Backup Documents 02/23/2010 Item #16I
16/
i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 23, 2010
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Airport Authority:
Minutes of Noyember 20, 2009; December 14, 2009.
2) Collier County Citizens Corps:
Agenda of December 16, 2009.
Minutes of December 16, 2009.
3) Collier County Planning Commission:
Minutes of December 16, 2009 joint workshop w/CRA and IMPVC;
December 17, 2009.
4) Library Adyisory Board:
Agenda of January 20, 2010.
Minutes of December 9,2010,
B. Other:
1) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate:
Minutes of December 4, 2009.
.
.
"
. "
",
RECEIVED 16 I 1 AI::! or~
JAN 2 2 2010 Henning q! .
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY Co Ie V
ml"ttl'~ ~(;ULAR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 20~_TING Tc..{r.:;P
MEMBERS Byron Meade
PRESENT: Jim Murray
Miehael Klein
Frank Secrest
Dave Gardner
Floyd Crews
Lloyd Byerhof
STAFF:
Theresa Cook
Jennifer White
Bob Tweedie
Winona Stone
Debi Mueller
Debbie Brueggeman
PUBLIC:
Mark Minor
Marvin Courtright
Wayne Arnold
Pete Salazar
Dave Odom
Pat Utter
Tim Parker
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Meeting ealled to order at I :00 p.m. A quorum was present throughout the meeting.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following item was added to the Agenda as Item VII.
VII. Diseussion regarding Airport Authority Interim Manager/Direetor
Mr. Crews then made a motion to approve the agenda, as amended. Mr. Murray seeonded, and
the Agenda, as amended, was approved by a 7-0 vote.
IV. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 12, 2009 MINUTES
Mr. Byerhofmade a motion to approve the Oetober 12, 2009 minutes. Mr. Gardner seeonded,
and the Oetober 12,2009 minutes were approved unanimously.
V. FINANCE REPORT FOR YEAR-END SEPTEMBER 30,2009
Staff addressed questions regarding year-to-date versus annual budget profit and losses. No
action required.
VI. WORK ORDER/AGREEMENTS STATUS REPORT
The work order status report provides an update of the outstanding work orders and
eontracts/agreements, including payments made to date. No aetion required.
VII. DISCUSSION REGARDING AIRPORT AUTHORITY INTERIM
MANAGER/DIRECTOR
Following diseussion regarding the immediate need to fill the vaeaney being created by the
resignation of the Executive Direetor; the qualifications of several candidates being considered
to fill that vaeancy; the various options for the reporting relationships bCJt.II5!l~IM\l BCC, the
Authority and the Executive Director that will be presented to the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) at the December 1,2009 BCC meeting; and the AlI\lfnrt Anthority')
authority, Mr, Klein made a motion to: '!Pm -1/ a ~ d--. ~ I to'"
101(1)4 I
16/1 A 1
..
CCAA Minutes November 20,2009
Page 2
1. appoint Debra Brueggeman to fill the vacant position created by the resignation of
the Executive Director, on an interim basis, and authorize the Authority Chairman to
work with the Human Resources Department to set satisfactory compensation
during the interim period,
2. recommend to the BCC that the Airport Authority retain its current structure, and
3. recommend that the BCC approve the Authority to begin a search for a new
Executive Director.
Mr. Gardner seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
VIII. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Updates and discussion of the following took place:
Immokalee Regional Airport. The low bid for the CCAAlUSDA Manufacturing Facility is
approximately $700,000. The USDA must concur with the engineer's and Authority's
recommendations regarding the award of the bid before the bid can be awarded. The
Authority discussed the possibility of working with the low bidder/contractor to incorporate
environmentally friendly features into the building. Mr. Byerhofwill be the Authority's liaison
with the contractor and potential suppliers of environmentally friendly/green materials on this
project.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has requested a clean copy, not a draft, of the
proposed agreement for the acquisition of 103 acres needed for the runway extension, and has
expressed concerns regarding airport access as specified in the proposed agreement.
The Authority indicated that ground breaking ceremonies should be held for the Apron
Expansion and Parking Lot Relocation at the Mareo Island Executive Airport and for the
CCAAlUSDA manufacturing facility at the Immokalee Regional Airport, and requested that
Mr. Gardner and Mr. Crews, respectively, help coordinate each of those ceremonies.
Everglades Airpark. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is interested in purchasing a 52-acre tract
of land in Everglades City for public benefit for use primarily as a public park with water
access. TPL would like to aseertain the Airport Authority's level of interest in acquiring about
five (5) acres of that land near the existing hangar facilities.
The FAA has been notified of the new frequency. The December 17, 2009 issue of the Airport
Facilities Directory (FDA) will contain the updated frequency information, and new sectional
aeronautical charts with the updated frequency will be issued on February 11,2010.
The Authority agreed that a "Ribbon Cutting" ceremony should be held at Everglades Airpark
when the T-hangar building is completed, and asked Mr. Klein to coordinate that event.
IX. NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Klein made a motion to approve Resolution No. 10-05 affirming the Board of County
Commissioners approval and authorization for the Airport Authority to utilize $83,850 from the
Immokalee Infrastructure Fund 497 to front-fund the rcconstruction of the Sheriffs dwelling
and Tiki Hut at the Everglades Airpark. Mr. Murray seconded, and Resolution No.1 0-05 was
approved unanimously.
Y:\Administration\AA BoardIMinutesI11-20-09 minutes.doex
c2
CCAA Minutes November 20, 2009
16/1
Al
Page 3
Mr. Murray made a motion to approve Resolution No.1 0-06 recommending awarding bid
number 09-5234 "CCAAlUSDA Manufacturing Building at Immokalee Airport" to the lowest
qualified, responsive bidder meeting specifications, DeAngelis Diamond Construction, and
authorizing the Authority's Chairman to sign a contract in the amount of $752,244.80,
contingent on USDA approval. Mr. Secrest seconded, and Resolution No. 10-06 was approved
unanimously.
Mr. Byerhofmade a motion to approve Resolution No. 10-07 accepting the Executive
Director's resignation effective December 4,2009 and waiving the sixty (60) days notice
required by the Executive Director's contract. Mr. Crew seconded, and Resolution No. 10-07
was approved unanimously.
Mr. Byerhof made a motion to approve Resolution No. 10-08 approving the appointment of
Debra Brueggeman to fill the vacant position created by the resignation of the Executive
Director, Theresa Cook, on an interim basis, and authorizing the Authority Chairman to work
with the Human Resources Department to set satisfactory compensation during the interim
period. Mr. Secrest seconded and Resolution No. 10-08 was approved unanimously.
Mr. Crews made a motion to approve Resolution No. 10-09 approving and authorizing the
Authority's Executive Director to execute Q. Grady Minor & Associates Work Order with
CCAA tracking number QGM-FT-3969-10-Ol in the amount of $6,500 to revise RLSA table
and map exhibits as necessary to incorporate the approximately 103 acres required for the near-
term extension of Runway 9/27 at the Immokalee Regional Airport into the Immokalee Urban
Area and the Immokalee Regional Airport Operations PUD. Mr. Gardner seconded, and
Resolution No. 10-09 was approved unanimously.
Mr. Klein made a motion to approve Resolution No. lO-lO approving and authorizing the
Authority's Executive Director to execute Q. Grady Minor & Associates Work Order with
CCAA tracking number QGM-FT-3969-10-02 in the amount of $14,750 for engineering
services required for the permitting and bidding of the south taxiway at Everglades Airpark,
pending FAA funding of this project. Mr. Secrest seconded, and Resolution 10-10 was
approved unanimously.
Mr. Klein made a motion to approve Resolution No.1 0-11 approving and authorizing the
Authority's Executive Director to execute Change Order #2 to Q. Grady Minor & Associates
Work Order #QGM-FT-3969-08-16 in the amount of$5,000 for electrical engineering services
required for the Everglades Airpark T-hangar project, increasing the amount ofthe work order
from $32,900 to $37,900. Mr. Byerhofseconded and Resolution No. 10-11 was approved
unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was then adjoumed "without objection."
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
L-r~~L_/d~
~ Byron Meade, Chairman
Y: lAdministration\AA Board\Minutes\11-20-09 minutes,doex
3
o Fiala {)f~ /
RECEIVE Halas f'1-t-ffl:: \.,/
JAN 22 2010 Henning -r II; /
Coyle \. TI
'l\7l~~~=~~f:;:O~~1(,~~~~~~-::~~~o~ETIJo"li 6/ 1 A 1
MEMBERS Byron Meade Richard Rice Lloyd Byerhof
PRESENT: Jim Murray Frank Secrest Floyd Crews
STAFF:
Bob Tweedie
Jennifer White
Debi Mueller
Winona Stone
Debbie Brueggeman
Jim Kenney
Lisa Morris
Tiffany Mendoza
PUBLIC:
Mark Minor
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Meeting called to order at 1:00 p,m, A quorum was present throughout the meeting,
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following item was deleted from the Agenda as Item VIII.
C. Resolution No, 10-14 approving and authorizing the Authority's interim Director to execute
Change Order #2 to Coral sands Contraet #09-5209 in the amount of $57,762 for electrieal
work required in the reconstruction of the T-Hanger building at Everglades Airpark,
increasing the total amount of the work order from $299,984,50 to $357,746.50.
Mr. Rice made a motion to approve the agenda, as amended. Mr. Murray seeonded, and the
Agenda, as amended, was approved by a 6-0 vote,
2. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 20, 2009 MINUTES
Mr. Crews made the motion approving the November 20, 2009 minutes. Mr. Secrest seconded
the motion, The November 20, 2009 minutes were approved unanimously,
3. FINANCE REPORT FOR PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2009
Mrs. Mueller addressed questions regarding year-to-date versus annual budget profit and
losses. No action required.
4. WORK ORDER/AGREEMENTS STATUS REPORT
Mrs. Bruggeman presented an overview of the work order status report, providing updates of
the outstanding work orders and contracts/agreements, including payments made to date, No
aetion required.
5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Updates and discussion of the following projects took plaee:
Mise, Corres:
Immokalee Regional Airport PUD - The Planning Commission Hearing is seh~ie8 fer
December 17, 2009, Final BCC approval is expected in late January or early ILliRljlar~.~~~:______,
C:\!l;es t_,
I
16/1
A te2
CCAA Minutes December 14,2009
Immokalee 20.000 Square-Foot CCAA-USDA Building ~ The Authority is awaiting USDA
concurrenee before awarding eontract. It is anticipated that construction/ground breaking will
start in the beginning of 20 I O.
Immokalee Business Center - A draft interloeal agreement with the Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) is being reviewedlrevised by staff and the County Attorney's
Office,
Everglades T -Hanger Proiect ~ The next step is the completion of the electrieal work,
Substantial completion is expected by January], 2010, with final completion due in February
2010.
Everglades Sheriffs Dwelling & Tiki Hut - According to County Purchasing Policy this
projeet must be bid. FEMA requires that any new structure/replacement be the same type as
that structure destroyed in order for the projeet to be eligible for reimbursement. Even then,
there is no guarantee that FEMA will provide reimbursement for the projeet or any portion
thereof.
Rookery Bay Mitigation - The CCAA "on site" mitigation at Rookery Bay required by the
Florida Department of Environment Protection (DEP) permit is eomplete. The permit requires
that annual monitoring of the site eontinue for five years. Staff is meeting with Passarella on
December 15,2009 to review the monitoring requirements,
Mareo Executive Airport Parking Lot & Aircraft Apron Expansion - The contract has been
awarded to DeAngelis Diamond. The required parking waiver has been granted, DEP/ERP
permit modifications are complete. Q. Grady Minor (QGM) is preparing the final SDP
submittal, and construetion is scheduled to start the beginning of January 2010,
Marco Executive Airport/Marco Shores PUD Amendment ~ The existing Marco Shores PUD
does not permit airport related uses on the 1.01 or 2.73 aeres aequired by the Airport Authority.
The Authority has been granted a two-year waiver to expand the aircraft apron and reloeate the
vehicle parking. However, within that time frame, the Marco Shores PUD needs to be
amended to reflect the County's intended airport related land uses on these parcels ofland, A
Q. Grady work order to amend the PUD is pending CCAA approval.
Exeeutive Director Search -A recruitment plan has been drafted by the County Human
Resources (HR) Department, and is being reviewed by County Attorney for compliance with
Sunshine Laws. The salary will be commensurate with experience, The Authority's Chairman
should receive the recruitment plan for review and comment the week of December 14, 2009,
The position will be posted on the American Assoeiation of Airport Executives (AAAE) & the
County website for 30 days, Applications/Resumes will be submitted through HR.
1. Ms, Stone will review the wording of the job description with HR,
2. Mr. Meade suggested the following participate on the selection committee: Mr.
Klein, Mr. Byerhof, Mr. Rice, Mr. Murray, Mr. Secrest, Mr. Crews, Ms. Stone and
himself.
FY 2001 Budget- The proposed fiseal201 0 budget will be distributed to the Authority in
February 2010, and is due to the County Budget Office (OMB) in March,
Y: iAdminislrationt4A Board\lvlinutes\! 2. 14.09. doex
[;L
CCAA Minutes December 14,2009
...
Page 3
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Resolution No. 10-12 amending the Authority administrative Code adopted August 9, 2004
to delete the requirements that the Executive Director be a fully accredited Airport
Executive (AAE) prior to being considered for permanent employment. Mr. Crews made a
motion that the Executive Direetor must be a Certified Member (CM) of the Ameriean
Association of Airport Executive, be working toward a CM or have at least three years of
airport management experience, and an AAE is preferred. Seeonded by Mr. Murray, the
motion passed unanimously,
B. Resolution No. 10-13 approving and authorizing the Authority's Interim Director to exeeute
Q, Grady Minor & Associates work order with CCAA tracking number QGM-FT-3969-10-
03 in the amount of$20,750 for engineering services required to amend the Mareo Shores
PUD and Maser Plan to address properties acquired by Collier County adjacent to the
Marco Island Executive Airport. Mr. Crews made a motion to approve. Seconded by Mr.
Murray, the motion passed unanimously,
C. DELETED: Resolution No. 10-14 approving and authorizing the Authority's interim
Director to exeeute Change Order #2 to Coral sands Contract #09-5209 in the amount of
$57,762 for electrical work required in the reconstruction of the T-Hanger building at
Everglades Airpark, increasing the total amount of the work order from $299,984.50 to
$357,746.50, A revised change order will be presented to the Authority for approval at the
January 2010 meeting.
D, Assignment of Board Members to County Commissioner for month of December. Mr.
Meade requested that each Board Member visit with one County Commissioner every
month and provided a list indicating whieh Commissioner each Board Member should plan
to meet with prior to the next CCAA meeting.
E. Resolution 10-15 approving and authorizing the Authority' Interim Director to exeeute the
attached sub-lease Agreement between the Authority and Robert Gretzke, d/b/a Wings for
Specialized Aviation Service Operations at the Everglades Airpark. Renewal of Lease. Mr.
Crews made a motion to approve, Seconded by Mr. Secrest. Motion passed unanimously,
Motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Prior to adjourning, Mr. Meade requested that Mr. Tweedie provide a catering report at the January
meeting.
The meeting was then adjourned "without objection,"
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
C-z_e-<-<-d I~ /~~"".'
Byron Meade, Chairman
~\
y- \Administratjon'\AA Board\Minufes'IJ 2. J 4.09docx
3
161 1 A 2
i
,
Citizen Corps Advisory Committee
Agenda December 16, 2009
American Red Cross Chapter
12:00
Pledge of Allegiance
-Opening Remarks
-Roll Call
Chairman
Sheriff's Office CERV
USCGA Red Cross
Chamber of Commerce
Fire Chiefs CERT CAP
Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army
EMS EM
City of NapJes
Cleveland Clinic
Health Dept
Everglades City
NCH
Medical Examiner City of Marco Island
Neighborhood Watch
12:05 Approval of Minutes Chairman
12:10 Threat Update Lt. Jones
12:15 New Business Chairman
. Elections Chairman
. Special Needs Planning Group Judy Scribner
. HI N1 Update Kathleen Marr
. Upcoming Exercises Joe Frazier
12:45 Old Business Chairman
12:55
Next Meeting/Adjourn
(20 January, 2010)
Chairman
Mise. Correa
IlImI:
Copies to:
Fiala
HEllas
~1.:nning
Coyle
Coletta
I
Collier County
Citizen Corps Advisory Committee
December 16,2009
16 f 1 A 2 I(
RECEIVED
JAN 2 9 2010
Voting Mem bers Present:
Reg Buxton, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce
Russell Rainey, Community Emergency Response Team
Jerry Sanford, North Naples Fire
Walter Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary
Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol
Deborah Horvath, American Red Cross
Captain Castillo, Salvation Army
Lt. Mike Jones, Collier County Sheriffs Office
Board of County Commjs~IOnJfS
Voting Members Absent:
(Excused Absence)
Expert Consultants Present:
Jim vonRinteln, Collier County Emergency Management
Greg Speers, East Naples Fire District
Voting Members Absent:
(Non-Excused Absence)
James Elson, Collier County Veterans Council
Meeting was called to order at 12:00 noon,
Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken.
