped because of the letter from the County Attorney's Office. That's why we're here with this type of conceptual plan, which is not unusual in a PUD document, to have conceptual plans and not have all the detail. And that's the reason why your staff today reviews site development plans and you don't have those being reviewed by the Planning Commission, because you start to get into a lot of the weeds there, and it's not necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with your statement, Burt. Just the problem I have is when you walk into a contested issue, whether it's for or against, it helps to mollify concerns just to see more. That's where I'm coming from. MS. SAUNDERS: I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that this commission has been very good at, and you've said this a couple times during your hearings today, that you like to try to find solutions and resolve neighborhood issues. And you like to find compromise. Page 177 December 17,2009 And I will tell you that Mr. Bouchard has compromised greatly. Even though he's not been able to meet with some of the opponents, he has really compromised with himself in the sense that he's reduced the number of units to 48, which is the bare minimum that will be necessary to make this club viable. He has agreed to reduce the coverage, the area coverage to one acre; that includes parking. So five percent of the tract, to make it clear that this is really a small, accessory use. So there's been a lot of, if you will, compromise on his side of the table. We do have the standards that will guide your professional staff. And that really is the concept that I think the Planning Commission needs to look at to make sure that there are going to be sufficient standards to protect the community. And that's what we have in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll continue on and see how much we can learn. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just want to make a comment on this we've reduced the number of units. You've reduced the number of units from some conceptual plan that you all had a number of years ago. However, the density that you had left in this PUD is eaten up by the 48. So you couldn't go beyond the 48 anyway. MS. SAUNDERS: Well, that's not completely correct. The density is determined based on the number of permanent dwelling units in the Naples Bath and Tennis Club residential community. These accessory transient lodging units are temporary lodging facilities and they're not counted as part of that overall density for the permanent dwelling units. And so there really isn't a number anywhere in the PUD document in terms of the number of units. It really becomes a matter of -- quite frankly, it becomes a matter of how many units can be accommodated. And as Michael Fernandez had indicated, that number would be significantly drastically higher than Page 178 December 17,2009 48. Weare committing to no more than 48 units for a couple of reasons. Number one, that is the minimal number of units that's necessary to make this club viable. And Mr. Bouchard will elaborate on that. And then number two, with 48 units contained within one acre, it's clear that this is an accessory use and will not be impactful on the neighborhood. And I think you're going to hear from literally dozens of residents in the Naples Bath and Tennis Club that are going to say to you we know where this project's going to go, we've lived with this for many, many years, and we want this Planning Commission and the County Commission to approve this because we understand two things: One, that it will not negatively impact our neighborhood; and number two, this is what is necessary to keep this Naples Bath and Tennis Club, the recreational facilities viable and thriving in the community. That's very important for this community. The book that we handed out, the 420 letters from members and owners in Naples Bath and Tennis Club, are a testament to how important this is to the community. And so the developer, Mr. Bouchard, is building in standards to make sure the neighborhood is protected. You have that in this conceptual plan. And your staff will make sure that all of the technical codes are complied with, if this is approved by the County Commission and they're able to issue a -- or apply for a site development plan. Mr. Chairman, I think with that, I'd like to introduce Mr. Bouchard. He'll tell you a little bit about how important this is in the community and how we arrived at 48 units and what his plans are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. BOUCHARD: Hi. I'm Craig Bouchard. I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. Page 179 December 17,2009 I'll start off telling you who I am and a little bit about the club, and then I'll come to address from my perspective all of those questions that I heard which I didn't quite get quite all the answers, but I'm going to tell you what I think, as I always do. And to start, I just heard the word developer. I'm not a real estate developer. I don't know much about real estate. I'm basically a businessman, and my roots are in the steel industry. I purchased the club on -- I'll come to that in a moment -- not to do something from a profit perspective. I purchased the club basically to in essence save an institution to the City of Naples and to Collier County . You know, this club was born roughly around 1975 and developed through 1980. At that time there was a two-lane road through the Everglades going towards its current location. My father-in-law bought one of the first condominiums in the community. He brought his 11 kids down to that three-bedroom condo every year and spent the winters there. So imagine that, if you want to get into zoning issues. He later on bought a house where he lives today. So please don't look at me like a real estate developer. I'm a small businessman, basically. And as crazy as it sounds, my goal forever for this facility is simply to break even from a financial perspective. When this facility was built, it was recognized nationally as the best tennis club in the United States. MEMBERS FROM THE AUDIENCE: Could you speak a little louder. MR. BOUCHARD: I'm sorry, I'll try to do that. When the facility was built, it was recognized nationally. I think in Tennis Magazine even, which is the spokes-piece of our industry, as the best tennis club in the United States. There was nothing there but the tennis club. And then the Page 180 December 17,2009 condominiums and the houses were built around it. As you know, there's roughly 400 condos and 100 homes in there. But the community itself -- and this is important; sometimes the simplest things are the most important things. The community itselfs name is the Naples Bath and Tennis Club. You know, everybody that saw this thing in 1975 through '80 said, my God, it's the jewel of the southeast, and they all moved in there. And many of those people are still there, every morning walking over to the tennis club. I got involved because one day my wife came to me and said, Craig, the club I grew up at is in trouble. And I said, okay, honey. This was back when I could never say no to my wife. It's changed a little bit in recent years, not that much. But I said okay, honey, what do you have in mind? She said, I want you to call the owner and buy it from him, because I think the place is going to go dark. I said, you're kidding, it's the fifth largest club in the United States, even then and now. I think it's the largest clay court tennis club in the United States. With 38 courts, by the way, no one mentioned that. Clay is an important word here, because it makes it the most expensive to maintain of the surfaces, probably even more so than grass, and certainly hard courts. And so I did what a good husband did at the time, I picked up the phone and called J.M. Shapiro and asked in could come and visit with him. He was the prior -- the owner prior to me. J .M. himself explained to me that after the first generation of owners, many had come and gone and all of them had lost a lot of money. In his company in their years of ownership had lost roughly a million dollars a year at the facility. And they were through. And so I said, okay, well, we have to keep the club going. I'm going to put my family, my brother and myself, we basically are a small steel company that we are the principals of, but we have other investors who are family members and friends, and I went out and Page 181 December 17,2009 asked all of them to contribute cash, and we bought the club from J.M. We raised $9 million of cash to buy the facility. And we bought it, and six months later Hurricane Wilma wiped it out. And Hurricane -- in the case of Hurricane Wilma, the actual place in all of the Naples area that had the most damage was our club. All 37 of the 38 tennis courts were destroyed; 75 trees flew through the air to new locations, two 500-pound water and ice machines flew through the air more than 20 feet each, and the rain went sideways through the whole building. Our insurance claim was roughly $3 million. And Zurich, the very large insurance company which provided our insurance, sent their first person to look at the damage two years after Hurricane Wilma occurred. Most of our employees had to quit because we were out of business and they couldn't do anything for many months. And we just literally almost cried. And some did. So we spent the money and we rebuilt the club. And again, you have to picture, our club is in the middle of this community. It's 20 acres, which is the heart of the Naples Bath and Tennis community. Our community and our club are not two institutions, they're one institution. I don't care what anybody says. The community cannot survive without the club. The real estate values would plummet further than the 40 percent they've plummeted in the last year. Our club cannot succeed without the community. More than half of our members are residents. More than half the residents are up at the club. It's sort of right in that area somewhere. Literally the community exists because of the tennis club and survives and I believe will prosper as we go forward, as long as the tennis club is an excellent facility. In those years when it wasn't an excellent facility the condominium prices fell very dramatically, and the residents there, many of them who are not members, moved in in those years, because it was the cheapest place to move in Naples. Page 182 December 17,2009 We came in and developed and have, today if you went in and looked at it, one of the most beautiful private clubs in the United States. It's about commitment. And we were willing to spend that money. So now here's some brief history. I want to get to some of these questions but explain it in the context of the history. When I talked to J.M. Shapiro, I read about the old lawsuit. By the way, we've owned less than five years, so I think there were plans, Mark, to -- that were very distinct and very developed to build a lot of condominiums, wiping out rows of tennis courts there. And that's what created the lawsuit 10 years ago, or whatever was that. There's been tons of plans done. But in any event, before I bought, you know, we're not dummies, I said gee, I don't want anything to do with any of that. I've never sued anybody, I haven't been sued, I don't want anything to do with this. And so I went to the club before we bought, I called large groups of members and residents together, and I said look, I'm considering this. I'm happy to bring in my family and friends as investors and do this. My wife's family will be very happy and I'll be very happy. My -- you know, my children play tennis. But I don't want to be involved with this. And here's the problem. Every owner of this facility has lost a million dollars a year for nearly two decades. If you go back and talk to them, they all have the same problem. For a club of this size to have roughly 400 members, which is what we've had then, now, et cetera, there isn't enough money in tennis membership to support that level of a facility . We're not a golf club. There's no 50 or $100,000 initiation fees here. You know, you pluck down 500 bucks or 1,000 bucks, and you come in, you pay a couple hundred bucks, that's it. And most people say that we're charging too much. You know, we charge about what it cost to be at The Y at this point. Okay, so I said guys, here's the plan. And I said this to people who were on the party that sued the prior owners. I said, I'll do this, Page 183 December 17, 2009 but this is what it takes. You have to take the membership, which basically is, you know, 400 mostly senior people who have just been playing tennis forever and are beautiful people. You've got to make the club younger by building an academy and stick it right next to the members. The members play at 8:00, the academy kids go out there at 11 :00, and you keep these courts going. And because the club has always conducted tennis tournaments throughout the year -- and the U.S.T.A. is here today I think to talk about it, we get 3,000 visitors to this facility a year from all over the United States to this beautiful facility. Their kids come and play tennis in these tournaments. And I said, we have to have a place to house guestrooms; think of it as a bed and breakfast right next to our building that can house people to come for these tournaments and into the academy. And I said, look, it's pretty simple. If you can add an academy with a world class party, you can wipe out half a loss, about a half a million