Approval of Minutes
Motion to accept the minutes of the October 21,2009 and November 18,2009, meetings made by Reg Buxton and seconded
by Debbie Horvath, Approved unanimously,
Threat Update
Per Lt. Jones, there are no changes to the current threat situation - Elevated Threat (Yellow) at the National level, and high
level for domestic and international travel. No crimes reported in the parking lots during the holiday shopping time,
Recommend everyone remain vigilant.
New Business
Elections
Nominations were made at last month's meeting as follows: Reg Buxton as Chair of the Citizen Corps; Russ Rainey as
Vice-Chair; and Jerry Sanford as Secretary, All were elected to their posts unanimously,
Special Needs Planning Group
Judy Scribner reported on this FEMA-endorsed training that she and Patti Clemens attended, Collier County doesn't have a
planning organization/consortium related to special needs, Dan Summers asked that Judy get the Citizen Corps to approve
participation in this organization, if they choose to do so, She has started a contact list that the community can possibly use,
Reg asked that Judy keep this group up-to-date, If any of the individual organizations want to participate or contribute
something to this, please contact Judy,
As a side bar, Jerry Sanford mentioned that Pelican Bay is starting a buddy group at the high riseM~~Fallels this
information. It is similar to the North Naples SOS program, He will keep Judy posted on how thIS wOrkscout.
Date:
ltem#:
Copies to:
,
16, 1
A2 1
2
HINl Update
Jim vonRinteln shared the schedule of inoculations, in both English and Spanish. Since the vaccinations are being given to
the population at large, we are seeing about 2,000 given per day. There is an adequate amount of vaccine, Children under 9
require two shots, If anyone has any questions, the hotline number is 877-352-3581, There was a question about tile recall
of some ofthe vaccines, That was due to the fact that they were not as potent as they should have been. The regular flu
shots are also being given at the locations,
Upcoming Exercises
Joe Frazier has a tabletop exercise coming up on Saturday, January 30 at 8:30 a.m, at the EOC for the CERT groups. This
will involve a tornado, A full-scale tornado exercise will be held in late February for this same group, to include search and
rescue, triage, first aid, etc. No date or location has been set yet. He may look into the strip mall area at 951, which is
vacant.
NCH is doing a decontamination event on Friday, February 5 at both the downtown and north campuses, Joe needs 40
CERT volunteers to help out - he'll send infonnation on this to all.
PMRC will have a pandemic flu exercise, with a mutation of the H1N1 virus on Thursday, February 25. This will test
communications and incident command, It will begin in the EOC as a tabletop exercise, followed by lunch at PMRC, with a
functioning exercise after that.
Old Business
Still need Committee representatives for RSVP and CERV voting member positions.
Other
Per Jerry, there will be a CERT State conference from March 3 through 5 in Umatilla, Florida. Accommodations are very
rustic, Jamie Cunningham, John Riley and Jerry will be attending from North Naples. Jim said a good goal would be to
send one representative from all the various CERT teams. He will pass the information along to our two dependant fire
districts, Reservations must be received by January 15, The $165 charge includes meals - you need to bring your own
linens, etc,
Debbie said the American Red Cross' Christmas angel again this year donated $10,000, ARC purchased $200 Super Target
gift cards for Collier County active military personnel. They need a card and license for identification, There are
approximately 23 remaining, if you know of anyone,
Jim announced an organizational change for the Citizen Corps - Joe will be focusing on exercises, so Jim and Judy will pick
up the group from the Emergency Management standJXlint.
Greg Speers announced that there will be anew CERT training, The Sheriffs Office is joining in with the training, as
requested by SheriffRambosk, through Chief Bloom, Greg feels that it will give folks more of a buy-in with CERT teams,
With no hurricanes, CERT doesn't feel it is as much of a priority. The SO training will start in mid-January - they are fine-
tuning the curriculum.
As a refresher to all, Jim handed out a copy of the Citizen Corps ordinance, which establishes duties, etc.
Next Meeting/Adjourn
Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 20 at 1:45 p.m, (to be held earlier in order to aceommodate a few of the
members), Please note that we will meet at the Health Department eonferenee room on the 20d floor of building H at the
main campus, Room 202, Motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:30 p.m. made by Reg and seconded by Russ Rainey.
Approved unanimously,
_-it~l
<1. ;i/"
Minutes submitted by Mary Ann Cole,
Reg Buxton
Approved by Chair:
16 I 1 A 2
"'"
j
Collier County Citizen Corps
Advisory Committee
Collier County Sheriffs Offiee
Building J
3301 Tamiami Trail, East
Naples, FL 34112
Attn: L l' Mike Jones
520-1812
Collier County CERV Coordinator
Vacant
Collier County Fire Chiefs Association
1885 Veterans Park Dr.
Naples, FL 34109
Attn: Jerry Sanford
597-3222 x347
587-7959
gsanford@northnaplesfire.com
Collier County CERT
3725 Montreux Lane, # 104
Naples, FL 34114-6476
Attn: Russell D. Rainey
430-0214
403-0215 (F)
rrainey@swfla.rr.com
777-0895 rtJ
Naples Squadron of the Civil Air Patrol
1650 Mullet Ct.
Naples, FL 34102-1526
Attn: Doug Porter
417-9890
rtJ 860-5560
dporterI43@eomcast.net
Coast Guard Auxiliary Squadron 95
420 South Barfield Drive
Marco Island, FL 34145
Attn: Walter Jaskiewicz
389-0723
821-8183 rtJ
captwrj@aol.com
American Red Cross
2610 Northbrooke Plaza Drive
Naples, FL 34119
Attn: Deborah Horvath
596-6868
775-8668(H)
777- 7957rtJ
deborahhorvath@hotmail.eom
Collier County Veterans Council
680 8th Avenue South
Naples, FL 34102
Altn: James H. Elson
860-0009rtJ
434-2652(H)
jelsonl@comcast.net
Naples Area Chamber of Commerce
11806 Quail Village Way
Naples, FL 34119
Altn: Reg Buxton II
572-0051
514-2371
16/1 A 2
1
nnjournal@swfla.rr.com
Collier County RSVP
Vacant
Salvation Army 775-9447
P.O. Box 8209
Naples, FL 34101
Attn: Alejandro Castillo
Alejandro _ Castillo@usr.salvationarmy.org
City of Naples
735 8th Street, South
Naples, FL 34102-6796
Attn:
213-4900
City of Marco Island
1250 San Marco Rd,
Marco Island, FL 34145
Attn: CAPT Dave Bear
389-5050
Everglades City
Office of the Mayor
P.O. Box 50
Everglades City, FL 34139
Attn:
695-4114
Collier County Emergency Management
Harmon Turner Building
3301 Tamiami Trail, East
Naples, FL 34145
Attn: Dan Summers
252-3600
Collier County Neighborhood Watch
Joe Irene
5091 Coldstream La.
Naples, FL 34104
793-9163
649-8508
2
16 I 1 A 2
....
"!
Collier County EMS Department
Building H
3301 Tamiami Trail, East
Naples, FL 34112
Attn: Dan Bowman
253-7130
danbowman@colliergov.net
Collier County Health Department
Building H
3301 Tamiami Trail, East
Naples, FL 34112
Attn:
466-8633
774-8210
District 20 Medical Examiner
3838 Domestic Ave
Naples, FL 34104
Attn: Dr. Marta Coburn
596-5877
434-7767
434-5021
860-4379 <<J
Naples Community Hospital
350 7'h Street, North
Naples, FL 34102
Attn: John W. Brown
436-5470
417-4827
289-7813
john.brown@nehmd.org
Cleveland Clinic - Naples
6101 Pine Ridge Road
Naples, FL 34119
Attn:
348-4419
3
1611
1~j ?
_.~
Collier County Government
Communication &
Customer Relations Department
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
Contact: (239) 252-8848
www.colliergov.net
www.twitter.com/CollierPIO
December 8, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WEDNESDA Y, DECEMBER 16, 2009
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting
on Wednesday, December 16th at 12 noon at the American Red Cross office, located at 2610 Northbrooke
Plaza Drive, Naples 34119. Please note that this meeting will be a working lunch.
In regard to the public meeting:
All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objeetions, if any, in
writing, to the board/committee prior to the meeting if applicable, All registered public speakers will be
limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman.
Collier County Ordinance No. 2004-05 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying
activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board
or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Reeords Department.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,
you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please eontact the Collier County
Facilities Management Department, located at 3301 E, Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252-8380, at
least two days prior to the meeting, Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the
Board of County Commissioners Ot1ice,
For more information, call Joe Frazier at (239) 252-3600,
-End-
1611 A 2
.....
ColeMaryAnn
Subject:
FW: Citizen Corps News Digest
From: FrazierJoseph
Sent: Wednesday, November 25,20098:16 AM
To: BowmanDan; ColeMaryAnn; Dan Anderson; Dan Zunzunegui; David Baer; Debbie Horvath; Doug Port; Floyd Chapin;
foord_m; FrazierJoseph; Jerry Sandford; Jim Elson; Joe wilkins; Kathleen Marr; Lt Mike Jone; Major Alejandro Castillo;
Maria Bernaldo; Mike Jones; Mike Murphy; Nfn-11555; Phil Reid; Reg Buxton; Russ Rainey; Ryan Frost; scribner.j;
TeachScott; Ted Soiiday; TroneSue; vonrinteln--.i; Walt Jaskiewicz
Subject: FW: Citizen Corps News Digest
FYI
From: FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) [mailto:fema@service.govdelivery.comj
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 6: 16 PM
To: vonrinteln--.i
Subject: Citizen Corps News Digest
This Citizen Corps News Digest is provided by FEMA's Community Preparedness Division to highlight community
preparedness and resilience resources and activities recently announced by federal agencies and Citizen Corps partners,
Around the Country
Citizen Corps Stories of Service: Kloshe IlIahee Community
Residents at Kloshe IlIahee manufactured homes park are ready to take on disasters. The folks are trained through the
city's Community Emergency Response Team and are prepared for wind, snow, ice, power outages and earthquakes.
Residents embarked on their neighborhood emergency plan in 2005. The plan was finalized in 2006. Now, the group is
preparing a revision, with the goal of continuing self-sustainability in preparation for a disaster. If a disaster were to occur,
residents are not likely to see quick assistance from the county. "We're kind of isolated here," resident Ken Squier said.
"We're going to be taking care of ourselves."..
FEMA and DHS Updates
Volunteers UnsunQ Heroes in Disaster Recovery
DES MOINES, Iowa - One resident of Des Moines spent last Thanksgiving huddled in his living room, the only part of his
house still livable after the 2008 floods, He'll spend this Thanksgiving in his transformed home thanks to the efforts of
Iowa's hard-working volunteer agencies. When this man came to the attention of the Central Iowa Recovery Network
(CIRN), his house was a mess; the basement was flooded, the main water pipe had broken, and raccoons were living in
the bedroom made accessible when flood waters shifted the foundation. Volunteers quickly moved him into a hotel and
started work on the house. They helped him with his application for FEMA assistance and then found him an apartment
while United Way volunteers cleaned up his flood ravaged house. His caseworker helped obtain needed medication and
set him up with counseling services..
Partner and Affiliate Updates
Flu.qov Webcast: H1N1 BriefinQ for BloQQers and Their Readers- Nov 23
Join the live Webcast to learn detailed information about influenza prevention and treatment, warning signs for parents,
anti-viral medications, and vaccinations. A question and answer session will provide the opportunity to engage directly
with leading communication and public health experts, including Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of HHS and Anne
Schuchat, Director of the CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Viewers can participate in the
Webcast by sending questions via email to hhsstudio@hhs.gov or via Twitter by including the hashtag #FluCast in their
tweets.
Flu.QOV Webcast: Diabetes and the Flu
Know What to Do About the Flu Webcast Series: Diabetes and the Flu. This Webcast brings in experts to discuss how the
federal government is preparing and responding to the flu outbreak. Questions from the American people are answered
by the panel during each broadcast. Guests for this webcast include: Dr. Beth Bell, CDC's National Center for
]6r .:k2
~
'.
Immunization and Respiratory Diseases and Dr. Ann Albright, CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion.
H1N1 Flu Guide Helpinq Communitv and Faith-based Orqanizations across the Countrv
To help keep communities healthy during the flu season, the Health and Human Services (HHS) Center for Faith-based
and Neighborhood Partnerships (Partnerships Center) led by Alexia Kelley and with support from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, released an H1N1 Flu guide specifically targeted to help community and faith-based
organizations. Flu season is in full swing, and communities are finding innovative ways to spread awareness through
community outreach programs. Here are just a few examples.
SKYWARN Recoqnition Dav Set for December 5
The 11th Annual SKYWARN Recognition Day (SRD) Special Event will take place Saturday, December 5,2009. SRD is
co-sponsored by the ARRL and the National Weather Service (NWS) as a way to recognize the commitment made by
Amateur Radio operators in helping to keep their communities safe.
Holidav Mail for Heroes
In this season of hope and giving the American Red Cross and Pitney Bowes, Inc. have joined forces to invite Americans
to "send a touch of home" to United States service members and veterans across the country and abroad. In its third year,
the Holiday Mail for Heroes program is an opportunity to share joy and thanks with our service members throughout the
holiday season by way of a greeting card. People are invited to send holiday cards from November 2 until December 7
with messages of thanks and holiday cheer to a special post office box...
Grants and Funding
National Service Aqencv Promotes Fundinq for Veterans Proqrams
Washington, DC - On the heels of Veterans Day, the Corporation for National and Community Service hosted a
conference call to promote funding opportunities to support programs that leverage veterans' skills and expertise to serve
local communities through its Veterans Corps, a program authorized by the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.
These funds are part of the $363 million requested in the President's FY 2010 budget for the AmeriCorps program. "The
Corporation has a long history of serving veteran populations and their families, and engaging them in service to others,"
said Nicola Goren, the Corporation's Acting CEO. "We are now busy building bridges to veterans' service organizations to
fulfill the vision of the new law."
If you wish to receive community preparedness news each day, please sign up to receive our Communitv Preoaredness
News RSS feed, download the Communitv Preoaredness News Widqet. or visit our News & Events weboaqe,
Sincerely,
The National Office of Citizen Corps
FEMA Community Preparedness Division
2
!If>\&17JaJa~
~'i#' . "{1~~
f [-IfN"-1 '
. ~ RECEIVED
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE COLLIER COUNTY CIT NS J
CORI'S; PROVIDING FOR: TITLE AND CITATION; FINDING ~ ~
FACT; MI;;ETINGS OF TIlE COMMITTEE; FUNCTIONS, POWER , I_~&of.
ANI> DUTIES OF TIlE COMMITTEE AND WORKING GROUPS;
AI'I'OINTMENT OF MEMBlmS AND TERMS OF OFFICE; REMOVAL
F[{OM OFFICE AND FAILURE TO ATTENI> MEETINGS; OFFICERS,
QUORUM AND COMPENSATION; EXPERT CONSULTANTS;
REVIEW PROCESS; CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; INCLUSION
IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
16/1 A 2
"~
(
ORDINANCE 02-
56
WHEREAS, the Nation, State of Florida and Collier County are vulnerable to a variety of
terrorism events including the potential for biological, nuclear, incendiary, chemical and explosive
attacks that may result in damages causing substantial injury or hann to the population or
substantial damage to Of loss of property; and
WHEREAS, the President of the United States, through the Office of Homeland Security,
has asked our citizens to volunteer through local governments to assist in the fight against terrorism;
and
WHEREAS, Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Board of County Commissioners
to adopt an ordimmce creating advisory boards or committees; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of Collier County to establish this Citizens Corps as an advisory
committee to coordinate activities within Collier County in order to protect our citizens, to the
maximum extent possible, against the terrorism threat.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE: TITLE AND CITATION.
"j
This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Collier County Citizens Corrjs-Ordiriance.'~: :
SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT.
1. The Board of County Commissioners ("Board") finds that the President of the United States,
through the Office of Homeland Security. has asked Our citizens to volunteer through local
governments to assist in the fight against terrorism.
2. Chapter 125. Florida Statutes, authorizes the Board to adopt ordinances creating advisory
committees.
3. The Board finds that the creation of a Citizens Corps C'Committee") is necessary to provide
infonnation to the citizens of Collier County and to act as a coordinating agency for the
16 11 yq 2
......
...."
~
enhancement of activities that support emergency services, law enforcement and disast.er
prev,cntion, preparedness and response.
4. The Board finds that the Committee will assist in the recruitment of volunteers by
publicizing and expanding existing community programs such as: Medical Reserve, Neighborhood
Watch, Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), Volunteers In Police Service (VIPS) and
other public safety and law enforcement programs.
5. The Board finds that the Committee is necessary to facilitate communication between
Collier County and State and Federal agencies on mitigation activities as well as to enable Collier
County to identify outside resources such as grants, training opportunities and equipment.
SECTION THREE: MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE.
1. The Committee shall meet on a continuous and regularly scheduled basis.
2. All Committee meetings shall be open to the public and shall be governed by the Florida
Government in the Sunshine Law, All Committee meetings shall be held after reasonable public
notice is provided as to the location, time and subject matter of the meetings.
SECTION FOUR: FUNCTIONS, POWERS, AND DUTIES OF THE COMMITTEE AND
WOIlKING GROUPS.
1. The Committee shall be responsible for advising the Board of County Commissioners on a
wide range of domestic terrorism related issues.
2 The Committee shall act as a coordinating agency for the enhancement of activities that
support emergency services, law enforcement and disaster prevention, preparedness and response.
3. The Committee shall assist in the recruitment of volunteers- by publicizing and expanding
existing community programs such as: Medical Reserve, Neighborhood Watch, Community
Emergency Response Teams (CERT), Volunteers In Police Service (VIPS) and other public safety
and law enforcement programs.
4, The Committee shall act to facilitate communication between Collier County and State and
Federal agencies on mitigation activities as well as to enable Collier County to identify outside
resources such as grants, training opportunities and equipment.
5. The following working groups may be fonned 10 i.lssist Ihe Committee with Ihe galhering of
information:
A. Emergency Services Working Group
B. Volunteer Programs Working Group
C. Law Enforcement Working Group
2
D, Public Infonnation Working Group
E. Finance/Grants Working Group
J'..U 11 A 2
..
SECTION FIVE: APPOINTMENT OF VOTING MEMBERS AND TERMS OF OFFICE.
I. Composition of the Committee. The Committee shall consist of a broad base of citizens and
disciplines. The Committee shall consist of eleven (11)- voting members from the following
community agencies and organizations:
A. Collier County Sheriff's Office
B, Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
C, Collier Emergency Response Volunteers (CERV)
D. Collier County Fire Chiefs Association
E, Civil Air Patrol (CAP)
F, Coast Guard Auxiliary
G, American Red Cross
H. Salvation Anny
I, Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP)
J. Collier County Veterans Council
K. Collier County Business/Industry
2, Appointment of the Committee shall be governed by Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-
55, as it may be amended, or if repealed, by its successor ordinance.
3. Each member shall be considered a liaison between his or her respective agency and the
Committee. Those individuals shall be recommended by his or her respective agency to the Board
for consideration for appointment to the Committee. Appointments to the Committee shall be
approved by the Board of County Commissioners by resolution which shall set forth the date of
appointment and term of office of each member.
4. Collier County employees serving as Committee members shall be exempt from the County
Manager Administrative Procedure that prohibits employees from serving on advisory boards as it
is recognized that it is necessary and appropriate that certain specified Collier County agencies
participute as members of the Committee.
5. Term of Office. The initial terms of office for the Committee shall be as follows:
A. Six members shall serve for three (3) years
B. Five members shall serve for four (4) years
Thereafter, each appointment shall be for a tenn of four (4) years,
3
16~11A 2
!IIIl
I
SECTION SIX: REMOVAL FROM OFFICE; FAILURE TO ATTEND MEETINGS.
Removal from office and attendance requirements shall be govemed by Collier County
Ordinance No. 2001-55, as it may be amended, or if repealed, by its successor ordinance.
SECTION SEVEN: OFFICERS, QUORUM, AND COMPENSATION.
I. Each year the officers of the Committee shall be elected by the membership of the
Committee and shall include a Chairman, Vice-chairman, and Secretary from among the Committee
members. These officer's tenns shall be for a period of one (1) year with eligibility for re-election.
A. The presence of six (6) or more members shall constitute a quorum. The Committee may
adopt rules of procedure for the transaction of business and shall keep a written record of meetings,
findings and detenninations. Copies of all committee meetings and exhibits shall be forwarded to
the Board of County Commissioners.
B. The members of the Committee shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed
for per diem and travel expenses, only if approved by the Board in advance of any such
travel.
SECTION EIGHT: EXPERT CONSULTANTS.
1. Expert consultants from both the private and governmental emergency services community
as listed below are strongly encouraged to attend each Committee meeting on behalf of his or her
respective employer.
A, City of Naples
B. City of Marco Island
C, Everglades City
D. Collier County Emergency Medical Services
E. Collier County Health Depanment
F, District 20 Medical Examiner
G. Law Enforcement/Neighborhood Watch
H. Collier County Emergency Management
F. Naples Community Heillthcare System
G, Cleveland Clinic - Naples
2. Formill appointment of these expert consult..mts is not required, as each expel1 consultant is
not a member of the Commiuee, und consequently, no! permitted to vote.
4
'... <.IJ
,
J..
A2
SECTION NINE: REVIEW PROCESS,
The Committee shall be reviewed once every four (4) years commencing in 2006, in
accordance with Collier County Ordinance No, 2001-55, a~ it may be amended, or if repealed, by its
successor ordinance.
SECTION TEN: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY.
In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other
applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held
invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion.
SECTION ELEVEN: EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall hecome effective upon receipt of notice from the Department of State
that this Ordinance has been filed with the Department of State.
SECTION TWELVE:
INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES.
The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made part of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or re-
lettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or
any other appropriate word.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida this sa day of 1-....... t. .v, 2002,
"'"
. ~'l' ro~,f.'o""'",.
" /,J .....' tJ ".
~(f'rEST: ,:", ...
f ;O\YJ~I-ft: E.\!l~~, Clerk
; ~i: """":'l':;t~: ~ ~
\ \~<~~.~~:~;~~~i
By:-~~]k~~.,~~:z~ 1/.. /'
Deputy Clerk
.Attest as to Chall'llllll's
sIgnature Gil,.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: ~
JAMESN, COL A, Chatrman
Approved us to form and
legrd sufficiency:
This ordinance filed with the
Secrwtory of State's Office the
~of ~J~ =2..
and acknowledgement of that
flli~ received this ~ day
of ~~e~ 1c
y. Dorp....tyc~.
5
{.;
...,.
A2
.~
ColeMaryAnn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kathleen _Marr@doh,state.II.us
Tuesday, December 15,2009428 PM
Frazier Joseph
Cole MaryAnn
Citizens Corp
Joe,
I will be unable to make the Citizens Corp meeting tomorrow. Hopefully we can get back on schedule
re:consistent DOH/MRC representation next month. Please let the group know to call me for any
questions.
Thanks, Kathleen
kathleen man-@dl1h.statc.rI.U5
pfOilwtiJ
pnnnotj;-,i'J
Dlal!
in
putJJ1c health
ned~''-~: Ilute.: rt:wid;'l k15 d velD iH,)<'Jd pubiil
!)U"lncs~, iHC f'uL,I,c n~conj:" ,-lVdiL",ble td l-!'{~ F'uL;IIC
to f1ublic di~;cl():;u:'c
L,w. ;V~(lsl: wri\:!ell comnllJilic,:.JLiClIlb te, or
"Lite (l!~[Cldi::, re!j.::lnilng sL,te
,-In,J !1k:dl;] Llf~un r-('cluc~:,t. '-{Oil I" un,,:! C<lnlnllJ:-1IC;:1t1(m~:' J11dtj thcxcf(ll'C !){" suL:jcct
For up-to-date information about H1N1 Swine Flu visit http://www.myllusafetY.com or cal/877 352 3581
1
C"nll'-':.. C""IJ"ill('d../1dl-',,,g .D",IiUl,,'d
16
H1 N-1 Swine Flu Shots
Available
'COllier
County
Health
Department
ro/lre II"dlll,'S""O(O",-C",,,,,",,,,,,
* Former K-Mart - 12693 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34110
Corner 01 Tomiomi Trail East (Route 41) and Collier Blvd (Route 951)
- Friday, December 18th (10:00 am - 6:00 pm)
-Tuesday, December 22nd (10:00 am - 6:00 pm)
-Tuesday, December 29th (10:00 am. 6:00 pm)
-Tuesday, January 5th (10:00 am. 6:00 pm)
-Thursday, January 7th (10:00 am - 6:00 pm)
* North Collier Regional Park Exhibit Hall. 15000 Livingston Road, Naples, FL 34119
North Collier Regional Pork Exhibit Hall
-Thursday, December 17th, (10:00 am - 6:00 pm)
- Saturday, December 19th (10:00 am - 6:00 pm)
-Monday, December 21st (10:00 am - 6:00 pm)
-Monday, December 28th (10:00 am. 6:00 pm)
WHO WILL BE VACCINATED AT THESE CLINICS:
IEf OPEN TO EVERYONE
m G~t Vaccinated
, Practice Good Personal Hygiene
E.1 Stay Home if Sick
FREE-No Cost! Protect Yourself!
Insurance will be billed, please bring your card
For more information please call:
239-252-8200, hit option 2
CollierPrepares.org
,e:()lli@F
(, f",Ji!~~~~~\,
16 A
iVacunas contra la Gripe H1 N1
Disponibles!
/;';.!i,.II;.fi", ",:.'tJ,,,(:,.,,"UI:r
",~'u.<::','=,~~:::=-.=~,=l" "
"".""...",......" - =."^.,~'.r..-,"'."
", ,-,,,,,,
* Donde quedaba K-Mar. 12693 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34110
En la esquina de la Tamiami Trail East (Route 41) y Collier Blvd (Route 951)
-Viernes, Diciembre 18 (10:00 am - 6:00 pm)
-Martes, Diciembre 22 (10:00 am - 6:00 pm)
_ Martes, Diciembre 29 (10:00 am . 6:00 pm)
_ Martes, Enero 5 (10:00 am . 6:00 pm)
-Jueves, Enero 7 (10:00 am - 6:00 pm)
* North Collier Regional Park Exhibit Hall- 15000 Livingston Road, Naples, FL 34119
North Collier Regionol Pork Exhibit Hall
-Jueves, Diciembre 17 (10:00 am - 6:00 pm)
-Sabado, Diciembre 19 (10:00 am - 6:00 pm)
- Lunes, Diciembre 21 (10:00 am - 6:00 pm)
-Lunes, Diciembre 28 (10:00 am. 6:00 pm)
QUIENES PUEDEN SER VACUNADOS EN ESTAS ClINICAS:
tEl PARA TODAS LAS PERSONAS
~ V~cunese
~c Procfique Buena Higiene Personal
~ QuEidese en Coso si est6 Enfermo
Para mas informacion por favor lIame:
239-252-8200, marque 0
CollierPrepares.org
r,iala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
16 I lA 3
December 16,2009
/
RECEIVED
JAN 2 9 2010
doard of County Conunissjuil-::r:::
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION/COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND IMMOKALEE MASTER
PLAN & VISIONING COMMITTEE WORKSHOP
ImmokaIee, Florida, December 16, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, The Community
Redevelopment Agency and Immokalee Master Plan & Visioning Committee, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 4:00 P.M. in WORKSHOP SESSION at
the Career and Service Center at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee, Florida with the following
members present:
Chairman:
V. Chairman:
Mark P. Strain
Donna Reed Caron
Robert Vigliotti
Robert Murray
Karen Homiak
Brad Schiffer
David Wolfley
Tor Kolflat (Excused)
Paul Midney
Thomas Eastman (Excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmidt, CDES Administrator
Penny Phillippi, Executive Director, Immokalee CRA
Carolina Valera, Principal Planner
JetTKlatzkow, County Attorney
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
David Weeks, Planning Manager
Laura Gibson, Sf. Environmental Specialist
::. v~e~{ 'd-3/1 D
Item~JlptL l')A 3
1
Copies to:
._.._----~-_."-~.,,--~- _.__...._.._--=.,--"~ -.- -"'.,,-_..,....._.".,._._...,,_._,..._~--_.._"'- -
16/1 A" ~
December 16, 2009
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
2. Roll Call by Secretary
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
3. Opening Comments - Mark Strain, CCPC Chairman
Chairman Strain noted the Workshop is being held per a Community Redevelopment Agency
Request to provide a primer for the Collier County Planning Commission Transmittal Hearings
currently scheduled for February 16,2009. It is for informational purposes only.
4. Introduction of CRA, Committees and Consultants - Penny Phillippi, CRA Executive
Director
Penny Phillippi noted the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee have met monthly
over the past 6 years to develop the proposed Plan. The Committee will sunset on December 31,
2009.
She noted the Immokalee Vision "Those o{us who live and work in ImnlOkalee, envision a great
future for our town. We see new businesses andjob opportunities in international trade and
distribution, agri-business, eeo/aurism, recreation and entertainment and the construction
industry. We see lmmokalee as an attractive clean community with affordable workforce
housing, neighborhood parks and outstanding schools -- a place where people walk and bicycle to
do their errands, and where parents are returning to the classrooms to jinish their education and
master new job skills. Main Street will hill'c a Latinflavor - plazas, outdoor cafi!s, shops, and
entertainment - attracting both the local community alld the tourist who come to explore our
unique ecology or gamble at the Casino."
She recognized the members the lmmokalee Community Redevelopment Agency: Fred N.
Thomas, Jr. - Chairman, Rick Heer, Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo,
Captain Tom Davis, Edward (Ski) Olesky, Julio Estremera, Robert Halman (ex-officio), James
Wall, Mike Facundo, Ana Salazar:
and the members ofthe Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee: Fred N. Thomas, Jr. --
Chairman, Rick Heers, Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Edward (Ski) Olesky, Clarence S. Tears, Jr.,
Rev. Jean Paul, Estil Null, Pam Brown and Carrie Williams:
5. Status of the Immokalee Area Master Plan - David Weeks, AICP, Collier County Planning
Manager.
David Weeks noted the following:
. There will be 2 sets of transmittal hearings, the first set for a "preliminary approval"
when completed, the Plan will be sent to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for review and comment.
. The second transmittal hearings will be for the adoption process, and after adoption
of the Plan by the Board of County Commissioners, the Plan will be sent back to the
State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for Final Approval for
"compliance with State Law."
. Upon Final Approval there is a 30 day appeal period for interested parties.
. The hearing dates for the first transmittal phase are as follows:
. Collier County Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) - January 6, 2010
,.. Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)-February 16,2010
. Collier County Board of County Commissioners (13CC) - May 4, 20 I 0
~.. "It;-
".-..-.,-,._--"
"1:-',1.
-,,-..,..;
2
.
16/1 A 3
.
December 16, 2009
. The target date for the second transmittal phase (adoption hearings) are as follows:
. EAC - September 1,2010
. CCPC - October 28, 2010
. BCC - TBD - tentatively January 20 II
Implementation of the adopted Plan will require Growth Management Plan and Land
Development Code Amendments to create a zoning overlay applicable to the Immokalee
Community. The amendments must be enacted within 2 years after adoption of the Plan.
6. Background and History of the Immokalee Area Master Plan; Major Goals and Objectives
- Robert Mulhere, AICP, Mulhere and Assoc.
Robert Mulhere, Mulhere and Assoc., Chris Scott and Patrick Vanasse ofRW A, Inc.
presented a Slideshow entitled "CCPC Workshop - lmmokalee Area Master Plan." A copy of the
presentation is attached herein as "Addendum A." The slideshow will also be available online at
http://colliercra.com/immokalee/
7. Airport PUD Overview - D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, Director of Planning, Q Grady Minor
and Associates.
Wayne Arnold of Q Grady Minor and Assoc. provided an overview of the Immokalee Airport
PUD as a primer to the Collier County Planning Commission official hearing on the matter to be
held on December 17,2009.
He noted:
. The airport property is approximately 1,400 acres in size and operated by the Collier
County Airport Authority.
. There is a specific sub district (zoning) for the property.
. The application is to rezone the property from industrial/agriculture to allow uses
such as industrial, sod farming, runway expansion and to address current on-going
uses on the property (drag racing).