dollars. If you can build 30 to 50 guest units -- and the numbers are all, you know, kind of depends, you can't be very specific on this, but something in that general area -- you can wipe out the other half of the loss. And if you allow me to do this, I can get the club to break even and it will survive. I went around, I had the meetings, we all shook hands and everybody said Craig, forget that old stuff, we support you. This is exactly what we need in our community. And so I raised the $9 million and I bought the club. Okay, now, we've lost $5 million, all right? Because we haven't had the academy until recently, and we haven't had guestrooms, and we had Hurricane Wilma, of course, and all kinds of difficult things. But the plan is still the same plan. And what I did was I flew to Barcelona, now almost three years ago, a little bit before this was deferred in the last meeting. And I flew over to Barcelona, Spain, and I saw the individual named Emilio Sanchez who runs the finest tennis Page 184 December 17,2009 academy in the world; biggest and best and most successful academy in Europe. And I said Emilio -- we had never met, I just called him on his cell phone, I got it from a friend. I said, Emilio, I want to come and see you. He said, okay, come on over. I flew over to Barcelona. I said, we have the finest tennis club in North America. We have a beautiful membership. These people are so spirited, so supportive. They're -- you know, it's spectacular. I said, you on the other hand are full here in Barcelona. He had a club about our size. Why don't you put your academy in North America, we could become your exclusive academy in North America. Now you're on two continents. And he's saying, what's your name again? But I kept after him. And six months later Emilio Sanchez and I struck a deal, and he came over and began his academy at the club. It is one of the finest, finest academies of tennis in North America at this point. We're off to a great start after two years. We had what I would define as 200 plus kid weeks this past summer. That's one kid for one week, come in, train in tennis, eat their meals there, you know, stay anywhere in Naples that you want to stay. Some stay in the condos. And then we teach them English or Spanish at the end of the day after their fitness. The parents love it. The parents come, they stay in hotels, they bring all that into Naples. And those kids have come from five continents. And what a fantastic demonstration of Naples, Florida, for the world. So this summer we almost broke even. And next summer I think we will. We have a full-time program where kids also come from around the world and they stay for nine months to learn tennis. And Emilio's reputation is fantastic. He's had roughly in the last two years between a couple -- our first ones in Naples who reached college age and 14 in Barcelona, 16 consecutive kids get full scholarships to college because they studied their tennis at Sanchez-Casell. Sixteen outofl6. Page 185 December 17, 2009 So now to the survey process. The first time around I said okay, now we're going to get started with this. This is going to cost a lot of money to do this. You don't build these rooms -- I don't see, is that other one here, that other one we were going to bring, or not? I'm going to show it. I'm going to show you what my vision of the rooms was when we got started with this. I did -- I went out into the community and I said, look, everybody, before I get started and spend all this money to do this, I have to know the community's behind me. We're now talking more than three years ago. And what I said and what I meant was I'm going to let everybody in the community, members, residents, people that never even walked onto the tennis club, anybody that's here, vote. You know, vote in the sense of we're going to give you a well, professional designed question. Here's what I've got in mind. Are you in favor or would you rather me not do it? And I said I must have 80 percent or I will not go forward. Okay. And I spent a lot of money just to do that survey. Just doing that's not that easy. And I got roughly 410 yeses and 13 nos. So holy cow. 80? I should have said 90. Because I got more than 90 percent. Then the opponents group popped up and started sending around postcards. There were a number that they got back of the same people who had said I support this. So that was a little bit odd to me. They claimed -- I don't remember the number, let's say 100 supporters. Remember, there's 400 units, maybe two in a place, and there's 100 homes. So possible. And then 30 of the people that he claimed had supported him wrote letters to the County Commissioners saying no way are we on your list, take our name out of that. So there's a history of this process of community support. We have had massive community support for this project from the start. Okay, then two years ago we got delayed here. Said hey, we can't go forward unless there's a declaratory judgment. That old lawsuit doesn't apply to you. I said, all right, we're going to go for that. We Page 186 December 17,2009 went through that process. And of course we obtained the declaratory judgment. So I started again and I designed a brand new survey, and I went out to the entire community and allowed everybody to say what they thought. And I got 418 signatures that said yes. Okay. It's a massive show of support. People understand that if this tennis club goes away, this neighborhood will implode in value. It's so important what we're talking about here. Weare not Grey Oaks, a community I know well, because I've lived there. We are the Naples Bath and Tennis Club. When I bought the club, I moved in there for three years, so I know everybody. I know everybody we're talking about here. I moved in there with my wife and kids so that I would know exactly what this community was like. And we're not living in -- this is not a community like Grey Oaks. The value of the condos and the homes in this community are extremely important. This community is older, they're on fixed incomes or pensions or 401 K's. Generally not working people, the older crowd. They've retired. They're there to play tennis, that's why they're there. I can guarantee you this: If our club closes, it will never ever be a tennis club again. If with all the investment and effort we've put in this fails, I don't know what it could be in the future, but it won't be a tennis club. Absolutely guaranteed. Now, by the way, I forgot one thing. Now I'm going to go to the present. I am the CEO of the club. I have great respect for what all of you do, at least from one perspective. One, I've seen your patience today, which is incredible. But I am an unpaid CEO. You know, I have a full-time job, that's my steel company. I put in a tremendous amount of time and effort. I've never taken a penny of compensation for that. I do it because it's what we need. Carl Sheffield, who is my partner, and you may hear from him today, is the president of the club. He's also a Naples resident and a senior and a tennis player. And Carl has never taken a penny of compensation. Page 187 December 17, 2009 This is not about profit for us, this is about doing the right thing. It's also about my family in my case. But at this point I've grown into this role of my God, in go away, this community's going down. It just is. And I cannot let that happen. Now, to the current situation. We started again, we did this survey. And then there was one question which I could not answer. The members and residents, in spite of that 400 votes twice, gave me a question three years ago. Craig, we trust you, we know that this will work, we like everything we've heard. But look, we've been through owners before. We've got lots of owners here. We've had a number of owners over the years. Some of them have been there from the first day. How can you assure us that this won't turn into some Holiday Inn with our tennis courts ripped out of here when you're gone? Hey, you're kind of young but, you know, your plane could go down, or what if you sell. And that was the only question I could never answer for these people. When we got the declaratory judgment, I reached out, said hey, let's have a meeting, sent e-mails. I was rebuffed in that effort. That's okay. No problem. It's not personal. I had no one to compromise with, so I compromised myself. I said look, I'm going to answer that question. And, you know, lawyers and real estate people are saying, uh, don't commit more than you can commit. I go, I know what we want to do here. You know, write this down. We're going to cap the number of units. They've got to be within 30 feet of the building where that starts. And, I said, we're not going to take out any tennis courts. That's what these people are here for, okay. And tell them let's commit today for us and any future owner that it's not going to be more than five percent of our property. Now everybody knows that this is no longer going to be a Holiday Inn sitting in the middle of38 tennis courts some day. And I committed that to my members and the residents, and I'm committing it on paper and I'm willing to do any -- of course all these Page 188 December 17, 2009 things are before you, so you know I'm committed to it. But with that, with those compromises, all I can do is build on one side or the other of the building. Now, I'd like you to look over here. And this is an artist's rendering. It cost a lot of money to do this stuff back when they were done. But, you know, they're telling me you can't do this with fire zone. You know, I'm not a zoning guy, I don't know anything about code, I don't anything about any of that stuff. I just want to build something beautiful. And I will build something beautiful if I'm allowed to. And this was the image that I had at the beginning. And so that's why I want to show it to you. That is our pool. There is nothing being built -- I'm not moving that road. It's not going to be built on the other side of the road. I never talked anything about moving the road. Are you kidding me? Move a road? I'm not moving any roads. We're going to build these units around our pool. And what I'd like to do and would only have the money to do if now I go out and beg my family and friends to put more money in, is to build about 32 units right here at the pool. That's what I told my members I was going to do. Now, down the road, if we're successful I don't think that will get us all the way to break even, but I think it will get us close. Because 48 units were approved the first time around by the Planning Commission. Ifwe are successful down the road, and now I'm guessing we're -- because this is a few years ago, as we sit here today, even if everything goes well today, down the road if} can add a few more units at the other end of the building, we've got the ability to ensure the financial viability of this property. Okay, remember, there's a restaurant and bar inside. That's what it is, it's a club. We've got a beautiful swimming pool. This of course is a redone pool. I don't think it's going to look like that, to be honest, and I'll tell you why: We've got about 50 people in our club who Page 189 December 17,2009 swim every day. Our pool is ajunior olympic size swimming pool, one of the few in Naples. It's very expensive to maintain. And we've got an older audience, and I keep it at 85 degrees throughout the year. January, February, March it stays at 85 degrees. And there's 50 people there whose life and their fitness depend upon the swimming pool. Those people don't play tennis. You know, they don't do any -- they swim. And that's what they do. And they've been doing it for decades. And those people came to me and said, Craig, you're taking away three lanes in our pool. You can't do that. I said, hey, we've got to make this work. And they said, yeah, but we've been swimming for decades. So I went back to the architects, they were working at the time, and I said guys, we're going to leave the pool the way it is. Now figure out how to do it. And that's when we got stopped in this process. And by the way, had already spent well over a half million dollars to get to this point at that time. Forget all this stuff that's happened since. So as close as we can get to that is where I'd like to get. But I can't get there unless you tell me I can go forward. This club cannot afford a nickel more of expense unless I know I can get there, right? But that's a pretty darn good design right there. You know, something close to that. It's two floors, it's not very high, you know, two -- it's this and one more on top of it. It's right at the pool. And by the way, our pool is -- that's a great place to socialize. So this kind of environment is what I'm after. I'm not after moving roads around. And if this works, in can put another 10 or 20 units or something on the other side of the building overlooking tennis courts, that's another beautiful thing. But man, I hope I'm alive by then. But I don't want to give it up, because that's what it takes to ensure this facility will survive. Okay, so I can't talk zoning and I can't talk all this other stuff, I can just tell you what I'd like to do. My three Page 190 December 17, 2009 daughters, ages eight, six and four, they play in that tennis academy up there, you know, and I want them to grow up there like my wife did, running around on a hill in front of the place and eating their dinner there and with kids and not getting this trouble. That's what I'm looking for for my family. I'd like to be the owner of that