. There has been a Neighborhood Informational Meeting for the application.
· The application to be heard on December 17, 2009, includes SM square feet of
"development" (hangar space, industrial development) to address the long-term build
out opportunity of the Airport.
. The zoning change will create a minimal change in the existing zoning uses currently
on site, but assist in expediting development reviews.
. The Airport Authority and the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee
have coordinated their efforts for the development oflong term plans (Master Plans).
Break- 5:40pm
Reconvened - 6: 15pm
8. Public Comment and Planning Commission Discussion
fuleaker
Fred Thomas, Chairman, Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee noted
Immokalee is part of "Megaregion" (Miami, Orlando, Tampa) one of only 2 on the east coast of
the United States. The area has a high potential to develop goods for worldwide utilization,
especially pharmaceuticals based on plant life. Given the future development of the Seminole
Casino and the vast recreation opportunities, (Everglades eco-tourism, salt and freshwater fishing,
shopping, dining, nightlife and gambling.), the Region has the potential to be a large tourist
destination. He requested the Planning Commission assist those involved in moving the process
forward so lmmokalee may move forward in economic development.
3
, --...--.--.",.--^
U,.'___._""",,", _.".'~.."_
- -'-_...~.-~ ,~.-
16 I 1 A 3
December 16, 2009
Mr. Murray, CCPC requested clarification on how green house gases would be reduced as
indicated in the Slideshow, when the goal is to promote more traffic to the area.
Patrick Vanasse, RW A, Inc., noted the goal of the Plan is to diminish the "footprint per person"
(carbon) as the area develops.
Mr. Murray, CCPC requested clarification on the "Brownfield Designation" identified in
Immokalee, and recommended the ramifications of the designation be further investigated
(funding requirements, etc.)
Penny Phillippi noted there is only one Brownfield designation in "Arrowhead Subdivision." The
Plan considers the potential costs of the designation; the areas in question are mainly "cattle
dipping vats." The entire community is not a designated "Brownfield."
Discussion occurred on the specific areas cited for residential density changes and how the
demographics of the population will affect the devclopment and implementation of the plan. It
was noted the issues will be further addressed at the transmittal hearing.
Mr. Schiffer, CCPC requested clarification on why the eRA Boundary does not match the
lmmokalee Urban Area Boundary.
Penny Phillippi noted the boundaries were previously developed for different purposes. Upon
investigation it was determined amending them would be a lengthy and costly endeavor, so it will
not be addressed until after the Master Plan is completed.
Bob Mulhere noted a boundary revision would change the original scope of the Study as
approved by the BCC and impact the data analysis that has been completed.
Mr. Schiffer requested clarification if the building and related development design styles are
considered in the Plan. He recommended all involved view the movie "Frieda" as it will provide
great input into a style of development that may want to be incorporated into the Plan.
Patrick Vanasse RW A, Inc., noted the design details will be addressed at the implementation
phase of the Plan.
Mr. Midney, CCPC expressed concern Transportation Planning does not appear to provide for
the expansion of area roads necessary to implement the Plan and accommodate the proposed
expansion of the Seminole Casino.
John Podczerwinsky, Collier County Transportation noted they are attempting to address the
Issue.
Robert Mulhere, Mulhere and Assoc., stated the Community may need to determine the level of
congestion "acceptable" for the short term. As the area develops adequate funding will be
generated to construct the neccssary improvements.
Phil Tindall, Director, Metropolitan Planning Organization noted the State is in the process of
a Development and Environmental Study for State Road 29 and 82. The study is necessary to
receive Federal funding for infrastructure improvements in the area.
Fred Thomas noted Federal funding may be available as the area is a "home base" to the rapid
deployment of the Quarter Master Corps and the Fire Suppression Unit of the National Park
Service.
Rick Heers, Helping Our People in Emergencies (HOPE) noted the Master Plan is promoting
the area as a place to live as well as work. He used the example of teachers of which
approximately 95% of them travel from outside the area to work in Immokalee.
4
1611
A3
December 16,2009
Chairman Strain requested Mr. Mulhere electronically provide the following information to the
CCPC members:
. List of names of persons present
. Copy of Power Point presentation presented herein (or supplied by DVD)
. Information on the Immokalee MSTU (text, boundaries, graphics, funding sources,
etc.)
For the transmittal hearing he requested clarification on:
1. Possible discrepancies in the base density build out figures as provided.
2. If the Plan ensures tax base diversification as opposed to relying solely on high density
development for its tax base.
3. The conflict in the Plan where it attempts to capture "drive thru traffic" while promoting
llbypasses" .
In addition, provision of a copy of the Immokalee area "FlAM" (prepared by the
Regional Economic Research Institute for RMPK Group, Inc.) is supplied to Planning
Commission members.
4. How the Plan may be impacted by the Federal Emergency Management Administration Flood
Plain designations scheduled to be enacted in February, 20 I 0
Other considerations to be addressed at the transmittal hearings
Ms. Caron noted the Plan identifies many funding opportunities and available economic
incentives (Federal, State, etc) but requested clarification on the potential dollar amounts and/or
probability ofreceiving the funding.
Mr. Midney noted the Plan has a goal of promoting Open Space but requested details be provided
on how the goal will be achieved while promoting higher density development standards.
Mr. Schiffer expressed concern the 16 units per acre proposed density in the downtown core may
create a fabric of development contrary to some of the goals or vision of the Plan.
Larry Wilcoxson, Immokalee Resident, stated he grew up in Immokalee, left to attend Law
School, and now has returned. The Plan and everyone involved needs to focus on ensuring the
persons that grow up in the community have an incentive to remain or return to Immokalee after
education, and incorporate into the fabric of the community.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the Workshop was
adjourned by order of the chair at 7:23 P.M.
Collier County Planning Commission
~p
Mark train, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on l - "l.. \ - \ 0
as presented / or as amended
5
._-,---""-_._'..-_.,---"_....._-".,,,.
16 I, 1 A 37
December 17, 2009
RECEIVEiJ
JAN 2 9 2010
/
gl Si
's-~/
"j'~" ling =?~~
. 'e ~
.,oy. '. _ "_:
Coletta. 4 NSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
December 17, 2009
oct')
BOard of t.-ourii'y- CO'nfrllSSloners
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 J. Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District
Misc. Corres:
Date:
ltem#:
Page 1
Copies to:
161 1
-, IIIIIf
$)
,
, .~./
December 17,2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good moming. 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 Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner SchifJer?
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 Woltley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, sir.
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 of them. The first one up will be a continued item. And we
normally hear continued items first from prior meetings out of faimess. because they were here at a prior meeting
waiting to be heard. That one will be up tirst, and it's the lmmokalee Airport Master -- or PUD.
The second item is a variance request tor 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 tilling you in tor 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 taken, and everything is televised, so we do need
to talk a little slower, aT\d :we do need to not talk over one anothcr.
Page 2
161
December 17, 2009
~'
A3
'.
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~tand up. That will be certainly helpful.
Item #4A
NEW BUSINESS - REVISIONS TO THE GMP AMENDMENT HEARING SCHEDULE
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- well, the fIrst process tlmt 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 lmmokalee 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 having it here rather than us going out in Immokalee. The people in
lmmokalee 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 tllat 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. I was very 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, if there'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.
Page 3
'.i.'.'
1 p\l ~
, "I .,.
\.::t. J
lIIIII
~ t." ~
1
Deccmber 17, 2009
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 of line 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, 1 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 havc any comments') Does anybody object to the request of bringing it
back here?
Mr. Murray?
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 staff we 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: I--
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: If we meet in lmmokalee -- for the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Manager
for the county.
lfwe do meet on February 16th in lmmokalee, it would have to be at the lmmokalee 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 MURRA Y: And how many people would that have held?
MR. WEEKS: That would accommodate over 100.
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 ofthe 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 signiticant 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 datc only.
Page 4
16 / 1
A3
1
i
December 17, 2009
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, [ think that's a 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 lmmokalee is about an hour each way, butI'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 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 CCPC/CIE adoption hearing at 8:30 on January 5th.
So I guess that's not right.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, J 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 leaves a quorum.
Page 5
- --~"-'--'-- ''-'' ....,~._'"'
_ _,",'._'M._.__h_,_
"" ( ,
f"' . :'
Ii .<:> '.
. ,..,
: .JJ '
C;>~'o<
: A
, Decem er 17,20 9
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: 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 AUlR, 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 21st, 2009 AUIR minutesry
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: Ave.
~
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ave.
~
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ave.
.
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.
Pagc 6
16/1 iA3"1
December 17, 20{J,
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.
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 chainnan's report for today. We have enough on our agenda without
that.
Item #9A
PETITION: SV-PL2009-ll6S, BENDERSON PROPERTIES, INC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consent agenda items. First one up is the Petition SV -PL2009-116S, the Benderson
properties. That's on Wiggins Pass Road.
Is there corrections, changes, conccrns from the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: lfnot, is there a motion to recommend approval?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve. I would like to ask one question ofMr.
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 Ijust 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.
Page 7
"--'-"- ........~-~.._~~-._-----_..
1>f~; lA3 ~
<""., OeceJ,ber 17, 2009
All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Avc.
,
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: A vc.
,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ave.
,
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ave.
,
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ave.
,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
Item #98
PETITION: RZ-2008-AR- I 3951, OLDE FLORIDA GOLF CLU B, INC. .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Petition RZ-2008-AR-139SI, the Olde Florida Golf Club. It's on Vanderbilt Beach
Road extension.
Is there a discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is thcre 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: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(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- J 1398, Shoeso Properties,
LLC, also known as the Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
Page 8
16Jl:A3~
December 17, 2009
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, Ijust wanted to draw to your attention that the
Exhibit A with this ordinance, number 94 and number 151, statThas 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.
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.
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.
Page 9
,"-,,,-"....-.,.---. -.~.".".,--,. ,-
~<... ,I'
. f'
,:1'-
,.
lA3
,
"
,
I
-. ~ --
.
.. .
December 17,2009
Item#IOA
PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12294, lMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT PUD
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. that takes us to the first off our of our public hearings. The first one is
Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-I2294.
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 STRAfN: 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 --
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 lmmokalee Regional Airport.
With me today is Shane Johnson fTom 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 lmmokalee 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 lmmokalee 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 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 commerciaVindustrial
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 lIse program that also then looks at the operational
Page 10
1&j-1 A3 ,
December 17,2009
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 wning on the property. You 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 tllat
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 1 03-acre as
what's now going to be known as the Airport Industrial Subdistrict. And we can talk about any of that as 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 wne 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.
The I 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 nlnway 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
Page II
-- ------ - --.".-. -~-.~ - - ",-" ,.~-,_. -. "._.._.,._..,,~-_._~~., .-.....---
.'
ct ..
I I"
1\3
~ ,; t\ .
/.; u "
....
&."jt
",..
~c
December 17, 2009
that the line work is changed to only thosc uses that are allowed today in agricultural zoning, with the exception of
what's known as -- we added a referencc 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 othcrwise, 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 I OJ-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 ShOV,l1 on our line v,ork 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 havc an extensive preserve. We havc far more preservc 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 f,)r 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.
J did want to talk a little bit about the overall process that wc've had. We did have a neighborhood
information meeting out in lmmokalee it was not highly attended. But I think too as the master planning effort, this
process has been ongoing. The Airport Authority has had mcetings in lmmokalee, 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 -- I 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 I,mn. 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 uniquc 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 bcen for some years.
The other thing that's ongoing out there is the lmmokalee 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 havc
attended and we had conversations about how we kcep 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 middlc 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 usc 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. bccause camping does take placc in conjunction with some of the race events on
some of the wcckcnds.
We also then have thc industrial development tract, which has a long list ofpennitted uses that also includes
Page 12
16 i 1 A 3 ,
Decembetfl7, 2009
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 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 itselfthere.
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 --
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 nmway expansion occurs, which could be beyond easily a I O-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 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 school.
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.
Page 13
,_ ....... '__~_'_M~__'___."_" __
~._~_._-,-,--.~-, -
F\ ~ IlIII!\I
eo, "\ "
;,"\ J ""~
iJt'i~ .
c (.b~em_rer 17, 2009
t"_n
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: 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 KOLFLAT: 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 KOLFLAT: Well, what--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we just respond to the questions--
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- does the hlue indicate and what does the red indicate?
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Why don't we work from the one that's red and blue.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Okav.
~
MR. ARNOLD: If everybody has that one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any questions from that one, Tor?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: 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 MURRA Y: 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 ofthe 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 tenn.
Aside from that, I don't know thc distance there from the end of the runway. And then there's the green
space, that area where preswnably a plane, if it had to land on an emergency basis, would get tangled up in that
material.
Butl 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 Brueggerrnan is here. And I don't -- they've been trying to 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 lise, 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
Page l4
16/1 ~A3 ....
December 17, 200t
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 in our possession.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAlRMAN 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.
CHAlRMAN 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 I DO-foot tall communications type tower
facility. I know it doesn't say that. But again, we're dealing from a list of perrnitted 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 today industrial and we do nothing, the Collier family still has the right to put any ofthese uses
subject to FAA perrnitting 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 if
there's two people who are landowners? What if one owncr 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 Wlcommon 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 ofthis 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 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 if it -- what if we have to go that route? But you feel comfortable with going
ahead with this anyway, even though there is --
Page 15
- ".
.~-----~----'-'-' .
, L. ~ '\lP1l~, '2
,(0 ~ t ,; J
December 17, 2iJ{)tJ
III
F'
.
MR. KLATZKOW: 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 MlJRRA Y: All the way.
MR. ARNOLD: I believe the 10,000 foot runway extends almost to the eastern end of that expansion tract.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Almost to the eastern.
And how much ofa 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
] 08 acres in size. And it would then be encumbered with this runway protection zone status.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: This land that we're talking about, the 103 acres, right now it's rural RLSA
land, rural stewardship land. And the purposc 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 pUlling 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 runway gets extended. Because you have the runway protection zone issues. But you do need
to probably put more airport supportive facilitics 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 isjust 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') Becausc the purpose of RLSA 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 of a relinemcnt over the RLSA program we had.
When that program was adopted several years ago you didn't have the lmmokalee 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 isjust 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 MlDNEY: It is.
MR. ARNOLD: I think to the extent that this property may ultimately support a runway, I don't think you
lind that the runway protection zone doesn't necessarily translate to having physical improvements on it.
Butl 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 of every
opportunity they have in that program.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I think that if it's just 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 intensilication 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 lmmokalee. The -- any further expansion is going to require a Growth Management Plan amendment to
both the lmmokalee 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.
Page 16
16/1
A3
"
!
December 17, 2009
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 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 oflegitimized 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 offorce 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 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 Jot 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 ifthat'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. KLA TZKOW: 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 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. KLA TZKOW: 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
Page 17
~ , ! '" 1".7
~:::. b r: JL R:;
December 17.2009
~
the time right now to decide whether or not you want this. And if you don't want it, you know --
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Well, I don't know if it's really gone through the process ofa 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 illcgal nonconfonning use.
MR. KLA TZKOW: There's nothing illegal about it right now. But we'rc 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 pcrmission for incidental take from the Fish & Wildlife Service. And there was an extensive
biological opinion that basically dccided that yes, you would lose some scrub jays; yes, they are endangered; yes,
thcrc are only a few ofthem left. But you're going to havc 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 thcre arc 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 signiiicant area of part of the scrub jay area was cleared for line
of sight areas in the center ofthe airport, and so the --two of the five scrub jay families were actually on the east side
of the airport, which was not cven in the preserve.
Those -- you know, some peoplc will think, 011, scrub jays. what a nuisance. Here we have -- they're holding
up the whole industrial expansion of lmmokalee. 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 thosc birds, what kind of protection or stewardship have they done? Since the 2004
study, they haven't done any studics 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.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that the last item you have?
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Let's scc. Yeah, I have something else too. The transportation concurrency.
Apparently there's parts of this that are suhject 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 lmmokalee
and no plans to improve those for the next several ycars.
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 obi igation 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 stafTup here and then you can ask that of them.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Okay, then I'm ready to stop.
MR. ARNOLD: If I 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 ii-om staff until we finish with questions of Mr. Arnold.
Page I 8
16/1
A 3 ~:'
December 17,2001
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.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, 1 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 tenninal 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 standalonc 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 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?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, I have a few. Let's go to Page I 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 if there 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.
If 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, honestly, for the airport.
CHAlRMAN 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
Page 19
. .._._-~---,~-,--,
-.'.'^",-.--- -
-"-,~~,.
t/.,' ,.-
.'
r ..
,,' . '-.' -
Decem-ber I 7, 2009"
-
"
,
A3
and business park zoning districts.
111at 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
lmmokalee Area Master Plan industrial land use designation, it talks about not allowing -- excluding retail uses as a
perrnitted 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 lmmokalec 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 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 lmmokalee 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 rcterring you directly back to the Immokalee Area Master
Plan language. That languagc. 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 otller basic
commercial uses exccpt 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
vehlcle 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 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 entirely 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 perrnitted by the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm willing to move furward. ] don't see the problem with the retail. I only see the
problem with the inconsistency between what thc adopted plan is and what you're proposing.
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 fur a shot out of the dark.
MR. ARNOLD: I don't believe I know Ed Scott.
Page 20
16/1
A3
.4j
December 17,2009
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. KLATZKOW: It's always been my understanding that we 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 of 8.4 acres on the opposite side of Alachua Road that would be another extension ofthe 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 103-acre tract is an
approximate 1 08-acre tract that we looked at. 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 ofthose 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 ofthe 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; /Tom transportation, John Podczerwinsky; and
Susan Mason /Tom 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 ofthe 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 /Tom Corby Schmidt that addresses it specifically.
Page 21
, ,
t, ':,
.'
, '
~.,~ \~~'
.
i:\, L::
"....1
".' f:
il>; ,.,.,
J c:.~.F
.
-
Decembcr 17.2009
The growth management discussion also goes into the economic elemcnt, the transportation element and the
conservation and coastal management element. And staff is recommending that this project be found consistent with
all aspects of the Growth Management Plan.
There is an analysis ofthe request beginning on Page 8 of the staff report, and that includes the environmental
review, storm water management review, transportation, utility. emergency management, affordable housing and the
zoning review. The zoning review includes PUD findings and rezone findings, and staft's conclusion is that this is
consistent with those findings, they are all affinnativc. As already mentioned by the petitioner, he is requesting six
deviations from Land Development Code requirements. Staff has rcvicwcd those and analyzed those and is
recommending approval of all ofthosc.
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. Midnev?
-
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'd like to ask Corby Schmidt a question about his comment that we
had discussed on the way in.
MR. SCHMIDT: Good moming, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's on Page II 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 tile 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 picces you've bcen discussing in the last few
moments. They're the runway protection zone on one map that's been reterenced. 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: OfstatY>
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 tum.
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 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 every1hing is concurrency.
MR. PODCZERWlNSKY: 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.
Page 22
16/1 A3'1
December 17, 2009
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 c ve you the levels of service that
we have on those roadways and how much remaining capacity that we have on th s 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 rront 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. PODCZER WINSKY: Yeah, well, in today's condition there's no limit on the square footage. So rrom
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 rront of us today, so if you'd like, I can go
through the numbers rrom 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 tlley 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: Y eah,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. 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 rrom 100 million square feet to five million orrrom--
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 rrom. 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.
Page 23
.
A3
;
c..;
'c ",'
~ ,-J
.' , C!
December 17, Zlro9
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's good. That would be great.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, and then Mr. Midney.
MR. KLATZKOW: The marvels of Go ogle.
Okay, Ed Scott was a clerk of this county from 1932to 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 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 officc"
MR. KLA TZKOW: 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 tllat's a problem.
I can certainly consult with Debbie Brueggemlan 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 there would be no structures permitted. And that way somebody wouldn't be looking for a
development standard, ifthat 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 stafT 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. It 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 MURRA Y: Yeah, ifl'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 MlJRRA Y: Okay. Because I really nlthink 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 n
MR. ARNOLD: This is on the western preserve area.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's why I questioned--
Page 24
''''1
, '1'
.
,
.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- what J 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 MURRA Y: Right. And because the county doesn't own it today, J 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. KLA TZKOW: 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, letthcm 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.
J don't wish to be argumentative in any way, but yes, if they want 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. KLATZKOW: 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 whatI'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 MURRA Y: 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 conidors 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. J 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.)
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
Page ? 5
L7I
".
I ~, ,
-.!~ '.-;,1 .:
, .
A3
,
December 17.2009
PUDZ-2007-AR-12294.
Mr. Midnev?
.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, I would move for approval ofthis motion with some added conditions.
The first would be that the Airport Authority resume the controlled bum and exotic maintenance on the preserve
acreage.
The second would be tllat 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?
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: 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 bums 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 relatcs. I think we're bound to do that anyway.
And with regard to the prescribed bums, I don't know how regularly they're conducted anyway. Maybe the
management plan says it's done annually, but maybe it's biannually. ljust 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'sjust-- they'll be consistent with whatever plan they're supposed to be
consistent with.
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: IfMr. Midney could repeat the third condition. ljust want to make sure staff has it right.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No industrial development on the annexed property.
MR. BELLOWS: On the annex property.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Right.
MR. ARNOLD: Could we -- is that in reference to the expansion tract?
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Expansion tract.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just say expansion tract, because that's the tenninology used in the
PUD.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: Could I go back and clarify the scrub jay condition number two?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: lJh-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?
Page 26
16 I ~A 3 ,,'7
, rlcember 17,2009
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. But my question is if I'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 ofthe 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; 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: Ijust 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 lor principal, 10 for accessory, which is typical of your code.
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 ofthe 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 KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
Page 27
:r . A3 ,
De/!e'm b~r 17, 2009 '
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
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 therc any -- are you going to go forward with your project today, or are you so--
MR. SAADEH: I havc 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. SAADEII: 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 of the 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 II :30, we'll
come back here at 12:30. If they end at II :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 mav 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. there's a nice cafeteria downstairs if you want to
go to lunch or breakfast, a late breakfast, feel free. Ifwe 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#IOB
PETlTlON: VA-PL2009-l460, 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 MURRA Y: 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 28
16/,_A3 ;;
Jl.eceinber 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 of e-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] 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 V ineyards 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 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 Clubs ide 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 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 eitller Clubside Reserve or
anybody else surrounding the maintenance facility that's existing today.
Page 29
_..._,~---~-_.,...
16 , 1
A3
~
December 17, 2009
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 tum
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 havc. 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 PU D 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 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 tile
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 thc peak ofthe roof: the maximum required setback would be seven and a half
feet. That's it, seven and a halffect. 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, ljust 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 PU D.
The other reason is this benn -- and I'm going to show you pictures in a few minutes. This berm has been in
placc for 22, 23 years. It's very heavily landscaped. It's a gorgeous benn. And it doesn't make any sense at all to any
of the membcrs or to us, nor to county staff or anybody who's scen 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 you will see, that the
benn 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 !Tom 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, thcy 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 Clubs ide Reserve property, to just show them that it's impossible,
Page 30
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 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 oflegitimate 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 sec.
This is another picture of again when you stand on the garage -- 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 ofthe 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 of22 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 ofthe 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.
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 ofthe 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
Page 3 I
--'--_.._-~"'---
'"_."...~.~- <-"--~-_._..
16 111
A3
."~''''
"Il
Dcccmber 17, 2009
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, wc go furthcr 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 clse'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 totally approve and support this position. And what I've been
here today, had I not asked them to be here in rcspect 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 fdks in this room are seeing it.
With that, I'll thank you fllr 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 havc a rebuttal time, so you ccrtainly 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 the best of my knowledge. I've been there
fllr 23 years.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray"
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: 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 ITom 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.
Page 32
L
16 I Jecembe~7,~09
"".,
f
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 trom 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 trom 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 Review.
There are no side yard setbacks in the Vineyards PUD. So ifthis 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 trom 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
.,
Its 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.
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. I 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 trom 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: lfwe 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 trom 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.
Page 33
- ..
-'--~.~~~.'.'"- '--'.---'-''''
"_'~"'-~--~'-_.,."~"--"'-
'~......._._-"._---_..._~_.._---_.- ----....-.-
tfJ /" l'
" :"t'~" i
;
c;
,
,
A3
..
,
f
,
December 17, 2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, isn't the berm between 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 benn, okay.
All right, my question was, so cssentially have you really tried to design something around it? I mean,
obviously it's a uniquely shaped site. But you're actually the onc that shaped the site.
MR. SAADEH: Again, at the time, I mean, I'm talking 72 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 halffeet. 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 thc 50-foot is there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think John's going to --
MR. MOSS: Yeah, if I just may clarity 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 requiremcnt tor golf course maintenancc tacilities 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 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 morc question.
When you built the building next door, there's a big issue about between the building and the residential
property, that area's supposcd to be landscaped. Did that ever come up when you were building the maintenance
building to the east?
MR. SAADEl-l: Sir, we built the maintenance building to the east prior to ever putting the wall up or prior to
ever putting the landscaping therc. At the time we wcre to develop what was to bc known as Clubside Reserve, we
met with county staff and we said how about we put the butfer 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 butter -- I don't remember if it was
20 or 25 feet -- and properly landscape it. At the timc 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 creatcd that line. So it was totally consistent with whatevcr the county was
requiring in those days 13, 14 years ago.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. It is a beautiful butter. 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 submitted or referenced, were they submitted
to the staff?
MR. SAADEH: The ones that support our position')
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 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 packct.
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.
.
Page 34
16, 1
A3
'I
I
December 17, 2009
'.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 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 ofthis 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.
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 KOLFLA T: 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, 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. Ifwe 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
.
Page 35
16 , 1 A,
December 17, 2009
....
'1'
".,
.
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
ISO-acre or 16S-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 KOLFLA T: 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.
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 underthe current LDC today, the same
document that you're referring to, I would not even have to provide a one foot setback. I could put the building right
against the wall, Yet I'm offering 15 and a half f()ot 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 forthree
story over building -- over parking maintenance facility.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: J have no morc 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 storcd 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 undercover, 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 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, J 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. SAADEI.I: 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--
Page 36
1611 A 3 =l
December 17, 2009
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- code. . _
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 /Tom 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? If there's a fire -- and luckily, knock on wood, we haven't had one in 23 years. He said no,
if there's a fire, we're parking a truck in here, we don't want to go 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 SCHJFFER: 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 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 --
Page 37
_' n___.____.__.__'_._'_. __.<_ ,
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 ofthe 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 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.l 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 benn
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 benn 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 benn,
correct?
MR. SAADEH: Well, actually, this is the toe of the benn. The toe ofthe benn is right down here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But--
MR. SAADEH: This is the height of the benn with the pictures Ijust 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 benn 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 benn is certainly not in the middle. It looks further
towards where you want to build. But you could get a building, especially a building ofthis height. back into that
benn.
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 KOLFLA T: 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 benn 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 [ 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 Irom our County Attorney: For purposes of supporting a
Page 38
16 J A 3
Dece1er 17,2009
zoning variance, a legal hardship will be found to exist 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 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 KOLFLA T: 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 MURRA Y: 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 the building to the closest comer of the
other building would be 80 feet.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: 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 ofthese 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 ofthis building that's designed
Page 39
. '.--'H~""'_"'___~_'___~_____"_
-- "__-'-'.'M<" ______,~....
, -"---".-.._~--.,.----
..,,' /r' ,',
f, r"'~\ li
"" .-.' ,"
. - - .
'71
q
~LJ
~~
Ac~'
December 17,2009
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 therc's no door on cither side, it's just one entry and exit on one side; am I
correct?
MR. SAADEII: Thc proposed doors are on this side. We could have easily -- we could casily add a door on
this side, if that makes a difference.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Wcll, I'm not onc -- that's fine, but I want to find out. The vehicles are going
to drive into the vchicle -- I'm sorry, into the building')
MR. SAADEH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: 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'rc not going to go in an arc, are they?
MR. SAADEH: I'm really not therc on a daily basis to see the modcm, 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 of the othcr -- those are some of the other characteristics that relate to human beings and
their dwellings.
And I rccognize your perspectivc about seeing thc entirety and benetiting the whole, but just like in
democracy, one oftenets is the majority has the obligation to protect the minority. And so those four residents have
essentially the samc rights as the rest of the folks.
My conccrn is, and I hope that I've led you there for you to understand, is the smcll, the noise and during the
course ofa day if they're performing maintenance, there's other noises associated with it. So lthink that's part of this.
Would you likc to comment on any1hing I've just related?
MR. SAADEH: As it's been for the last 22 years, again, the maintenance for -- the maintenance equipment
that scrvices 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 cquipment you're talking about or the noisc you're suggesting or the smell of fuel or
whatever, it's already there now and it's been therc 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 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 MURRA Y: 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 fucl.
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 pcople 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
Page 40
16/1
A3
.-
December 17, 2009
here, and looks like other type of maintenance vehicles.
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] 0 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 r 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 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] 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.
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. Kolf1at?
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.
Page 4]
--,-,----,-------_. -----
. '~-"~._'"'_."- ',-, ,~-,.,,"" -
,. 11 n
}, ~~
December 17,2009
A":;-
.\ Co',
., );
-,,-t/
...,..,
.
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 ofthese variances. There is the IS.4-foot setback variance for the
building, and also a landscape variance. Normally a I O-foot wide landscape buffer would 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 thc 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 thc height to only IS feet, that a IS-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 proposcd 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 bc something that would be amenable to everyone
involved.
Staff also didn't want the applicant to remove the benn because of the public benefit it provides, not only to
the membcrs of the Vineyards Country Club who pass by it, bnt also to the adjacent neighbors who are opposing the
project, because it prcscnts really an attractive vicw 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.
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 thc resolution, if this petition gets approved, limiting the lighting that's allowed on the site or the hours
of opcration 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 benn 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.
Butl 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: Anyhody clse?
Page 42
161 J A 3
-&'cember 17, 2009
'.
,
!
Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Koltlat.
COMMISSIONER CARON: In your global look at this variance, did you ask yourself why anybody would
build a 48-foot 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 Pun 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 wa' 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 would get essentially the wall of a one-story
building into the back oftllis berm without affecting the aesthetics rrom 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 berrn 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, ifhe was in here to amend the Pun 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 berrn on it themselves and now the berm is a hardship, a 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 ofthese. 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 ofthis 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
Page 43
,,'--,.,.__.,.....~.
- - - .- -~,.._._......,,,.
'1! f
" . f{,;~.,.
. }.' .
, . .
e~ ,.:,,/
,A3
December 17. 2009
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 ifhe goes 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 eould 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 somehody, just because they don't want to do something, that becomes a
reasonable variance.
MR. MOSS: No, 1 accepted his testimony that he needed a building of that size.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that exact shape.
MR. MOSS: No, not ofthat 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: Lct 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.
You're talking about this tract line?
MR. MOSS: Oh, the side vard 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 vou know?
;
MR. MOSS: Because then it wouldn't say that no parking would not be pennitted in there. Because it goes
on to say that. And ifit were implied that the whole thing was going to be landscaped, then why would they say that
parking couldn't be permitted there?
Page 44
16DLler17,4J
..
:#f
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me grab it real quick. ..
It says no parking will be allowed in the butTer. It says -- let me read the thing. Building shall be set b'k a
minimum of 50 feet from an abuttmg resIdentIal dIStrIct, and the setback area shall be appropnate (SIC) landscaped
and maintained to act as a butTer zone. No parking will be allowed in the butTer zone.
MR. MOSS: Right. And the appropriate butTer zone in this case would be a 10-foot wide butTer with 14
canopy trees.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it's defining that area as a butTer 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.
Staffhas taken the position that the LDC required buffer is the appropriate butTer, 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 j think whoever used the choice of calling it a butTer 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 butTer 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 butTer.
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 butTer 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 butTer and trying to make it work in 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 KOLFLAT: 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 KOLFLAT: 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.
Page 45
-'-'--.-'--'--~-""--^~'--"-
_...
-- -- -,._--~-~... -'.'",,",_."'_'~"->"'- -
-. ~_.~--~'"._.~.._--
i:. fl 1~ 3 ,
December 17, 2
MR. MOSS: Okav.
~
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 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 mccting'sjustilied and we'll continue with the process.
Everybody will have their say when we votc.
Mr. Wolflev?
~
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We have hcard 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 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, an)thing 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.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you disagree with your memo or do you agree with your memo?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I agree with my memo.
But whatI'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. KLA TZKOW: Well, let's understand tllat, 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, staff's opinion -- staff's 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, statT 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?
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: Foml.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- substance and form, right" So when you say that the staff approved it and
the County Attorney approved it, two difTerent weights, two different things. So--
Page 46
16 I 1 De1m2 17, 20:9
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 bc 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 MURRA Y: Could we ascertain the estimate 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 MURRA Y: [don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I can assure you that.