place certainly as long as I'm around. But I can tell you this: We can't write checks for a million dollars a year like we've been doing. It just -- you know, this is a different era. Even if I could do that, other people that are investors and family, they're just like everybody, their 401 K's and their income all went down the last couple of years. They don't have as much money as they used to have. I can't say hey, send me another check this year, we're keeping the club going another year. I can't do it. I need help. And if you give me help, I will make this again the finest tennis club in the United States, and this community will prosper. And if! go away, you know, I'll go away. I'll go back up to Chicago and I'll live there. My life will be okay. This community's going to stink. And I truly mean this. This is a really serious thing we're debating here. So with that, I'm going to just say one more thing. Just by luck, because he comes over frequently, later you're going to hear from the fellow from Barcelona I convinced to come and help me build this. Emilio Sanchez is here. He's like people that come from five continents to us, distinguished, talented. He comes here and what does he see? The finest tennis club in the United States. And I think he might tell you that when he comes up. Thank you for your time. I'll answer -- I don't know what the format is, but I will answer questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody on the Planning Commission have any questions of Mr. Bouchard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Page 191 December 17, 2009 MEMBERS FROM THE AUDIENCE: Give Emilio's background. MR. BOUCHARD: In two sentences, Emilio Sanchez was a professional tennis player on the men's tour. Ranked sixth in the world in men's tennis, and number one in the world in men's doubles after McEnroe and Fleming. He built the finest tennis facility. As I said, he capped on the Spanish Davis Cup team in recent years, they won the nationals. His sister was Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, number one in women's tennis after Steffi Graf, and the only individual I've met at that level in tennis who's also a great business woman as well as a nice person. So that is my introduction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, did you have something that-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, sir. In speaking to, what do you call them, some of the dissenters, the people who are against this, that the academy or the community has a rental placement service. I mean, in other words, when these kids come they try to find them -- and a lot of those are condos on the property? MR. BOUCHARD: Well, it's a simple history. The club has always had -- the club has always been the administrator of a rental pool for the community. When I bought the club, we had 40 units in that rental pool. These are people that live in the community, have a condo, they go up north, they want to rent it out for a month or two or whatever. And there's 10 condo associations and they all have different rules. Some are one-week stay, some are two-week stay, some are overnight stay. And so the club has run that pool. When I took it over I found the quality of the units in the pool to be poor in many cases, not in all cases. And therefore, people would come down, have a bad experience in Naples and at our club because they didn't like their condo. So I weaned that down. We have less than 15 in the pool now. We do own roughly eight units which we bought at various times, some we inherited from the owner that we bought from. So we Page 192 December 17,2009 administrate the pool now of those units, and we put visitors to the tournaments in a couple -- sometimes a couple of employees we lease out those units to and they stay there for a year when they first come to Naples. Or we put some academy kids in with adults supervising them. So there might be four kids in a coach or something in a condo. I don't want to sound like a customer of the county, but we pay 10 percent taxes on that rental revenue, four percent tourist tax and six percent state tax. And we have remitted $150,000 to the county and to the state as part of that taxing in recent years. So actually a very good customer of the county, I believe. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, it was my understanding there was more than that. And that some of those unit owners can't even -- with not being rented out now can't even afford their unit. And it just -- I heard that and I wanted to -- it sounds now like it's not -- MR. BOUCHARD: You have many condominium owners and people that participate in the pool in the room tonight. I think the most important thing, when you take people that are not from here, you want a quality person and you want them to have a good experience in the condo. And you've got to match that up. And our job as the administrator of the pool is to then make sure that happens. If nobody comes to the community, nobody rents the condos, and the owners don't get any rental revenue. So the only way they can be happy is to have lots of people come, play in the tournaments, go to the academy, rent a condo for a week while their kids are out on the court and things like that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So in other words, if you want your unit rented, rebuild it, clean it up. MR. BOUCHARD: You would be surprised at how sometimes the condos go into a state of disrepair over time. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. MR. BOUCHARD: Thank you very much. Page 193 December 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Burt, just so you know, we will stop at a certain time this afternoon. Ifwe don't get done because your presentation takes longer than normal, you will be postponed until sometime in January. So I don't know what your schedule is needed, but you need to be aware of that. MS. SAUNDERS: We will make sure that the public comment is as brief as possible. I just wanted to make one comment about -- these are illustrative. Ifwe need to put them in the record, I'll get copies for the Planning Commission. But these are not the site plans. I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not necessary. MS. SAUNDERS: All right. Then Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from one of the residents, Mr. Thad Kirkpatrick. I'm not going to read it. But he is a supporter, long-time resident in Naples Bath and Tennis Club and a supporter of that. I'll just give this to the reporter. That concludes our comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, are there any questions of the applicant before we go to staff presentation? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Burt, is Naples Tennis LLC the same as Tennis Realty, Inc.? MS. SAUNDERS: No. But let me -- MR. BOUCHARD: I'm sorry, Tennis Realty -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you'll have to come up and use the microphone. We're on recording, so -- MR. BOUCHARD: This is an easy one, so I'll answer. Tennis Realty, LLC is a 100 percent subsidiary of Naples Tennis, LLC. So all it does is it houses the real estate of the company. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant at this time? Page 194 December 17, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. We'll have staff presentation. MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning staff. You have in your packet of information a staff report prepared by staff dated last revised, 11/24/09. It's a 17 -page staff report, beginning with the property information and request information and geographic location and project description on Pages 1 and 2. Goes into detail about the surrounding land use and zoning. At the bottom of Page 2 shows an aerial photograph. On Page 3, to reiterate that information. There's a discussion beginning on Page 3, going on to Page 4 regarding the Growth Management Plan consistency. We are recommending that the project be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan, all aspects of that or all elements. There is a condition that's proposed by the transportation planning staff to make this project consistent with the transportation element of the Growth Management Plan. That is reflected in the draft ordinance and is acceptable to the petitioner. Also, on Page 4, the analysis of the project begins. And it includes environmental review, transportation review, affordable housing review. And then a more extensive zoning analysis as well. We also have provided to you the findings of fact in support of the recommendation. We have PUD findings and rezone findings. Staff is recommending that this project be determined to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and we are recommending that you recommend approval of the petition as it's proposed in the draft ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions of staff at this time? (No response.) Page 195 December 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I have one. Does staff concur with I guess the process today, that the transient lodging uses are an acceptable accessory use on this project? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of staff? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, Ijust wanted to say-- well, don't say it like that, you scare me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What am I supposed to call you, long hair? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. Okay, I'm catching up to you. In the PUD document, and again, this process I've gone over listening to both sides trying to figure out what happened here. But in a PUD document dated '73, it says on Section 4, Tract B, recreational club development. And it's under 4.3.8.3, transient lodging units are hereby found to be appropriate and compatible accessory of this private club development. I'm not going to read anymore, but I'm trying to figure out what all these darn lawsuits were about. But I'm not the sharpest pencil in the thing, but it just seems like, you know, it's just not -- I didn't see an issue. I just don't see an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're making a statement, though. You're not asking her to opine on the legal aspects of this, are you? MS. DESELEM: I'm waiting for a question. I haven't heard it yet. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I was just -- you asked a question, and I just wanted to say, I read the -- highlighted it and I didn't find -- actually, I didn't want to get into all the legalities, because I probably wouldn't understand it anyway. But I just noticed Page 196 December 17, 2009 it interesting that in '73 and 4 and 5 and '81 that transient lodging units were acceptable. Then we have all this problem. Okay, thank you. MS. DESELEM: If I may add one thing: The list that the petitioner provided on the ELMO, as they call it, showing the separation distance -- or setback distances, I'm sorry -- that was not reflected in the ordinance because we did not have that information. If you look at the existing PUD document, it has setback requirements, but it only speaks to principal uses. Since this is an accessory use, we need for -- if you approve that and accept those we need to add those into the draft ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DESELEM: The other items are covered in what we have now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're talking about the ones on the screen right now, though, right? MS. DESELEM: Yes. It's 4-A and B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kay. And Ray, we'll go into public speakers. MR. BELLOWS: First-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many do we have registered? MR. BELLOWS: About 21. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we've got a couple of ways to approach this. We ask that you limit your discussion not to be too redundant. We try to keep it to five minutes. If you're representing a group and other people in that group are not going to speak, then obviously -- and you need a little more time, that works. As you've seen earlier today, we don't cut people off unnecessarily, but we ask that you kind of move it along. If you do agree with something that's been said, sometimes the most impactful Page 197 December 17,2009 statement is the one made with least words. So with that in mind, move forward. Ray, if you -- Kay, you have something else? MS.DESELEM: If I may, please. Michael Fernandez pointed out something that I missed, and I apologize. That on Page 4 of 5 of the draft ordinance those setbacks are noted in a different format, but it does say that they will be the same as principal setbacks. So that's just a different format that we have. So 4-A and B are included in the draft ordinance. I was in error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you don't need a -- if this were to survive, you don't need a stipulation addressing what's in front of us on the screen? MS.DESELEM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Okay, Ray, call the speakers. MR. BELLOWS: First speaker, Doug Booth. MR. BOOTH: Hello. Thank you. I just want to say first, I've sat in a lot of county commission meetings, planning meetings around the state for different things, even in V olusia County where I live. You guys are the most patient human beings I've ever seen in my life. And I don't know how you do it. I want to thank you for having me here. Yeah, I know, I saw a couple of heads nodding every once in a while, including some of the people in the room. I'm Doug Booth. I'm the executive director of the United States Tennis Association in Florida. And I'm here representing -- I guess you wanted us to say who we represent. I feel like I represent 800,000 U.S.T.A. members around the United States, and 50,000 of which are in Florida. And the 30 million people that play tennis as of this year in the State of Florida. I t was interesting -- and I'm going to get off of my notes here just quickly -- listening to Craig. This tennis center, for those who don't Page 198 December 17,2009 know, was built during the first tennis boom in the United States in the Seventies and late Eighties. And all of us that are my age remember that boom, the Chris Evert era, a lot of people like to call it, and one of our former great champions here in Florida. And a lot of these tennis clubs were built during this boom. And then 10 years later they struggled because they were built and people -- you know, we didn't handle the boom well. I was a young tennis pro. I didn't handle it well. We didn't teach the next generation of children appropriately in this industry. We didn't modify the equipment like baseball did, like basketball did, like soccer. We kept kids playing with too long a racket on a full 78-foot court. We've changed all that in the last three years. And because of that, I have two pieces of literature I brought today. With that, I'm not sure how this works. This thing is cool, I want one of these. You look at the latest number. This is not the U.S.T.A. participation report. And I've got one of these for each one of you. This is the Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association. Tennis in the last eight years has grown 43 percent. In the State of Florida, it's grown more than that. In two of the toughest economic years we all know about; I'm hearing 40 percent property losses. We have grown this sport 43 percent. Look at the other sports on there and what they have done. I mean, I hear you talking about golf sheds? There's a reason golf sheds and golf courses are having problems. Look at their growth number. And the only reason they're at 4.3 percent negative is because they added nine holes played instead of 18. The next generation doesn't have five hours to play golf. They have an hour to go out and play tennis and stay healthy, like these people you see in this room. This is the best lifetime activity you can play. And you have ajewel, probably the best jewel to do this in the country. I know in the State of Florida. I've been here in this position 21 years. I have been to Naples Tennis Club many times. You just Page 1 99 December 17,2009 had 375 of the best women tennis players in this community in November. Probably you didn't know that because they don't come in this community and have any impact on your driving and your streets like Bike Week and the Nascar races in Daytona when you know your community's inundated. Tennis players come in and what do they do? They go to your restaurants, they go and eat. They spend money, like at our Stein-Mart in Daytona went in there. The other document I have that I can put up there. And all -- the most important thing in this document is an economic study we did for Daytona Beach. We built our headquarters in Daytona Beach. We only have 24 clay courts. Craig, you have 38, right? MR. BOUCHARD: Thirty seven. MR. BOOTH: Thirty-seven. We have 24 that we built. Daytona was smart enough to say we want the economic impact of tennis in our community. We have the LPGA headquarters, Ladies Professional Golf Association, and they moved them there when golf was still doing great. And they wanted us there across the street. The last page on this is the one you need to look at. One of our tennis events in this city -- and this is a documented study by the CVB, Convention Visitors Bureau, and a private company, they came in and interviewed our tennis players while they were at the event. And it's $1.1 million. That's not the 12 events we ran last year, that's one event. Now, that's 24 courts. Now, I will tell you the honest truth, our events are so big now we can't run them on 24 courts. That's the reason we can't afford to lose a 38 -- 37 clay court tennis facility. Now, Craig kind of mentioned clay is important. Well, it's important for one reason he mentioned. It's a lot more expensive to keep up. But I don't know if any of you play tennis, most of you might, because you look pretty athletic and healthy. But can most of you still play tennis on hard courts? Will you play on hard courts? I'm 55 years of age. I know I look a lot younger, but I'm 55, and I Page 200 December 17,2009 can't play. I have a bad knee now from playing tennis for years as a college tennis player, as a tennis pro teaching on hard courts. I can't play on hard anymore. I have to be on clay. It's crucial for the State of Florida to make sure we have an inventory of clay tennis courts for the next generation and for our generation to play on until we just can't hobble out there one time more. Okay, it's very important. I had five bullet points in listening to people and going through some thoughts while I was sitting here today. This is one of the largest clay tennis facilities in the United States. I think it's probably the largest, but as soon as I say that, somebody will say there's one with 39 courts. But I think it's the largest with 38 courts -- 37. Our organization had 1,100 applications this year for sanctioned tournaments. We run 850 right now all over the State of Florida, sanctioned tennis tournaments for adult seniors. We call it cradle to grave, okay. We have a sanctioned event for 85-year-olds, we have had them for 90. We gave two awards this year at our annual meeting two weeks ago to two 100-year-old individuals that hopped up on the stage and accepted the awards. Had 1,100 applications. We had to turn down 300. Why do you think we did that? Not enough facilities that we felt we could put the V.S.T.A. brand on, okay. It's crucial that we keep the 38 courts in our inventory, especially clay. We don't even have 38 hard. I mean, the largest hard court facility that I know of that we host events on is near our office now, Sanlando Park, Seminole County, 24 courts. We're so big on our events we use all their public courts. There are three separate public facilities in Seminole. They love us there. We just gave them an award and they gave us an award because of the impact we have on their county with our tennis events. And this is in addition to the 12 we run in Daytona. Page 201 December 17, 2009 There's not another facility in Collier or Naples that we as the governing body of tennis will come here and run large tennis events on. Not one. So if this facility goes away, you're not going to have 375 women from all over the United States in two years -- because Craig, I think they want to come back. I had more letters after that event, e-mails from the ladies from Florida that played there and said you've got to keep this jewel, we love staying in Florida, not going to Texas and playing on hard courts where they'll go next year. It's gone on two years. I have a feeling those women spent some money here. We have to ensure that we have courts in Florida for the next generation. Public funding of recreational facilities is the first thing that gets axed when people start cutting funding. I'm living that every day. I've been talking all over the state for the last two years, you don't cut the fire, you don't cut police, libraries, roads, you cut recreation. Why did we retire to Florida? I want to boat ramp my community. I want golf courses; I play golf. I want tennis courts, I want soccer fields. And if it gets destroyed and torn out, you're not going to get another facility like this. Craig, you know, is absolutely correct, there are no large facilities. We had to fight and beg to get 24 built in Daytona. I mean, ifit goes away, it's gone away. I guess I'll leave you with a comment. As I travel around Florida and I talk about public funding, even in my hometown of Pensacola, we're in a -- just a revival of the second boom of tennis, which in my lifetime I never thought we would have another boom like the Seventies. I never thought I'd see it again. That number of 43 percent is going to be blown away in the next five years, because two years of that have been economically tough times, and we did not have the equipment we're now introducing to bring the next generation into the sport. We have short rackets, foam balls. We have a program called Quick Start where children play on 36-foot courts instead of putting them on the full court. Page 202 December 17,2009 We put 10,000 rackets just last year in the Dade County schools. What do you think those kids are going to end up playing? This next generation of children, guys, are not going to play golf. It's boring. This next generation of children need constant activity. They won't play golf. They're going to play tennis, soccer, the other sports. And you've got ajewel here. Don't let it go away. And I'm here telling you, the U.S.T.A. needs this facility. We need it in the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were very thorough. Thank you. MR. BOOTH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, next public speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Emilio Sanchez. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After this speaker, we're going to have to take a break. Our court reporter's fingers are wearing out, so -- MR. SANCHEZ: Hello. Good afternoon. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me. Well, I was supposed to introduce my background, but I think Craig did better than me. I come from a tennis family. I am a tennis player, I'm a tennis fan and I am a tennis lover. And when I see these facility the first time, I just said to myself, how here in America the people can do things so well. Because we build a new facility in Barcelona before that, and we didn't do like this one is done many years ago. So this is a dream place to put our academy ahead. And I think Naples is incredible place, because has all these golf courses, all these great place, all these great tennis clubs. But it's not -- people maybe in the States they know. But we -- when Craig told me we are in Naples, Page 203 December 17, 2009 I thought, oh, you are in Italy. Where is that? No, I didn't have it on the map. Same as you, many of the people in America, they don't know where Spain is, so -- but -- so we -- yes, we don't go -- you know, sports people, we don't study so much. So sometimes we just put ourselves in difficult situations. But I come here to Naples and I am amazed how is this city -- how great it is. And going to what we do, we are an academy that we -- tennis academy. But our focus is in give education to people. And tennis, I can speak because I have the experience, I think it's a sport that shows you or teach you so much values that not many professionals do. And I think that makes a big difference. And I think that is why all these people who play tennis for 40 years, they keep playing tennis and they keep loving the tennis. Because tennis is physical, tennis is mental, tennis is -- it's spiritual. And it goes into you. And we sharing this time with all these kids and teaching them this incredible profession, we know that very few of them they're going to make it to the top. But we sure that what they learn with the tennis, they're going to be successful all their lives. Because the values they get from tennis they are not getting from many sports. So we are very proud, very proud to be in tennis. And I think we've done pretty well with what we call the competition and the success. We had, as Craig said, every year 100 percent of our students continue with the tennis under the college system. We had a lot of big names training with us. And like Murray from England; like Kuznetsova, past champion; lvanovic, ex number one as well; Monaco; Muller, and many, many, many big names that they came through our academy. And we started this great project here in Naples. And I think we bring new air, new fresh air to this facility. And we start to do some work with young people from here, from this place. And we hope that Page 204 December 17, 2009 we can help all our partners, like the U.S.T.A. or the U.S.P.T.A. I recently last week did a second course for the U.S.P.T.A., which is the biggest organization in the states for coaches apart from the U.S.T.A. And we already gave knowledge from our system to more than 400 coaches here in the U.S. And we hope that between them and their clubs and what we do in the Naples facility, we can make the next American champion and we can help American tennis with our innovative teaching. And we're going to put our hat -- we have our big commitment, thanks to the persistence and the work that Craig has done. But also, we are very glad to be here with all this tennis community, because we learn every day. And what we going to bring back is that Naples is going to be on the tennis circuit, but not on the local, in the Florida, it's going to be in the world tennis circuit. We bring people from many countries to Barcelona at the moment. We have more than 3,000 people from all around the world, and we want to bring them here. And this is going to bring a lot of revenue, because normally they come for more than a week, the ones that they come for months or the ones that come for years. So that's a lot of revenue that is going to come to this Naples city, and we really think that we can make a difference and put it on the tennis map. And this is our small contribution. And we hope that some of these people, because we will need many more places, but lots of other people on-site on the facility that gives the best tennis instruction in America has to have a place where they can stay. And that's why we here for. I have nothing else to say, just that we're going to put our heart to put this through and to help this place to grow and to go to the level that the members and Craig want. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, Cherie', I bet you're -- MR. SANCHEZ: Thank you. Page 205 December 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're fine, thank you. I bet your hands are real tired. And I would love to see how you spell some of those names he mentioned that have gone through. So with that, let's take a break, we'll come back at 4:00 and move through the public comment. (Recess.) (Commissioner Midney is not present.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, if we could resume our seats, we will continue on. And I think Burt, did you have something that you wanted to -- MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I made an announcement for the people that are here in support of Naples Bath and Tennis Club. Other than about five or six that are going to spend maybe two minutes, the rest of them are going to stand up and just say they support the petition. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to do that now? MS. SAUNDERS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, well, who is supporting the petition? MEMBERS FROM THE AUDIENCE: We are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Who is not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's not -- that's the supporters. Okay. Now, will the rest of -- if you're on the list of speakers, and because you've now been acknowledged in support of that to all of us, if you don't need to speak, just say you decline and we'll continue on until we find someone who still wants to speak. Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Lee Horn. MR. HORN: Commissioners, good afternoon. My name's Lee Horn. Page 206 December 17,2009 Just by quick introduction, I was on the EAC for three years. Currently I'm on the Contractor Licensing Board for five plus years. We had our meeting yesterday. I'm sure you got the same holiday bonus we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. HORN: Anyways, really quickly, I've known Craig and been an employee of his at the club for the past four and a half years, a little after he bought the club. And just really briefly, I'd just like to say for from my interactions personally and as an employee, I've seen that he does care about his community. He will listen to everyone in the community, including the dissenters, if they're willing to come speak with him. And I can say that from personal knowledge and experience. And one other thing I would just like to quickly mention that hasn't been brought up because it's not pertinent to this PUD, is Craig's -- one of his other companies is called Esmark, one of the large steel companies in the U.S. And they are the sole force that is behind the Cubs coming to Naples, we hope. Now, Craig's been working really hard. Gary Price, our city commissioners, I apologize if I got that wrong, is working with him. But this is a project you'll hopefully hear in the next year that will bring 1,000 jobs and $52 million per year in revenue to the county, proven from the State of Arizona. So this is a man who cares about the county. He hasn't mentioned it, I just wanted to mention that. If you guys want to ask him, please do. But-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what, sometimes when you have a politician and you want his support -- and you're a politician yourself. MR. HORN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing you should know is if your constituents like that other politician. Because by hanging your hat with him, you could be doing yourself damage. So I would caution Page 207 December 17, 2009 you on -- how long have you been in Naples? MR. HORN: I'm a resident of five years of Naples, sir. Originally from Miami, Florida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've been here 32, and I'm not from a big city like Miami, and I came here because I like the small town atmosphere. MR. HORN: So do I, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure the Cubs are going to prevail in that regard. But let's not get -- MR. HORN: That's not either here or there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- into that issue on-- MR. HORN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because I can debate with you for an hour on that. MR. HORN: No, no, no. My only point, sir, of that was that this is someone who's trying to bring jobs and revenue to this county. That's all I was saying, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HORN: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Bill Busch. MR. BUSCH: My name is Bill Busch, and I live at 610 Jacana Circle, at Naples Bath and Tennis. And by now you're probably thinking that there's nobody that isn't in support of this particular thing that's come before you today. So I'm here to let you know that there are those of us who don't think it's a good idea. The original PUD in 1976, as you all know, did in fact include the authority to build hotel rooms or transient housing facilities, as it was called at that time. However, there was a very specific timeline involved, namely that they had to be done at the time that everything else in parcel B was being developed. The developer, for reasons that we don't know, because he never Page 208 December 17, 2009 left a record, chose not to do that. And he ignored the hotel room issue and completed everything in parcel B by 1985. So in the court decision that you've got copies of now, Judge Brousseau's decision in January of 1997 specifically used the timeline as his reason for overturning the decision by the Collier County Planning Commission and said the way the PUD reads today, hotel rooms are not legal. Now, the more recent court decision of July, 2009 simply said that the Collier County Commissioners have the authority to rewrite the PUD and make an illegal activity legal. And so that's all you're being asked today is to make a recommendation to the County Commissioners, do you think that they should change the wording of the PUD to make an illegal activity legal. That's all you're being asked to do. Now, in deciding whether to vote for or against that, I would like to let you know that since January of 1997 when Judge Brousseau's decision was rendered, at least 48 residential properties at Bath and Tennis have been purchased, I'm one of those people, for a total of over $9.9 million. And all of us who did purchase those properties did so with the guarantee that the court had stated we would never be faced with this issue of hotel rooms again. And as you also know, that court decision was validated by going to the appellate court, which makes it case law. So from a moral standpoint, if nothing else, you should vote for denial simply on the grounds that it's not fair to those of you who bought property after January of'97 and changing the ground rules in the ninth inning of the ballgame. It just isn't morally right. Additionally, there's a density intensity issue. Now, our esteemed lawyer here earlier said that hotel rooms don't have to abide by the density issue. But we all know that if you have hotel rooms, people come and spend time in them. And invariably these people are all going to have automobiles. So since we are already built out at Bath and Tennis to 3.36 units per acre, and since we are only authorized Page 209 December 17, 2009 three units per acre, we're already in excess. And furthermore, we are not eligible for a density bonus. Those are decisions made by the Collier County Commission. So that's another thought, that maybe it's not technically part of the Collier County regulations but it certainly is something that you need to consider in whether or not you recommend approval or disapproval. And in the package that we mailed you, which has photocopies of postcards, these are the postcards that we photocopied and put in the package we mailed to you. In addition to that, in my other pocket I have another stack of post cards that I did not photocopy because these are the people that did not want their names to be made public because Craig Bouchard threatens to throw them out of the club ifhe finds that there's anybody that opposes hotel rooms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, please, he has a right to speak, and let him finish. Sir, you need to address -- MR. BUSCH: As a matter of fact, if you think I'm making that up, when Joel Singer-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you need to address yourself to us, please. MR. BUSCH: All right. So all of those postcards add up to 130 people who own 89 properties at Bath and Tennis. So when Craig Bouchard says to you that everybody is for hotel rooms, he's using a lot of people that don't own property at Bath and Tennis. As a matter of fact, earlier you heard the number 418. Well, that's the package you've just been given earlier in the meeting. I've gone through that package, and the truth of the matter is, there's only 174 properties at Bath and Tennis that are in that package, not 418. And so therefore the 80 percent figure that he used is definitely wrong. Because of the property owners at Bath and Tennis, only 39 percent of them are club members. So that's all I Page 210 December 17,2009 have. Thank you for your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next public speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, Hank Buchanan. MR. BUCHANAN: Here's a copy ofa letter that I submitted a couple of years ago to the County Commissioners, which unfortunately I didn't get to you beforehand. It's photographs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', I'll keep a set for you. MR. BUCHANAN: Hank Buchanan, 900 Bald Eagle Drive, Naples Bath and Tennis Club. In front of you is a letter that I had mailed to the board previous hearing. It's self-explanatory as to my views and my wife's view of her support for Mr. Bouchard's petition. In the photograph that I gave you, presented to you, is our 24, 365-day view of the clubhouse. And as you can see from that photograph that we are directly impacted by any activities at the clubhouse. And it's our concern that if this approval does not go through, that the facilities will disappear and therefore we're not going to have a view that we are able to enjoy which we have over the last many years at our home. If there's any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. And I appreciate time and effort, because I was on the original EAC committee and you have a lot more staying power than what I used to have. So thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Chester Kauffman. MR. KAUFFMAN: I'm Chester Kauffman. I live at 1566-C Oyster Catcher. My wife and I have owned property in Naples Bath and Tennis for over 20 years, and we were guests there two years Page 211 December 17,2009 before that. I stand here to ask your approval of this petition. And my reason for wanting approval of this petition is if you compare the successful tennis resorts in the State of Florida, The Colony, Saddlebrook, Amelia Island and Chris Evert's Academy, they all have one thing that we don't have. We have better weather, we have more clay courts, but we do not have on-site lodging. And that is essential for a tennis resort to be successful. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Ted Keller. MR. KELLER: I'm loud, I'm fast, fewer than two minutes. I am Ted, T-E-D, Keller, K-E-L-L-E-R. My wife and I have origins that go back almost to the beginnings of the Naples Tennis Club early days, condo rentals. That yielded into condo ownership, Oyster Catcher Point. That yielded into home ownership, Oriole Circle. We are year rounders here now, and I am a former two-term president of the board of governors, a volunteer members advisory group. Two owners. I have worked with very closely all of the owners for the last 20 years. I'm currently vice president of our homeowners association. In a previous life I was an executive vice president corporate officer, fortune 200 New York Stock Exchange publicly traded company. Today I continue to work by choice. And this is perhaps the relevant part. I am an owner/manager/investment property commercial and residential, including construction, and have some considerable knowledge and insight to the economics, very poor, the business metrics, very poor, of this tennis club building. You know the reality. And Craig stated it very well. Craig Bouchard, Carl Sheffield, their ownership group by far vastly better owners than we have ever, ever, ever had before. I've worked with them all. My wife and I, and I speak for many, many residents of the Page 212 December 17,2009 community and members of the club, support fully. You've been told and we agree, jewels of Collier County. Thirty-eight courts. These jewels are at risk. And these jewels could go away. I thank you for listening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Bill Beverly. MR. BEVERLY: Mr. and Mrs. Commissioners, my name is Bill Beverly. And all the people in this room and many thousands more grew up with me at the Naples Bath and Tennis. I've been in Naples, Florida 30 years. I am still currently the director of member operation at the Naples Tennis Club, which used to be called Naples Bath and Tennis. Kim Roswall, Rod Laver, Fred Stolle, you name it, they've all played with me at the Naples Tennis Club and Resort. We, the original owners that I was with, sold it in 1990. From that time I feel personally that the club has kind of faltered and faltered and faltered. It is my honor to know Mr. Craig Bouchard. His family, Mr. Sheffield, his family, all the kids that I used to work with all these years, and now I'm doing the third generations with some of them. We need a transient lodging because tennis is the largest selling game in the United States. Doug Booth, as I travel the country to talk to people, he is correct, it is no lie, they still play tennis and can play well. It just so happens that this gentleman said Bill, maybe I will come back now and see if we can't do something. In turn, he met one of the greatest academy guys in Emilio Sanchez. I'm honored with be with him. This is my second generation. Please, help Mr. Bouchard and the Naples Tennis Club. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Joe Sorrels. MR. SORRELS: Commissioners, I reside at 108-A Bob-O-Link Way, and have for in excess of 20 years. And I live 78 yards from the Page 213 December 17,2009 entrance of the club. And one of the primary arguments of the opposing group has been that it's going to increase our traffic flow. I challenge that. Because no one in this room lives closer than I do. And I have to stand at my back door and look over the privacy hedge to even see who comes and goes. So that's totally bogus. Those people can't see the front gate. And it doesn't impact me in any way. And to their point that it's going to create more traffic, when we have 300 people at a tournament -- and we do this often because we are a good facility, we are international. Craig was very modest. I spent a lot of time a broad, and it is indeed recognized internationally. When people play tennis, they come in, they play in the morning, they go to their room and shower and change and rest and eat, come back, perhaps somewhere between two and four times every day. If indeed during a tournament the 350 people that are playing come in, park their car and stay there all day, it will indeed impact the ingress and egress on a daily basis profoundly. They just will come and stay, they won't come and go. Additionally, if indeed we could get a few more people in our country with the attitude of Craig Bouchard and his people to step forward in today's economy, as challenging as it is and be willing to invest their hard earned money in something as simple as our club, we all would be better off as American citizens, and we all know it would definitely have a positive impact on our economy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Sally Kuralt. MS. KURAL T: I stood and said that wouldn't respond, but since hearing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, ma'am, you have to use the speaker, because this has all got to get recorded. MS. KURAL T: I'm sorry, I hadn't planned to speak because I Page 214 December 17, 2009 thought I had stood with the group and that would be sufficient. But hearing Mr. Busch, I decided that if I had an opportunity, I would like to speak to you. I have been a member of the tennis club since before it was built. I am a taxpayer, I'm a homeowner, I volunteer for clubs, tournaments, and I also try my best to give my time to the Naples and Collier County communities as a volunteer. I think that it might be disappointing is the word that I would choose to those for whom not having guestrooms was an important factor in the choice of their homes. But it pales in comparison to those of you who are in that community and can imagine what would be taken away if the club were to fail. I have not always supported the building proposals. I do support this one. I support it 100 percent. And I think that we're doing our best to be ambassadors for Naples when people come. We have hospitality information, we send them to restaurants, we do our very best to be good citizens. And I'm asking you to help us keep our head above the water. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Karl Sheffield. MR. SHEFFIELD: I respectfully defer to Craig and to Emilio and other all the others who spoke. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next one, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Robin Frederick. MR. FREDERICK: I already -- I defer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next one? MR. BELLOWS: Ken Lance? MR. LANCE: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Ken Lance. My wife and I live at 1673-A Spoonbill Lane. I played tennis here intermittently since 1978. We've been full-time for three or four Page 215 December 17, 2009 years. I'm a retired physician and know little about zoning and construction. However, couple of points. Craig -- if Craig is a Pied Piper, I'm a rat. He said things very well, in great detail, which many of us, including myself, truly believe. We support the petitioner, we hope that the commissioners will also. A couple other further comments. One of the arguments against building the rooms, the transient lodgings, is that it will change the community. Lord knows it, we need change. The club is too big for the membership to support. We need more people, we need more tennis players. I'm 81, I'm here in person with most of the people here. I'm not going to be playing tennis very much longer. Our group is fading away. And the future for this club and this community are strong young tennis players who enjoy the marvelous facilities here. We truly admire the people in the academy. The students, the professional staff are really marvelous. Walk around in the afternoon, and these kids are just knocking the cover off the ball. And the tournaments and the academy are the future strength and support for this club that I truly believe. Finally, I've seen the e-mail reproduction of -- and the actual list of objectors. The community has supporters and objectors. It's not quite the Civil War, but there is passion. I'm from New Jersey. We came to Florida to get away from Hudson County where people are listed two or three times in the voting list. There are a number of people who died, there are others who after four years have changed their mind. I'm confused by the list of the objectors. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Omar Bishr. MR. BISHR: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Omar Bishr. I'm a resident of Naples Bath and Tennis. I live at 1001 Page 216 December 17, 2009 Oriole Circle. My wife and I bought in Naples Bath and Tennis in June of2003. We didn't buy for a tennis center, we bought for three words, location, location, location. I'm close to schools, I'm close to the City of Naples, I'm close to all kinds of activities of my children. I have three young children, age eight through 13. I am worried about the increased traffic into Naples Bath and Tennis. And I will cite an example about increased traffic, was when they hosted the Naples -- the tea party there. You couldn't get in and out of that place. The buses, the school buses couldn't come in and out. You know, we don't need that increased traffic. There's one lane in and two lanes out coming in. I've been -- myself have been the recipient of a head-on collision while waiting at that light there by a person that's come into the entrance there. I've been a business owner in Collier County for 14 years. I'm a fortune minus 500 company owner, so I'm the opposite of what's going on here. I work in Pelican Bay, I work in Windemere, I work in Grey Oaks, I work in Imperial, all kinds of neighborhoods. And I ask my clients, and nobody wants a hotel -- nobody would accept a hotel in their neighborhood. I think what the club needs, and they've needed it since I've been in this neighborhood for over six and a half years now, is advertising. They don't advertise. There's not enough members in the club. I don't think they're doing enough in advertising. I don't think we need a hotel in this community. That's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Jill Hill. MS. HILL: I totally 100 percent agree and hope that you will allow this to evolve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. From now on, if you do decline to speak, just say you decline to Page 217 December 17, 2009 speak. Otherwise you really need to come up to the microphone. This is a quasi judicial hearing, and the court reporter has to put everything down in transcript, and it's really important that we get your words if you say more than I decline. So go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Norman Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Anderson, are you here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. BELLOWS: Jim Davis? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't Bruce Anderson you called out, was it? MR. BELLOWS: No, Norman. MR. DAVIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Merry Christmas. Thanks for your patience today. My name is Jim Davis. I live at 219-A Bob-O-Link Way at the Naples Bath and Tennis Club. My wife and I bought our condo in March of 1977. My membership at the Naples Bath and Tennis Club number was three. I'm no longer a member. At the time I bought, Will McFarland and Eric Kohl were the developers of the Bath and Tennis Club. At that time they had permission to expand and build a hotel. Will McFarland told me they had built the club out and that they didn't want to build a club -- I mean a hotel. All they wanted were condos and homes. Consecutive developers since then and owners have wanted to build hotels. Naples Bath and Tennis Club is a 30-year-old community with noncommercial by 87 percent. It's a residential community with a privately owned tennis club. Owners at the Naples Bath and Tennis Club property are not required to be members of the club. Burt Saunders is a well respected -- he's a very good politician and he's a good lawyer. I like his figure of over 400 what he threw out at you, but he failed to tell you whether they were owners or members Page 218 December 17,2009 or both. I happen to be part of a group of over 100 that are opposed to this. You have the list in front of you I'm sure by this time, plus 33 others who are opposed because they don't want to get involved with problems with friends and with the club. Tennis Realty is asking for a PUD change, and by doing so circumventing Judge Brousseau's decision in 1996. And again Mr. Saunders failed to tell you enforced by the Second Court of Appeals. I don't know how you overturn an appeals court decision -- I'm not a lawyer, I was a football coach, so I don't know about that -- except by something a court higher than the appeals court. And to this very second, that decision stands. The county says that the application meets all of the requirements. I don't believe that the county took into effect or looked very carefully at safety and security concerns associated with a 48-room hotel in a residential community. I don't think those were addressed at all. Mr. Bouchard sent out a memo May 7th, '07 to members of the club and community residents in which he says he wants 25 to 32 hotel rooms. In his memo to members and supporters of January 10th, '08, he says only 32 rooms. Yet he's asking for 48. And I think Mr. Fernandez inferred that they have -- might do 50 or more when they want to do the other side of the club. I would be really highly offended. Mr. Bouchard in the past has threatened to close the club ifhe fails. Well, today it was a little bit different. He said it might not survive. Who knows? He has used figures of his own, why real estate values will tumble ifthere's no hotel. Who are the people giving him this information? I certainly don't know. In my opinion, better than 50 percent of our current owners did not buy at the Naples Bath and Tennis Club because of Craig's tennis club. Please don't vote to overturn or to push forward to the County Page 219 December 17,2009 Commission your permission or your approval of this PUD change. The long-standing decisions of the circuit court and the appeals court certainly have some bearing. And I don't know how this will all come out, even after the County Commission reacts, ifthey decide not to change the PUD. The old ruling was to deny a hotel, and I hope you'll stick by it. My final thought is how would you like to have a hotel in your backyard? Which it will be in mine. Thank you for your attention. Appreciate it, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Jay Wolff. MR. WOLFF: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. I have been at the Naples Bath and Tennis Club since 1987. I bought my home there in 1993. I love the Bath and Tennis Club, and I want it to survive. But I think its survival has to be based on a legal point. I was president of one of the homeowner association for seven years a decade ago, and I was president of the commons association when Judge Brousseau's decision was passed down. Judge Brousseau made his decision because our original PUD states that transient housing could only be constructed prior to the completion and sale of the last could not minute yes, ma'am. units by the developer. That was in 1986. He decided that the appeal that was made in 1997 was 11 years late. That PUD defines our community. But it does more than define our community, it protects the community as well. It protects the