You know, Tony can be allocated some time because he's a member ofthe 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.
ltem#lOD
PETITION: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-1 0318, 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 otTer, 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.
Page 47
- '_.__~._ " ;H'_'''__ ,." _
.
-
_.-...-
16 , 1" 3 Dec~er 17,2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's -- and we certainly thank you for that of1er. 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, secondcd by Commissioner Kolflat.
All in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Ave
,
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Ave.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ayc.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, thank you vcry much.
MR. HANCOCK: I thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And thanks for wearing the green jacket.
Item #IOB (Continued lTom before lunch recess)
PETITION: V A-PL2009-1460, VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORA nON
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 Pircs, to be followed by David Pink.
MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chainnan, 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 immediatcly 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 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 VIGUOTfI: 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. Ijust 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.
Page 48
11 .,
: _jV i
, ':i..
i ~ ..~.,.
'.. ...
~':,.#.'
'A3
"""
1
December I 7, 2009
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 atTected 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 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 pn:~iect.
For the record, I've previously provided to the Planning Commissioners and to statT 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. KLA TZKOW: Do you want it in your housc?
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.
MR. KLA TZKOW: 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
ditTerent 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 requirement.,. The Clubs ide 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 statT 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 statT acknowlcdges they can still use it.
You don't have to tear down the berm. Hyperbole, exaggeration, and embellishment. According to the statT
report itsclf, 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 statT report, I believe Mr. Moss referenced that if it
wasn't able to be developed, we'd talk about 1,500 square teet at 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
Page 49
16 '1 i A3 ~
rlec er 17, 2009
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 benn 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 govemmental 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 applicant is the original developer of the Vineyards. Any asserted hardship results solely
ti'om its development activities over the last 20 years. The applicant/developer created the berm.
The purpose ofthe 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-9S-I, changed the master plan and created this parcel. This parcel used to be a golf course parcel. He
changed it to a residential parcel. TherefiJre, you now have residential abutting golf coursc. 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 eontained
in the PUD. We don't look to the LDC. I think wc'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 ofthe ordinance -- of the PUD
ordinance requires this particular setback. And I know Mr. Schiffer read some of the 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 6.03.0 I .B., buifdings shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet ti'om
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 ti'om the building being
set back a minimum of 50 feet and another one from the I O-foot landscaping requirement ofthe 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 currcntly 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.
Page 50
16/1 A 3 ,1
D4;ember 17, 2009
Bear with me, if I 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 butTering. The butTering 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 butTer zone.
And so this application is deficient from the perspective that that particular variance is not being requested.
Additionally, 6.03.01.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 butTer 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
butTers the site /Tom 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 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 benn of three sides. There's
a berm on the north.
The berm remnant will not shield this proposed building /Tom 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, ifhe 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 butTering adjacent properties from an initial
developer owned/operated utility operation.
That's an aerial photograph /Tom 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 berm. Again, that parcel line was created by the developer, by this SDP and by PDI-95-l.
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.
Page 51
'6 I 1 ^
tecem~er , 200"'!.
~?
,~~.
"
-'
"i;~4
j
. fI'
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 Codc.
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 lO-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 rcsidential 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 thc buffer. You see some of the aerial
photographs, parking has been in that buffer for a 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 herc. Again, it functioned as a butTer. 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 devcloper since he developed this property and he created the situation.
] just probably have a few more commcnts, Mr. Strain, if I may.
An important consideration is it has to bc a land-created hardship or land-resulting hardship, and we do not
believe there is one in this particular case.
What's also intcresting is the fact that the staff doesn't-- cannot say how much of the benn would be
destroyed to accommodate a 9,000 square foot building. That's missing lTomthe application. But it appears 1,500
square teet 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 toot 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 fcet lTom the wall. This represents the closest unit in Clubside.
This would be the required setback. This is what they'rc asking tor, leaving a very narrow corridor.
And this, no buffering in here. The buffering would be here and the butfering would be in here. Waste land
in there. Thank you, Ellen.
So in conclusion we assert t11at 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 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 teet of the building
will encroach into the southern, i.e. adjaccnt, residential project setback area.
The most that the applicant will be impacted is a ] 7 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 lTom 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
Page 52
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.
Available to answer any questions that you all may have.
CHArRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions of Tony at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
CHArRMAN 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'm just -- 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 butTering. 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 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--
CHArRMAN 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 tine.
CHArRMAN 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 oftbe community will agree with most of the items I'm going to talk about today.
I live in that unit right over there. And my unit is 60 feet away from this unit. That unit you're talking about
Page 53
- - --""-'-'- ,._.__."--~".~._~,'-'--'-
._,..,_........""-'
/' I. . .
6 "\
De~e~ cr 119
, '1
I
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 closcst building to the proposed new maintenance building. When I first arrived
here in mid November I leamed 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 drivc.
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 fi-om Clubside, I say I'm from thc 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.
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 evelybody 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. 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 I 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 I had both mics going on at the samc time?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When Ray gave ilto you, he should have showed you that little button, it wasn't on.
MR. PINK: Okay, this is good.
Pagc 54
16/1 A.3 ~.'
Decem ber 17, 2 09
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 -- ] 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
etTectively 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 --
MR. PINK: All right, I will, I will.
Okay. Then I saw Exhibit D, the picture ofthe 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, [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, ] 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 conditions dictate owning
versus leasing, therefore equipment must be owned kept for much longer periods of time, which will necessitate
storing the equipment versus leaving it out in the open. Okay, the proposed building size is needed and the requested
variances are adequate to promote the public health.
Well, let's look at that. If there's only 14 small pieces of equipment, how could you possibly need 9,000 feet?
That just doesn't make any sense.
We move on. I mean, there's no reason for a building that size.
Okay, so we know that there's landscaping equipment at other sites. Now let's -- okay, then they go on to say
economic conditions dictate owning versus leasing. I think we talked about that before. That was a topic of
discussion. And they said that there was a really a -- they found out after 20 years that if you bought that equipment,
you really could save a lot of money. ]n fact, we met with Mr. Rogers yesterday. He specifIcally told us the reason
for building the structure was for buying and leasing and a maintenance issue. Because you buy this machine, I think
you're supposed to maintain it a lot better if it's new.
Well, okay, this is my conclusion on that. I have never ever in 45 years in planning and business heard an
explanation like this given as the basis for building any structure. Never.
The basis for building any structure may be -- a bad economy may be a reason for not adding increased
storage capacity, but never for building a structure. In other words, what -- because times are bad, well, we decide to
spend a lot of money to build a structure to house nine pieces of equipment. That makes absolutely no sense.
The only -- the one and only reason for building a new big structure is for adding total capacity, this is very
important, to house additional people and/or equipment. So basically they're going to be bringing in lots of
Page 55
~.-...........' -,
" ",' ~","..- -
,,~-~;<-<>-<- . --..--~""._. '.l
"_ ~.. __.,_._.__....._.... _...,.~_'m. ...__,.__,._______"..
Dlr6eJ 7,1009
A';'~.
. .,
'I
..
I
->-..'"
.'
equipment. It has nothing as I can see with the existing equipment. It has everything to do with new equipment that's
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 ifthey lease it. Again, you
know, I think I already addressed that.
Butl 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 cquipment, 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. 111ere'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, iftheir objective is to bring a lot of new equipment in here and a whole different type of equipment,
then [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 u
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.
CIlAlRMAN STRAIN: You've used over your u
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 ljust request live 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 consolidatc all of their landscape -- or a lot of their
landscaping facility at the golf place. So this is what u 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 u you know, I'd like to explain this. I've got u okay. So basically what I'm saying is
that this is not what they said it was. This is not u 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 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, live doors on the back u
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 corne in they usc this area here. This area is mostly for parking. So this is shielded rrom us.
This right here is a speaker box. And this spcaker box will project that sound all ovcr here and all over here,
not just the six units they're talking about. Thcrc's going to be a lot of people affectcd 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, bccause I
know what1s 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 bc a nice place to Iivc.
Page 56
lb /1
A3
t;
December 17, 2009
Okay, now let me talk about economic effects for one minute. Just take me one minute.
Okay, economic etTects. 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 tile 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. 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 fmished.
MR. PINK: Okay, okay, all right. Thank you ve,y much. I appreciate your listening to me. I'm sorry ifI
kind of talked too fast and whatever and didn't have the mic. near me, but] think I still have a lot to say. Maybe I can
have somebody else finish this otT. 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: ] moved in in 2005.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: 200S?
MR. PINK: Yeah, you know, right before tile 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.
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 Kclly. I'm on the board of directors of Clubs ide Reserve.
And I'll speak for the board today.
I have been an owner in Clubs ide 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 butTer 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 57
16, 1
'3
,
December 17, 2009
Vineyards Development was in control of all aspects of the creation of Clubs ide. 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 whvs we have the 50-foot setback in the butTer 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 registercd
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 ofthe 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 sec thc granting of this variance not to be hannful 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 if
there 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 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 vou.
-
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What was your name again? Excuse me, I'm trying to speak here.
MR. KELLER: Legally Rober! James Kelly, known as Jim Kelly.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Jim Kelly, okay. And you moved in, in 1996'1
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 V ineyards? I mean, you're on the board and --
MR. KELLER: I'm on the board of Cluhside 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 mejust say, debacle.
COMMISSIONER WOl.FLEY: Well, we will-- I'll hold off my question then.
MR. KELLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Rail
Thank you, sir.
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?
Page 5 X
~ ,
16 11 A 3 .....
December 17,20
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 Clubs ide 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 noise, and it is going to be louder. And ljust 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 ditTerent 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, 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 I O-foot vegetation butTer. 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.
Page 59
-. '---^'.'"-~'---''-''~-''' .- ,
1t 61: '!
.. . .- '
- .. i
r,
'-' .<
Deccmber 17, 2()09
A 3 ,
So I hope you agrec 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 variance.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. I'm happy to take your qucstions.
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 prcscnt for the board.
Commissioners, I waive my time becausc cvclything that's been said has been said as far as I'm concerned.
And I thank you very much for your time and 1 enjoycd sitting here watching you listen very intently. Thank you
very much.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, we apprcciate--
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 a judgc. 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 apprcciatc it.
Ray, the next speaker?
MR. BELLOWS: Richard Casey.
MR. CASEY: My name is Richard Casey. I live in Clubside Reserve. My address is -- unit number is 1104.
Everything [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. SHAUGIINESSY: Good aftemoon, Commissioners. My name is Dale Shaughnessy and I live at611S
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 Attorney Rogcrs and told him that very
thing, within that very building was told no more building. He said wcll, that was probably true at that time.
Well, now I have a condo from my own misfortunc 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 dcvaluing becausc thc Vineyards is requesting this
Page 60
-16/1.fJ\2
Decembe~ ~009
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.
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 if so (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 61 15 and unit 2003, right here. I am the closest to the comer 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 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 ofthe berm. The one that's closest to the
entryway I measured with a IS-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
Page 61
m~_.'..__.~ ____ ..
-_._.-
._.._,_.--"""""""'--_.--,. '.-
,- "
f ,1
,,' :-, ,", ';- " ,
December 17, 2009
,.
A~
:J
,
,., "
condominium after losing my wife of 49 years. An additional storage building located a short distance lTom 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 lor 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.
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 lor 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 lor 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 atTect
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.
I would also point out that since all the equipment is used during daytime hours, it is possible the facility
would be used lor noisy operations during evening or even nighttime hours. The noise level from a lixed 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 propcrty 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 loot high wall would go directly over the
wall to our second 1100r 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 lcast two existing additional drains we know 01: 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.
We suspect these two present and two proposed drains would also end up in one of our lakes. Any
Page 62
1611 A 3 ..
December 17, 2009 ~
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 atTect
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 Clubs ide 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 fTom 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 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 comer of the building to the closest comer
of any Clubside building would bc 80 feet.
Second point Mr. Pircs made, that there was a rezone back in 1995 and that's where a big portion of the
southern portion of the benn that was located somewhere in here was removed. And that's when the time came in for
the 50-foot butTer. Actually, that's totally inaccurate. The 50-foot butTer 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 SDP
adjustment for that site itself, PDI-9S-1 is when we met with staff on all levels and actually hashed the language in the
PUD.
And 1 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 statTthat this would be, you know, the right size butTer on our part.
And to further -- you know, to further assist in getting the pm not just approved but also looking at it fTom 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 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 teet, 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 havc, 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
Page 63
-'-"~-"--~-_.'--""'" .'
___w'._.m__~.~_". , _ _ _".. _
2'1 t,'
.< ,'/ , ,'t'
j j ^' "~'. .'
! ~, "
r,....." '
"-..... .....
".'''''''
~, . --'.',
" f-
-'I ",;;.')'
~""l ~jj
December 17.2009
all that. Whcn 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. [fyou 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 modc. 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 havc doors just mostly facing this way. Matter of
fact, at submittal imagc, the doors on this building arc actually mirrored on both sides. So if there's four doors here,
there's actually four doors on this sidc. If there's six doors here, there's six doors on this side that are cqually 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 sitc, 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. Thcrc'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 3S0-acrc golf course you definitely have landscaping. Mark, you know that, you live in a community like
that.
And the last point that I would likc to make is the intcrpretation that Mr. Pires has on the existing buffer is in
my view is totally wrong. The cxisting bufTer 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 ofthesc buildings being parked on tllis sidc ofthe 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 camc about now that they hired Tony and he started looking into tlle site and this
and that. Thc '95 buffer that wc created was acceptable by the county, was overkill by any standard ofthe county and
also was helpful for us as a markcting 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 penn it. It was additionally to have the proper view --to have the proper visual effects
so someone can purchase the 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 ofthe benn 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
satisty some of the opposition to raising, you know, few blocks on the wall couple three feet of the wall, especially on
that side ofthe site, you know, ti-om somewhere in herc, 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 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
Page 64
16 J 7 A 3 ,
D'kem ber I 7, 2009
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 buildin s and two
kind oflow-rise buildings on that site.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So I guess my point-- I mean, what percent do you thi' 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. SchitTer?
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 plea,es 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.
Go ahead.
MR. SAADEH: I mean, I thought you asked me of the existing building. The existing bnilding 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, nnfortunately when you live on a golf course, even the -- let's forget this facility
completely. If yon 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?
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. Y on'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.)
Page 65
-.'_.----,
-"---~<.--
.
161
~..."
"
.,
1 'J
,1oecemb;r 17,2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, would you mind putting that-- I have one question, it comes off the center part
ofthat sheet I gave you during break.
Mr. Saadeh, that orange dotted line is the rough outlinc of your bern1. 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 nced 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.
Did you explore this with Coastal Engineering'!
MR. SAADEH: Actually, we have.
Again, the comment I made carlier 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 prope.iy.
When that benn was constructed, I don't know specilically by section, that would be totally crazy to guess
what kind of boulders wc put somewherc. But most of the timc 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 trom it. Becausc ifit wasjust pure dirt, it would have been
no-brainer, I wouldn't bc here today. lfwc 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 havc 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 011 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.
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 KOLFLAT: I'd like to make a motion that we recommend Board of County
Commissioners to deny Petition V A-PL-2009-l460, Vineyards maintenance.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, a motion madc by Commissioner Koltlat, 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, ifit was, that he's benefiting from self-created
hardsh i ps.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: 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 arc realized, he might very well rcturn to a lease process that might vcry well benefit him. And
Page 66
~
16 I 1 .'~ 3 ~"
December 17, 009
then the folks will have had that building there in its shape.
I can't justify a variance on the basis ofa 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 not built out, that there's a certain amount of equipment. I failed to ask the petitioner ifthere
was any equipmcnt 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 atTord 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 spccial conditions which do not result from -- other than from his actions. There's no hardship, and
he still has reasonable use of that land. W c havc 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 ofthe 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 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 pcople 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 inforrnational 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.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
Page 67
....._,._~,-.,...,......, ",_.. >
.-. +"--'~'"------~----'....,.._-
'1 ! ;,L
Ml :(\'
dec~b I 7 009
~i'
Ai', .."
J
l!llIIl
. ~
"
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, thrce, fllUr, five, six in favor.
A II those against?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thrce against. Motion carries. Recommendation of deniaL 6-3.
Okay, thank you. We will take a break until ): 15. When we come back we'll start Naples Bath and Tennis.
(Reccss.)
Item # IOC
PETITION: PUDA-PL2009-78I, NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PUD
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyonc, 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 otT. I always turn my cell phone off.
Anyway, would those people wishing to testify on behalf ofthis item please rise to be sworn in by the court
reporter. You're better otTjust risingjust in case you want to speak andjust gct swom in. It doesn't hurt.
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.
COMMlSS10NER 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 II0MlAK: 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. Bonchard and Senator and as well the other
gentleman, Mr. Busch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLlOTfI: 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 KOLFLA T: No ex parte.
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
Page 68
1611
A3
....
December 17, 2009
support letters in this package.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the court reporter ha, 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 ofthe 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.
Mr. Chairrnan 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 ofa 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 tenns 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 ofthem 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 etTorts, we received -- and this is a very typical letter -- a letter
from Mary Goldschmidt, 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 ofthe 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. 962Sl3-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.
Page 69
-.....
,~,-,~_. -,,_.
".,~""-_.,,."-
.LOI1f3.,
December 17.2009
And just so you understand, back in those days when that lawsuit was tiled, ArUl Dilbone was the principal
plaintiff suing Naples Bath and Tennis Club to stop the project. She is one ofthe supporters here today. So she
understands the importance of this project.
Judge Brousseau recognized that the originall'UD documeut pennitted the construction of those units but
found that approval ofthose 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
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 ofthe 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 dcvelopment 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 statr report that you've reviewed.
That very thorough staff report also recommends that the Planning Commission torward Petition
PUDA-PL-2009-78l on to the Collier County Commission with a recommendation of approval.
This is really a very simple application that's in tront 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 accessory use of the
Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUD Tract B. Paragraph 4.3.8.3 of the original PUD document is amended to retlect
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 t,)r 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 tirst
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 stall' 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 Jar your professional staff to review the site development plan that
would be present with that.
Mr. Chainnan and members. I'd like to ask Mr. Fernandez if he'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 statTreport. As you
can see here, Tract B is 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.
Page 70
16/1
A3
....
..ti
. ~
l' . __
December 17, 2009
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 tllat 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. [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 ofthe 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 statT to review.
And as you look at that, you'll notice that probably the most sil,,'llificant one will be that the area that is going
to be --that's allocated for development ofthese 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 tile 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 fTOm 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 ] I 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 development standards, I'd be happy to
answer them now or at the end of our presentation, alter 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. Ijust 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 ofMr. Femandez while he's up there?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. SchitTer?
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.
Page 71
,._ ______u~._____...._._._
,.,-_."_.>-"_._~~.~,., " -- -- -"..- ~ -'-,'--'- -
C8 .'~
I:
,
-'1---\
.,
^,3
. ,
,
c,::',
Decembcr 17,2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: WclL here's one of the concerns then. Obviously when thc 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'rc 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 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 Brousscau'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 OHice and determined -- and with staff and determined that these types
of applications today are reviewed to the site development plan process by your professional statf.
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 specitic detail in terms of exactly where the units
are going to be in terms of those sorts of things. Those types of dctails will be reviewed by your professional staff.
This will be consistent with the way thesc types of projects are reviewed going torward. But with the judge's
order out there, we were left with really no other alternative but to corne 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 concems. 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 rat11er 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 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 tact, he was poised about a year or so ago to have that hearing in li'ont 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 statf in evaluating a site development plan li,r 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 I ike 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 ofthe 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 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 b'faphical 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 lire 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 r 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 lire 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.
Page 72
"
1611
Decem ber I 7, 2009
A3
....
~
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 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 bcfore 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 thc design? Because ifitjust 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 ofthe 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 suggcsted to thc 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 to us. And if it's enough to be convincing
that that's a site plan that's acceptable, I didn't sce 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 tile 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 of Mr. 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 statTto 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 beforc you with a site plan but for it to be reviewed
administratively as an SDP.
Page 73
_, '.' 0- "~_"__,'~__,_" H'_..., ._._ ___
- "~-,_. ~, "._"'.",- '-;'.. -
- , .~_.~"...--....-"
. I"
r ( ,)
,~~ u
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 hcre is improvements, accessory improvements to an
existing devclopment which has nominal impact on the community relative to visual aspects.
If you werc 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 sec it a little bit more clearly --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let mc ask you this, Mike: How much detail do you guys have tor
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 cxisting assembly of building and adding these units to it. There probably are some
challenges that we have to deal with between thc two structures. They may not be able to fuse.
Craig was going to show you -- there's a rendering, in tact that shows one layout that has those units at the
south end of the clubhouse. And it's on that site rendering with a redefincd pool area. And it fully integrates into the
existing building, which is something I don't think \\'c're going to be able to accomplish 110\\/ that therels a better
understanding of the codcs and the fire codes between the ncw structures and the old structures. So it
will -- physically wc're looking at the same proximity of location, but not to that design. But wc 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
distancc, the distance bctween 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. Thcse are just accessory units,
bed and breakfast units, if you will, to the main lacility.
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 seamlcss 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.
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 onc with the "x"'s.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Does that help?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, thank vou.
.
So you're saying -- you just said to Mr. Schitler that you would not be going into that preservc 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 prcserve boundary, or the yellow line. There is some vegetated arca on our site --
COMMISSIONER CARON: What is the vegetated area within the yellow line to the south of the pool?
MR. FERNANDEZ: This arca right here')
Page 74
.
t
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. ...
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's part of the Tract B. It's not in preserve.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it part of a butTering 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.
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 ofthe 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.
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 thc 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 neccssary.
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 ofthe 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 75
"....-.,- .._....,..._----~,._-,~.-
.,.,,-_.... '
'~---"
~~ //
111.-,
" I " ,
l;....J '-)
!\Z
f~ __)
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 ofthe 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 ncccssary 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 conccpt that I think the Planning Commission needs to look at to
make sure that there are going to be sutlicienl standards 10 protect the community. And that's what we have in here.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, wc'lI continuc on and see how much we can leam.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ijust wanllo make a comment on this we've reduced the number of units.
You've rcduced 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 residcntial community.
Thcse accessory transient lodging units are temporary lodging facilities and they're not counted as part of that
overall density f(lr the permanent dwelling units. And so thcre really isn't a number anywhere in the PUD document
in tenns ofthc number of units. It really becomes a matter of -- quite jrankly, it becomes a matter of how many units
can be accommodated. And as Michacl Fernandcz had indicated, that number would be significantly drastically
higher than 48.
We arc committing to no morc than 48 units f(Jr a couple or reasons. Number one, that is the minimal
number of units that's necessary 10 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 fj-om 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 jrom members and owners in Naples Bath and Tennis Club, are
a testament to how important this is to the community.
And so the developcr, Mr. Bouchard, is huilding in standards to makc 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,
ifthis 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 introducc 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: Okav, thank vou.
. -
MR. BOUCHARD: Hi. I'm Craig Bouchard. I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak with you.
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, ljust 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 momcnt -- 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 bom roughly around 1975 and dcveloped through J 980. At that time there was a
two-lane road through the Everglades going towards its currcntloeation.
My father-in-law bought one of the lirst condominiums in thc community. He brought his I J kids down to
that three-bedroom condo every year and spent the winters there. So imagine that, if.you want to get into zoning
issucs. He later on bought a house wherc he lives today.
So plcase don't look at me likc a real cstatc developer. I'm a small businessman, basically. And as crazy as it
Page 76
16 I 1 A.3 ='
December I 7 ~1>09
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 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 ofthe
southeast, and they all moved in there. And many of those people are still there, every morning walking over to the
tennis c1nb.
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.
Butl 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 if
I 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 cluh 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 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 ofthe 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 SOO-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] 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 mcmbers, moved in in those years, because it was the cheapest place to
move in Naples.
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.
Page 77
....~'""_._,-_.._--,
".....~-'"~~.._... '- - ~-"'--"
[-.~- ,(
,- ".-.,
"
f;
r,
'i1 ....,~
'I l\.'f
. :' "",
(.:J ,,-.q,
. . "y
December 17, 2009
..,
When I talked to J.M. Shapiro, I read about thc 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 owncr of this lacility 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 ofa
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 peoplc say that we're charging
too much. You know, we charge about what it cost to he 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, 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'-LA. 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 aud play tennis in these toumaments.
And I said, we have to have a place to hOllse guestrooms; think of it as a bed and breakfast right next to our
building that can house people to come for these toumaments 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 halfa 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 stutT, 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 befixe 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 academy in the world; biggest and best and most successful
academy in Europe.
And I said Emilio -- we had never met ljust 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, \vhat'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 hegan
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 dctine as 200 plus kid weeks this past summer. That's onc 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 fantastie demonstration of Naples, Florida, for the world.
So this summer we almost broke even. And next summer I think \ve will. We have a full-time program
where kids also come from arollnd the world and thc.y stay' for ninc months to learn tennis. And Emilio's reputation is
Page 7X
1611 A 3 ~
December 17, 2009
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 out of 16.
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 -- [ 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 ofthe 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 41 0 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 ofthe 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 thcn 30 of the people that he claimed had supported him wrote letters to the County
Commissioners saying no way are wc 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 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 sil,'11atures 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. We are not Grey Oaks, a community [ 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. ]
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 40 I 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. Ifwith 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. ] 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.
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, if I 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]
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
heen 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 ofhere when you're gone? Hey, you're kind of young but, you know, your plane could go down, or what if
Page 79
_ _~_ .,~_.'~~'_.__U'_,,_,,_,._
..-.-
'''_',_w_
, -".',--,_.~~'._-",-.~".- '-.'
. ,7 ~ ,
':'" .
,
, ~J
p-
''''
. .'~
"
Dcccmber 17,2009
you sell. And that was the only question I could never answcr for these people.
When we got the declaratory judgment, I reached out, said hey, let's have a meeting, scnt 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 j
compromised myself. I said look, I'm going to answcr that question. And, you know, lawycrs 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 un its.
They've got to be within 30 feet of the building whcrc that starts. And, I said, we're not going to takc out any tennis
courts. That's what these peoplc are here jClr. okay. And tcllthem let's commit today for us and any future owner that
it's not going to be more than fivc percent of our property. Now cverybody knows that this is no longer going to be a
Holiday Inn sitting in the middlc of 38 tennis courts some day.
And I committcd that to my members and thc rcsidents, and I'm committing it on paper and I'm willing to do
any -- of course all these things are befclre you, so you know I'm committed to it.
But with that, with those compromises, alii can do is build on one side or the other of the building.
Now, I'd like you to look ovcr hcre. 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 mc 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 stutf. ljust want to build something
beautiful. And I will build something beautitul if I'm allowed to.
And this was the image that I had at thc beginning. And so that's why I want to show it to you. That is our
pool. Therc 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 talkcd an)1hing about moving thc road. Are you kidding me? Movc 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 havc thc money to do if now I go out and beg my tamily and friends
to put more money in, is to build about 32 units right here atthc pool. That's what I told my mcmbcrs [was going to
do.
Now, down the road, ifwc'rc 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 tirst time around by the Planning Commission. Ifwc are
successful down the road, and now 11m guessing we're -- because this is a few years ago. as we sit here today, even if
everything goes wclltoday, down the road if I can add a few more units at the other end of the building, we've got the
ability to ensure thc 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 redonc 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 swim every day. Our pool is ajunior olympic size swimming pool,
one of the tew in Naples. It's very expensive to maintain. And we've got an older audicnce, 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 tcnnis. 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 peoplc 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 makc this work. And they said, ycah, but we've been swimming tor decades.
So I went back to the architects, they wcre working at the timc, and I said guys, we're going to leave thc 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 stutfthat's happened since.
So as close as we can get to that is where I'd like to get. But I can't gct thcre unless you tell me I can go
torward. This club cannot afford a nickel more of expense unlcss I know I can get there, right?
But that's a pretty dam good dcsign right there. You know, something close to that. It's two t1oors, 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 \vhat I'm after. I'm not after moving roads around.
And if this works, if I 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 alivc by then.
But! 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 othcr stuff, I can just tell you what I'd like to do. My three daughters, agcs eight, six
and tour, they play in that tennis academy up thcre, you know, and I want them to grow up there like my wite did,
running around on a hill in front ofthc place and eating their dinncr there and with kids and not getting this trouble.
Pane SO
~
1611
A3
,
December 17, 2009
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'.een doing. It just -- you
know, this is a ditTerent 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 I 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 scrious 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.
MEMBERS FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Jive 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 Stefii 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 ofthe 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 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.
Page 8 J
, __...__ _...~.._.___"__.__'M"_,_d___.~__.
'"~""_".....,_."""....__.""",",.....,._"._.---,-~~..-,,,,
,', '.,......."..___~. .u__...~_._.._._
__0' ,:;.
',' " ~~1
.,.. . ..
t,.- .', 'j
; ;, 'I" , ,\
. 'D~c;,m'ber h, 2009
'Ooin,j
f!-\ ,I.~
.'. ,>')
/
.
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.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir
Burt, just so you know, we will stop at a certain time this aftemoon. If we 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. ljust wanted to make
one comment about--thesc are illustrative. lfwe 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: 111at's not necessary.
,
MS. SAUNDERS: All right. Then Mr. Chairman, I have a letter trom 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 statTpresentation?
Mr. Schifferry
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: BUI1, 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.
Teunis 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, arc there any other questions of the applicant at this time?
(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 statT.
You have in your packet of intormation a staff report prepared by staff dated last revised, 11/24/09. It's a
17-page staff report, beginning with the property inlc)rmation and request information and geographic location and
project description on Pages I 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 intclIlnation. There's a
discussion beginning on Page 3, going on tu Page 4 regarding the Growth Management Plan consistency.
We are recommending that the project be IC1lmd consistent with the Growth Management Plan, all aspects of
that or all elements.
There is a condition that's proposed by the transpol1ation 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 Oft'lct in support of the recommcndation. We have PUD tlndings
and rezone findings. StatT is recommending that this project be determined to be consistent with the Growth
Management Plan, and we are recommending that }'Oll recommend approval of the petition as it's proposed in the
draft ordinance.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions of staff at this time')
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, r have one.
Does staff concur with I guess the process today, that the transient lodging uses arc an acceptable accessory
Page 82
16 A 3'
I lDecember 17,2009
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.B.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. Ijust 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 ofthis, 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 ljust 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 Ijust noticed 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: lfl may add one thing: The listthat the petitioner provided on the ELMO, as they call it,
showing the separation distance -- or setback distances, 1'111 sorry -- that was not reflected in the ordinance because we
did not have that information. If you look at the existing PU D document, it has setback requirements, but it only
speaks to principal uses. Since this is an accessory use, wc nced 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 ofstaft?
(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: About21.
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 otT 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 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.
Page 83
-----~.-
____", --'-'_._' r,,_<_.,_ _,_.. .._M..'........',... ~...,..~,.,~_____,.M".'".'"'~_ _..__....._
16 r 1
A3
...
December 17,2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much.
Okay, Ray, call the speakers.
MR. BEl.LOWS: 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 Volusia 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 ofthe 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.ST.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.
It 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 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 ofthat, 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 ofthese.
You look at the latest number. This is not the lJ .ST.A. participation report. And I've got one ofthese 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 thcy 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 thc only reason they're at 4.3 percent negative is because they
added ninc holes played instead of 18.
The next generation doesn't have tlve 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 a
jewel, 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 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 Da)10na 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 oftennis in our community. We have the LPGA headquarters, Ladies Professional Golf
Association. and they moved them therc 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 million. That's not the] J 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 cantt atlord 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
Page 84
,
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 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 8S-year-olds, we have had them for 90. We gave two awards this year at our annual meeting two
weeks ago to two I OO-year-old individuals that hopped up on the stage and accepted the awards.
Had 1, I 00 applications. We had to turn down 300. Why do you think we did tllat? Not enough facilities that
we felt we could put the U.S.T.A. brand on, okay.
It's crucial that we kcep 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.
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 ifthis 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 tom 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, if it 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 ofthat 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.
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.
Page 85
,_ow. ..--..., ~__..-_>=~".._....__"'_"._"_..__._
N"~.'_,.~"'''_,_",_"""__,,_,,,_>_____, __..__ _.
161 1 A.3
Dcccmber 17.2009
.'
MR. BOOTH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, next public speaker, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Emilio Sanchez.
CHAJRMAN STRAIN: After this speaker. we're going to have to take a break. Our court repOlter's fingers
are wearing out, so --
MR. SANCHEZ: Hello. Good aftemoon. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me.
Wcll, I was supposed to introduce my background. but I think Craig did better than mc.
I come from a tennis family. I am a tennis player, I'm a tcnnis f,Ul 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. Bccause we build a new facility in Barcelona bcfore that, and we didn't do like this one is done many
years ago.
So this is a dream place to put our academy ahcad. 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 wc -- when Craig told me we are in Naples. 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 pcople. we don't study so much. So sometimes we just put ourselves in
difficult situations.