tennis club more than any person's intention, because that PUD states that the property on which those 38 tennis courts stand must remain a recreational tennis facility with no other possible use. I strongly fear that if you willingly amend the PUD, you will have created a precedent that weakens it. Page 220 December 17, 2009 Judge Brousseau's decision made it clear that the PUD did not allow transient housing, which is why the current ownership is not applying for transient housing, they're applying for a change in the PUD. That PUD would be changed by their appeal and that would rip a hole in the umbrella of protection that that PUD has placed over the more than 500 resident owners in our community. That hole will never go away, it will just get larger. Mr. Brousseau is not immortal. This commission is not immortal, regardless of how well his intentions might be, or for that matter what the intentions might be today of this Commission. Another owner -- and I've been through a number of owners down through the years. Another owner tomorrow or next year or five years from now might very well ask for another amendment, not for a hotel, not for a few transient units, but for something much less amenable. And with precedent behind him, he might just get it. The club can be preserved by the PUD as it stands now because the PUD specifies it must be a tennis club. That PUD is powerful, that PUD is the umbrella under which every homeowner in that association or in that community bought their property. I urge you to allow that PUD to stand. If Mr. Bouchard is honest in his desire to save the club, I appeal to him that his steps must be within the provisions of that PUD. Weakening the PUD leaves the community open to moves by future owners or for that matter by individuals today who may change their mind or find their life situation changed in the future which will severely undercut or destroy that club. The public PUD is our protection, and I urge you to let it stand. This appeal should not be approved. Thank you all very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sir? Sir, I've got a question for you. You said that transient lodge units could not be constructed prior to? Page 221 December 17, 2009 MR. WOLFF: No, what I said was in the PUD it specifies that transient housing units are approved as long as their construction is completed. Before the sale of the last condominium units. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, I have scanned this thing three or four times. I cannot find that -- MR. WOLFF: It also states that the completion of those units must be completed at the same time that the completion of the club facilities is done, and that was completed by 1986. That is why Judge Brousseau made his ruling. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, well, he's a lot brighter than I am. I can't -- MR. WOLFF: Well, I have a copy of the PUD at home and I've gone over it. I went over it in 1986 because I was very much involved in that negotiation, and that's the basis for Judge Brousseau's decision. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Again, I couldn't find it there. And I don't -- MR. WOLFF: Thank you all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Richard McGill. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: John Murphy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murphy? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Next one? MR. BELLOWS: Joel Singer. MR. SINGER: To address the last statement-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to identify yourself for the record. MR. SINGER: I'm sorry, Joel Singer. I live at 620 Jacana Circle Page 222 December 17,2009 in Naples Bath and Tennis. And I'm a member of the N.B.T.C. Concerned Property Owners, a group in solid opposition to the petition. You raised a good question, because the PUD reads that the club needs to be substantially completed before the beginning of any residential units. And his statement was actually saying isn't it absurd that the club hasn't been finished in the last 30 years. That's what it's all about. The PUD reads a -- I'll get to that in a minute. I had five minutes and forty seconds of material, so I better get gomg. Both the tennis club and the residential areas are accessed through a common entrance, and roads lead freely from one to the other with no physical barriers. Ours is a small development with a residential portion immediately adjacent to the club on all sides. I hope everybody's visited the community. The big issue is whether it's okay to force a busy resort hotel lifestyle on to a small quiet residential community that's been that way for more than 30 years. This attempt to build a short-stay transient hotel is the latest in a series of efforts by the independently run tennis facility to add commercial elements on the grounds. These include an attempt to open a rooming house in a residential portion of the community, which is strictly against our condominium bylaws. When they changed the name of a previously private club, previously private club, to Naples Tennis Club and Resort, we could see what was coming. With the addition of a hotel, there would be justification to support the resort lifestyle, including the increased running of special events like parties and competitions of various kinds. Those events would likely require somebody to be on a P A system or playing amplified music to pump up the participants. When these kinds of amplified events have been conducted in the past, the entirety of our very small development has had to tolerate the unwanted sound. Page 223 December 17, 2009 Now, I ask you, how would you like this to happen where you live? Before Naples Bath and Tennis was constructed, our PUD specified phased sequential construction, with the tennis club to be completed before the start of the residential areas. That's why the petitioner now wants this PUD modification to read notwithstanding any other timing or completion provision for phased development plans set forth elsewhere in this PUD ordinance. He's referring specifically to that wording. Three decades ago when our development was built without a transient lodging facility, the character, style and quality of life of our community was defined and finalized. Then following the circuit court decision to ban transient housing only 12 years ago, millions of dollars of residential real estate transactions have been conducted at N.B.T.C., secure in the knowledge that this issue had been put to rest. Now we're told by the sheriffs department that the residential communities which allow the most short-stay rentals are the ones with the highest incidents of crime. Now, does the petitioner need up to 48 more rental rooms? Condo owners in the two of our 10 associations which do allow short-stay rental stays make their apartments available in a shared revenue pool managed by the club. According to the latest issue of the Naples Chamber of Commerce Magazine information supplied by Naples Tennis Club and Resort, the club already has 47 rooms to use for guests. So where is the justification for an additional 48 rooms built expressly for transient use? Mr. Bouchard claims the club is use losing money every year, and to make it financially viable he must have these hotel rooms for added revenue. Otherwise he threatens to close the club in the very future. Well, you know, this club's been open for 30 years, for God's sakes. Ifhe can't make a go of it, he better do something else. The numbers don't work. In the January 10th, 2008 letter to our community, Mr. Bouchard stated he expects to spend $5 million to Page 224 December 17, 2009 build the facility and hopes to take in $500,000 a year for rentals. So not counting the cost of maintenance, insurance, utilities, taxes and housekeeping, it would be a minimum of 10 years after completion of the new building before he breaks even. Five million dollars divided by 500,000 is 10 years. How can this plan be viewed as the near-term solution to the club's current financial difficulties? About density and intensity. Our community's original allowable density was four units per acre. As Airport Road became busier, we were deemed to be in a traffic congestion area, reducing eligible density to three. We are already built out at 3.36 units per acre. Adding housing of any kind on the grounds at this time would put it further -- in further violation of the Future Land Use Element. The idea that a transient housing facility is considered to be an accessory use in our situation doesn't change the fact that more people will be staying on the grounds than before. Now, we know that Commissioner Strain equates hotel rooms with increased density. On March 15th, 2007, during the Naples Grande hearing, Commissioner Strain said, I'm concerned because the whole premise here is you're taking out the hotels which is reducing density and saving traffic, and now it looks like you're putting it all back in. I got that on tape. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. SINGER: Added density and intensity by people who do not have an equity stake in our community invites crime, traffic accidents, trash and excessive noise and would decrease the quality of life we now enjoy. Further, it would make our development less attractive to home buyers and have a negative impact on our property values. Lastly, there is a 26-point document development entitled criteria for PUD rezones. There are several points governing whether this petition would survive the test of meeting public purposes. If no other Page 225 December 17,2009 consideration is made, the specific point that asks whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare, in this case our residential property owners, should lead you to reject the petition. I strongly urge you to recommend against it to the county. Now, there were people booing -- one little nugget. People booing when Mr. Busch said that Mr. Bouchard threatened to throw people out of the club if they made their name publicly known that they oppose hotel rooms. My wife was a member of the club. She was thrown out simply because her last name was the same as mine. And then we tried to get our membership fee back, and they resisted, and I had to threaten them to go to the police because we had prepaid for services and they were now denying us services. So he's not the great neighbor that everybody thinks he is. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else in the audience wish to speak on this matter? MEMBERS FROM THE AUDIENCE: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, come on up and use the microphone and identify yourself, please. MS. BRODELL: Yes, I will, thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Rae Brodell. I live at 1380 Bald Eagle Drive, which is a home. Bald Eagle Drive is the main thoroughfare around Naples Tennis Club. This point is important, although some people may chuckle, I walk a dog around this circle four times a day, once early in the morning and once very late at night. I have never encountered any difficult traffic, even when we had 335 women here for the tournament, when we had 80 some coaches here for the tennis bit. I have never had a problem. None. Page 226 December 17, 2009 As far as these people being thrown out of the club, I've been a member of this club -- they're talking three decades. Three decades ago I had black hair and was a young chick. I'm not anymore, but I have been a member of this club for a very, very, very long time. We first lived on Spoonbill Lane, then we bought a home on Bald Eagle Drive. To tell you that we are not thrilled to death would be an untruth. We love everything about Naples Tennis Club, Naples Bath and Tennis Club. We feel safe there, even though we're living on Bald Eagle Drive. We have wonderful neighbors, wonderful neighborhoods. Wonderful -- well, I can't do the tennis facilities anymore, but they are wonderful. The kids who come to this camp are sweet and lovely and wave and are effervescent. What can I tell you? Anyone who is against this recommendation to have hotel rooms or motel rooms or whatever you'd like to call them, living facilities, is wrong. Thirty years ago, maybe not. Now, yes. It is the thing to do. Progress is what we're all about. Thank you so very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Okay, is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak to us? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, please keep it down. Someone from the applicant's side has a 10-minute rebuttal, if they would so choose. MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly not going to take 10 minutes. I will tell you that in the handout that we gave you for the survey, it's got a breakdown of the members that are residents, 245 members are residents, members that are not residents, 60. Residents that are not members but residents, 102. So you have that breakdown in here in terms of the number of property owners that are in this survey. And it's a huge number. The other issue in terms of your legal authority to do this, I think Page 227 December 17,2009 the County Attorney will agree that there is no legal impediment to you proceeding with this petition. I think you've heard from the community, there is overwhelming support for this, it's important for the community, and I would ask for your positive vote. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, with that we will close the public hearing and have a discussion or a motion or both. Does anybody have any comments? Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and my comments are really, you know, just a discussion. I don't want to make a motion just yet. But other than the transportation issue, if I understand this, we have two things to do: One is do we want to remove the fact that the design for this facility would come back to the Planning Commission in a public hearing, and then the other issue is establishing parameters for which they can build that; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's actually one in the same. We do one, we do the other. But I don't think we're going to vote on them separately. The only way one is accomplished is by enacting the other, I would think. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I am totally in favor of the transient housing and the establishment of some of the rules. Ifwe're going to do it, let's go through and see why some of them are there. What I kind of still favor, though, is bringing back the design before the Planning Commission. At least that would give the neighbors a chance to have any comments or concerns they have on the placement of it. You know, I come from District 2 where we've had some, you know, touchy projects, and they've gone into staff and staff has reviewed it. And all due respect, Ray, you know the projects and you know that they get tangled up in controversy where people have missed some of the intent, some of the things the neighbors thought Page 228 December 17,2009 they were going to get didn't happen, things came out of nowhere that weren't predictable at the time of the hearing at this level, and, you know, there's been controversy in the neighborhood. So, I mean, I would be in favor of keeping the fact that it comes back to a public hearing, to review the design, and then -- and if we want to we can establish some parameters and go through why they're there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we -- I don't --let's see where that goes first. Anybody else have any comment? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Other than me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad just put out a statement. I just thought if you were -- does anybody -- are we thinking in his manner? Because what he's suggesting is that we accept the standards that have been offered but establish more standards for review to have them come back for an SDP review at this commission. Is that a fair statement? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, but you don't have to call it the SOP review. But, you know, just exactly what the PUD states is that it -- the design of the transient. Obviously back then they were sensitive solely about the transient housing. I think that sensitivity still exists. Ifthey could come back through a public hearing, then the neighbors could see. We've had -- you know, for example, Mr. Bouchard states we're not moving roads, we're not doing that. Yet the architect or -- Mike's the engineer, I guess, he's not the architect -- is showing us a drawing where they move the roads. So, you know, even amongst themselves today they're not sure as to what they're doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess I'll express myself then. First of all, I think that the wrong forum for any SDP review is this Planning Commission. Period. Weare not trained in the details of engineering and architecture and design that the county staff is. Page 229 December 17,2009 And it takes half a dozen departments in the county to review an SOP. Ifwe open that up to a public process, we're going to get a lot of information that is going to take a lot of time to review and get us nowhere. The standards that are being presented today seek to limit the design to two stories to within a certain distance from a building to within certain locations. The discrepancy between the plan we saw and what you just mentioned and the location of the road, the applicant has volunteered to say that he will not relocate the road to fit any transitional units. That can be taken care of an additional standard (sic). Now, barring that, I still-- anywhere we go with an SDP review, I'm not in favor of that. That gets too much -- look how much we spent today just trying to get some next changes to a PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me clarify myself. I don't want to do an SOP review. I never said that. What I'm stating in there to discusses what it is they want to bring before the Planning Commission to do, which is the number of units, the square footage, the building design, landscaping and parking. Just in the design phase. Obviously that's not a complete SOP review and I don't think I've ever mentioned that we want to do an SDP review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, we were assigned a responsibility to do something like an SOP review by the commission with regard to rather tall buildings, and we spent a lot of time preparing for that. I can't remember the name -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was a Burt Harris claim on the Cocohatchee, and that was an attempt to settle it out of court and that's what we were -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I don't know, I spent a lot of time reading and learning and performing and I don't think we actually ever really got to deal with the SDP issues, and I don't think that I would have been effective in it. All I'm saying is for -- and I Page 230 December 17, 2009 haven't heard a thing in contrast to -- I haven't heard a thing about gee, we're not crazy about the structure or we really want to know what the structure is. I would not -- without taking issue, I would not want to go venture into that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think for the matter -- Brad did clarify after I made my comments that he didn't mean SOP review. I'm not sure what -- what he's saying is we'd have to define another type of review, I guess, and establish -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All's I'm saying is it would just come through here for a public hearing. We have looked at designs of things and had public hearings without the level of detail of an SOP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Burt, did you want to contribute something? MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, if I could just simply add, you know, we're putting development standards criteria into this ordinance. Now, in addition to that, you have setbacks, you have parking requirements, you have certain code requirements. We're going to comply with all that. That's part of the SDP process. To bring that back to you is just simply looking at the codes and seeing if we're complying with the codes. That's what your staffs going to do. That's why you don't do SDP reviews anymore. So I would reject to the thought of having a public hearing on some type of SOP review, even though it's not quite an SOP review. Because that's going to take place. You've got codes in place to ensure that those standards are built in. So I don't think it's necessary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the reason why, is that the staff review is not a public review. The neighborhood that is concerned about how this is designed does not have any options on that. In a public hearing, which a Planning Commission can review, that's the only reason, just to bring it into the public light prior to going into the SOP process. Page 231 December 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think maybe to get to the -- get to a point where we can move forward, Mr. Schiffer is suggesting that we do some kind of further review of this besides what we've done today, after we vote today. Is that going to carry the majority of this board? I for one don't see it. Mr. Murray is shaking his head, Mr. Wolfley, Ms. Homiak. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think it's going to carry the board, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go on and have another discussion about any other issue then. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm prepared to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's make sure we're done with discussion. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There were some statements made about traffic. I feel that the -- THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Wolfley, could you get on the microphone. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, Geez, and I'm the one always complaining. I feel that if the transient units are built, there will be less traffic, not more, because they'll be staying on the property. So I never did get that part of it, or understand it. And I think it's also unfortunate that the -- some of the dissenters that I spoke to have not taken the time to meet with Mr. Bouchard. And, boy, that's critical. You know, if you've got an issue with somebody, get up and see them. Talk to them. Find out, maybe it will change your mind, maybe it will change his mind. You know, that's unfortunate that didn't happen. I did, by the way, for one of you, sir, I did find the section about the time line of the construction, and that's why we're here. Page 232 December 17, 2009 But due to -- I didn't finish my thought, so that's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I just want to add one thing. In my disclosures, in addition to Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Saunders, I did speak to Mr. Davis by phone. I didn't want to let that detail slip by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have any discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm prepared to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would -- in consideration of all the facts and factors, I am recommending we forward to the Collier County Board of Commissioners PUDA-PL-2009-781, the Naples Bath and Tennis Club planned unit development. I recommend approval. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the -- is that recommending approval subject to the -- not only the standards that were in the ordinance that we've got in front of us but also to the fact that the applicant volunteered not to relocate the road to fit transitional units? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. He volunteered it. I assume that's a good faith offering and we'll go with that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The second agrees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second agrees. Any discussion on the motion? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I will not be voting for the motion. I think that Judge Brousseau's order was perfectly clear. I think the PUD is perfectly clear. And I would cite not only 2.6 and 4.6 in that regard, but also the statement of intent, and that's the net result Page 233 December 17, 2009 of the entire venture will be an exclusive residential community of high quality. I think that what has morphed over the years has become a highly commercial operation as opposed to a private tennis club. When Mr. Bouchard bought into this club, it was the understand -- with the understanding of the Judge's order, because that happened prior to his purchase of it. And so I will not support the motion. He knew what he was getting into. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I endorse Donna Caron's comments and also add to it that I don't think it's right or in the public welfare to enable someone to buy some property when they're dependent on such a thing as will there be hotel rooms or not and then change it after the judge has decided it's illegal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question with regard to that, because that keeps on surfacing. I am under the distinct impression, otherwise I should never have made a motion for approval, that the encumbrances that was once in place under Judge Brousseau has been removed. That being the case, I made a motion in positive. So if that's the case, I would like it reaffirmed, if you would, SIr. MR. KLATZKOW: That is the case. As you remember, when this came here the first time I said you can't vote on it. And now you can. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I will be supporting the motion in spite of some of the disagreement I have with the comments made by the applicant. So I'm not buying into everything that we were told today, but I think that the text of this change protects the community in the style in which this is to be done. Yes, it is density, but I think the traffic considerations that are being added take care of that. So therefore, I'll support it. Page 234 December 17, 2009 And with the trouble that clubs are getting into across this county right now and the homeowners are going to have to foot the bills if they're not there, I think this is a minor element to add to make it come out right. So with that, all those in favor -- I think we'll do the hand thing again -- signify by saying aye and raising your hand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All those opposed? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion carries 6-2. MS. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, I think that takes us to-- there's no old business. I think public comment's been had. And we have one other announcement to make. Everybody, please, have a very Merry Christmas. Thank you. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. Page 235 December 17,2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5 :08 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 236