Butl come here to Naples and I am amazcd 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 pcople. And tennis. I can speak becausc 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 diffcrence. And I think that is why all
these people who play tennis for 40 years, they kcep playing tennis and they keep loving the tennis. Because tennis is
physical, tennis is mental, tennis is -- it's spiritual. And it gocs into you.
And wc sharing this time with all these kids and teaching them this incredible profession, we know that very
few of them thcy're going to make it to the top. But we surc that what they leam with the tennis, they're going to be
successful all their lives. Because the valucs 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 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 thc work that
Craig has done. But also, we are very glad to be here with all this tennis community, because we leam cvery 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 thcm here. And this is going to bring a lot of revenue. because nonnally they
comc 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 wc can make a difference and put it on the
tennis map. And this is our small contribution.
And wc hope that some of these people, because we will need many more places, but lots of other people
on-site on the lacility 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
Page 86
:l
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.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're fine, thank you.
I bet your hands are real tired. And I wou Id 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, [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.
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) got that wrong,
is working with him. But this is a project you'll hopefiJlly 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 mcntion 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 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
Page 87
.-,.".'.-._--_._-
.-
1611
December 17,2009
,,~>J;';,
,-, ,ii.-
I' t"
I'. '" ~j
!;~) ,<"I
..
,
like the small town atmosphere.
MR. I lORN: So do L 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 t()r an hour on that.
MR. HORN: No, no, no. My only point, sir, ofthat 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 at61 0 Jacana Circle, at Naples Bath and Tennis. And by
now you're probably thinking that there's nobody that isn't in support ofthis particular thing that's come before you
today. So I'm here to let you know that there arc those of us who don't think it's a good idea.
The original PUD in 1976, as you all know. did in tact inelude the authority to build hotel rooms or transient
housing facilities, as it was called at that time. Ilowever, there was a very specitic time line 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 le1t 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, .Iudge Brousseau's decision in January of 1997 specifically llsed 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 pun 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 oftbe 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, I()r 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 ofthe
ballgame. It just isn't morally right.
Additionally, there's a density intensity issuc. 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 iuvariably these people arc 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 arc only authorized 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 uot 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 thc 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 linds that there's anybody that opposes hotel
rooms.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, please, he has a right to speak, and let him linish.
Sir. VOll need to address --
~
MR. BUSCH: As a matter of tact, if you think I'm making that up, when Joel Singer--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you need to address yourself to us, please.
Page X8
"'~
, " .,
.' .
,
:-; A3 ~
.:t
December 17, 2009
,
MR. BUSCH: All right.
So all of those postcards add up to 130 people who own 89 properties at Bath and Tennis. 1;0 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 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', l'Il 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, 36S-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 Kautfman.
MR. KAUFFMAN: I'm Chester Kautfman. I live at1S66-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 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 ofthe 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, tortune 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, cver had before. I've worked with them all. My wife and I, and I
speak for many, many residents of the community and members of the club, support fully. You've been told and we
Page 89
.-..."'.....""""","'..;, ......,..-<"'.--..-.'
.11 ~'f:r, H (C~I
. I . ~" ~
,._..-,.;.; <:J ~
December 17.2009
,
I'-~
.'''1
rt
. I.
3
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 !,'few 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. Shefficld, his family, all the kids that I used to
work with all these years, and now I'm doing the third gcnerations 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,
hc is correct, it is no lie, they still play tennis and can play wcll. It just so happens that this gentleman said Bill,
maybe I will comc back now and see ifwc can't do something.
In turn, he met one of the greatest academy guys in Emilio Sanchcz. 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 residc at 108-A Bob-O-Link Way, and have for in excess 01'20 years.
And llivc 78 yards from the entrance ofthe club. And one of the primary arguments ofthe 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 cven see who comes and goes. So that's totally
bogus. Thosc people can't see the front gatc.
And it doesn't impact me in an)' \vay', And to their point that it's going to create more traffic, when we have
300 people at a tournament -- and we do this oftcn because we are a good facility, we are international. Craig was
very modest. I spcnt a lot of time a broad, and it is indeed recognizcd intcrnationally.
When people play tennis, they come in, they play in the morning, they go to thcir room and shower and
change and rest and eat, come back, perhaps somewhere between two and lour 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 prof(mndly. They just will corne 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 Amcrican 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. KURALT: I'm sorry, I hadn't planned to speak bccause I 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 bccn a member of the tennis club since bel(Jre 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 thcir 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 pcrcent. And I
think that we'rc doing our best to bc ambassadors I(lr Naples whcll pcople come. We havc hospitality information, we
Pane 90
'"
send them to restaurants, we do our very best to be good citizens.
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: 111ank 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 years. I'm a retired
physician and know little about zoning and constmction.
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 ofthe 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 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 incrcased 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, ] 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 thcy'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 aliI have to say. Thank you.
111 I'm asking you to help us keep our head above
.
\'
Page 9 I
16 I 1 A 3
December 17, 2009
..
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, Ray')
MR. BELLOWS: Jill Hill.
MS. I.IILL: I totally 100 percent agree and hope that you will allow this to evolvc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
,
From now on, if you do decline to speak, just say you decline to speak. Otherwisc you really need to come
up to the microphone. This is a quasi judicial hearing, and the court reporter has to put cverything 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: Nonnan 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, Nonnan.
MR. DA VIS: Good aftemoon, Commissioners. Merry Christmas. Thanks for your patience today.
My name is Jim Davis. I live at 219-A Bob-a-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 Tcnnis Club number was three. I'm no
longer a membcr. Atthc time] bought, Will McFarland and Eric Kohl werc 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 wcre condos and homcs. Consecutive
developers since then and owncrs have wanted to build hotels.
Naples Bath and Tennis Club is a 30-year-old community with noncommercial by 87 perccnt. It's a
residential community with a privatcly owned tennis club. Owners at thc Naples Bath and Tcnnis Club property are
not required to be membcrs of the club.
BUl1 Saunders is a well respected -- hc's a very good politician and hc's a good lawyer. I like his figure of
over 400 what he threw out at you, but he j;lilcd to tell you whethcr they were owners or members or both.
I happen to be part of a group of ovcr 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 becausc 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 failcd to tell you enllxccd by the Second Court of Appeals. I don't know how you
overtum an appeals court decision -- I'm not a lawyer, I was a j{JOtball coach, so I don't know aboutthat-- except by
something a court higher than the appeals court. And to this very sccond, that decision stands.
The county says that the application mcets all of the requirements. I don't believe that the county took into
effect or looked very carefully at safety and sccurity concems 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 havc -- might do 50 or more when they
want to do the other side ofthe club. I would be really highly offended.
Mr. Bouchard in thc past has threatcncd to close the club ifhe fails. Well, today it was a little bit difterent.
He said it might not survivc. Who knows') Hc has used ligures of his own, why real estate values will tumble if
there's no hotel.
Who are the pcople giving him this inf{mnation? I ccrtainly don't know. In my opinion, bcttcr than 50
percent of our current owners did not buy at thc Naples Bath and Tennis Club bccause of Craig's tennis club. Please
don't votc to overturn or to push flJf\vard to thc County Commission your permission or your approval of this PUD
change. The long-standing decisions of the circuit court and the appeals court cCl1ainly have some bearing.
And I don't know how this will all come out. even after thc County Commission reacts, if they decide not to
change the PUD. The old ruling was to deny a hotcl, and I hope you'll stick by it.
My final thought is how would you like to have a hotcl in your backyard? Which it will be in mine. Thank
Page 92
1611
Ai
December 17,2009
you for your attention. Appreciate it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Jay WoltT.
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 decadc 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 II years
late.
That Pun 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 pun, you will have created a precedent that weakens it.
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, thcy're applying for a change in the PUD. That PUD would be
changed by their appeal and that would rip a holc in the umbrella of protection that that pun 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 immOltal, 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 preservcd 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. IfMr. Bouchard is honest in his desire to save the club, I appeal to
him that his steps must be within the provisions ofthat 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 cluh. 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?
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 CaImot find that--
MR. WOLFF: It also states that the completion of those units must be completed at the same time that the
completion ofthe 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.)
Pagc 93
''''--~.._~"-~'--"~-._-----,,- -----
16 II' A"3
December 17,2009
CHAIRMAN STRA[N: Okay, next speaker'
MR. BELLOWS: John Murphy.
CHAIRMAN STRA[N: 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. S[NGER: I'm sorry, Joe[ Singer. [[ive at 620 Jacana Circle in Naples Bath and Tennis. And I'm a
member of the N.B.T.C. Concemed Property Owners, a group in solid opposition to the petition.
You raised a good question, because the PLIO 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 PlID reads a -- I'll get to that in a minute.
[ had five minutes and forty seconds of material, so I better get going.
Both the tennis club and the residential areas are accessed through a common entrance, and roads lead tTeely
from one to the other with no physical balTiers. Ours is a small development with a residential portion immediately
adjacent to the club on all sides. I hopc everybody's visited the community.
The big issue is whether it's okay to force a busy rcsort hotellifcstyle on to a small quiet residential
community that's been that way for morc than 30 years. This attempt to build a short-stay transient hotel is the latest in
a series of efforts by the independently run tcnnis facility to add commercial clements 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 changcd 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 PA 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.
Now, I ask you, how would you like this to happen where you live') Beforc Naples Bath and Tennis was
constructed, our PlID specified phased sequential construction, with thc 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 f'>r phased developmcnt plans set flJrth elsewhere in this PU D ordinance. He's
referring specifically to that wording.
Three decades ago when our devclopment 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 sheriff's department that the residential communities which allow the most short-stay
rentals arc 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 apmtments
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 hc threatens to close the club in the very future. Well, you know,
this club's been open for 30 years. for God's sakes. [rhe can't makc a go of it. he better do something else.
The numbers don't work. In the January] Oth. 2008 Iettcr to our community, Mr. Boucbard stated he expects
to spend $S million to build the facility and hopes to take in $SOO.OOO a year lor rentals. So not counting the cost of
maintenance, insurance, utilities, taxes and housekeeping, it vli'Ollld be a minimum of 10 years after completion of the
new building before he breaks even. Five million dollars dividcd by SOO,OOO is 10 years. How can this plan be
Page 94
16/1
A3
:J
December 17,2009
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 becaJl1e busier, we were deemed to be in a traffic congestion area, reducing eligible densi_three. We are
already built out at 3.36 units per acre. Adding housing of any kind on the grounds at this time wodld put it
further -- in further violation of the Future Land lIse 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. S[NGER: 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 oflife 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 rczones. There are several points
governing whether this petition would survive the test of meeting public purposes. [f no other 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 thcy 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: Docs anybody else in the audience wish to speak on this matter?
MEMBERS FROM THE AlIDIENCE: I do.
CHA[RMAN STRA[N: Ma'am, come on up and use the microphone and identity 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 tournaJl1ent, when we had 80 some
coaches here for the tennis bit. I have never had a problem. None.
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 tbere, even tbough 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 [ 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. 11 is the thing to do. Progress is what we're
all about. Thank you so very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am.
Page 95
. _~"u",."___~.,_~_,__,___"_",,,,,,,,,,,__"_' .~_.,"" ..........
- .- - --...
_. ~~,..."_...,.."....u
__,.___."__~_...,_,_..._.,__,, n_ ".....,,'> ,_ '''',__~_",___''_''.~ ___n'_
.: '-4-
.....
-
"'.~
A3
,
, '
'11 {;/, .'
" c' ~ ,',
,-".
"
.
Oecember 17.2009
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 applicallt'S side has a I O-minute rebuttal, if they would so choose.
MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chainnan, I'm eeltainly 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 ofthe 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 terrns of the number of property owners that are in this survey. And it's a huge number.
The other issue in terrns of your legal authority to do this, I think 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 importantlt)f the community, and I would ask for your positive vote. 1113nk 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 votc on them separatcly. The only way one is accomplished is by enacting the other, I would think.
COMMISSIONER SCI IIFFER: Okay. I mean, I am totally in favor ofthe transient housing and the
establishment of some of the rules. If we'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 beftJre 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 wc'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 or the intent, some of the things the neighbors thought they were
going to gel didn't bappen, things came out or 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 Javor of keeping the tact 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 havc 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 tor 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 SDP review. But, you know, just
exactly what the PUD statcs 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. If they 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, wc'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. We are
not trained in the details of engineering and architecture and design that the county staff' is. And it takes half a dozen
departments in the county to review an SDP. Ifwc open that up to a public process, we're going to get a lot of
infonnation that is going to take a lot oCtimc to review' and get tiS no\vhcrc. The standards that are being presented
today seek to limit the design to tvm stories to \vithin a cer1ain distance from a building to within certain locations.
Page 96
1611
A3
December 17, 2009
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 SOP 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 PlID.
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 MlIRRA Y: 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 Coeohatchee, 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 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 SDP 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 ofthings and had public hearings without the level of detail of an SDP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN; Burt, did you want to contribute something?
MS. SAUNOERS: Mr. Chairman, if] 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 SOP 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 all SOP review. Because tbat'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.
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 o[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. Caron7
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 MlIRRA Y: 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 COllRT REPORTER: Mr. Wolfley, could you get on the microphone.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, Cieez, and I'm the one always complaining.
Page 97
..--._---~_._--~, .- ",--."-'
-
--
"~.~._._.._,.'-
. ~
'J
~ .";.,
.'
A3
lDecember 17,2009
..
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 timeline of the construction, and that's
why we're here.
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, Ijust want to add one thing. In my disclosures, in addition to Mr.
Bouchard, Mr. Saunders, f 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 MlIRRA Y: I would -- in consideration of all the facts and factors, I am recommending
we forward to the Collier County Board of Commissioners PlIDA-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 ordinancc that we've got in front of us but also to the fact that the applicant volunteered not
to relocate the road to lit transitional units')
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: 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 f(lrthe motion. I think that Judge Brousseau's order
was perfectly clear. I think the PlID 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 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 ofthe 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 KOLFLAT: 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 somcone to buy some property when they're dependent on such a thing as will
there be hotel rooms or not and then cbange it after the judge has decided it's illegal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else"
COMMISSIONER MlIRRA Y: 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 becn 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 casc. As you remember, when this came here the first time J said you can't
vote on it. And now VOll 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
havc with the comments made by the applicant. So I'm not buying into everything that we were told today, but I think
Page 98
16 I 1 A 3 ~1
December 17, 2009
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.
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 MURRA Y: Ave.
o
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
All those opposed~
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: 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 liS to -- there's no old business.
I think public comment's been had.
And we have one other announcement to make. Everybody, please, bave 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 SCH1FFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MlIRRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTfl: 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 CO UN Y ~Il$
MARK STRAIN, Chai an
These minutes approved by the board on l -1-/ ~16 as
presented Vor as corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingbam.
Page 99
RECEIVED ~::, ~ /5 C
Koa"~~~ou:~~;O:~~~sioners g~yr~t:g ~~~f 16 I 1 A 4
COLLIER CO{INTY LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD
c::::..-
./
...
Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.
Headquarters Library
AGENDA
Call to order
Approval of Minutes
Literacy Program Report
Report of Officers
Communications
a - Written
b - Personal
.~
Unfinished Business
I. Employee of the Month
2. Senior Resource Center
3. Rose Hall
4. South Regional
5. LAB Applications
6. Budget
New Business
General Considerations
Director's Report
Report of the Friends
Adjournment
Corres:
"die. 0 d..-I J2> / I [)
''''m 11 lto I LI)4A-
Naples, Florida, December 9, 2009
16/1 A 4
1
1
LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date In regular session at 10:00 a.m.
in the Headquarters Library with the following members present:
CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis
VICE-CHAIR: Loretta Murray
Connie Bettinger-Hennink
Rochelle Lieb
ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director
Nick Linn, Member, FOL Board of Directors
Carla Grieve, Member, FOL Board of Directors
Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator
Luz Pietri, Administrative Assistant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Lewis asked for comments or corrections to the minutes of October 21, 2009. There being none,
Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink moved, seconded by Mrs. Murray and carried unanimously, that the minutes be
approved as submitted.
LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT
Mrs. Reiss reported that the 'USALearns.org' program is now online. The staff at the East Naples Branch
tried it out and they found it easy to access and follow through. It is also going to be offered at the
Golden Gate Branch Library to adult students. She also stated that 1S students from the Ave Maria
University have volunteered to tutor migrant women at their homes in Immokalee.
REPORT OF OFFICERS - None
COMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Lewis reported having received a note of thanks from Karen Kocses, who had been recently
selected as Employee of the Month. The gesture was appreciated by the Board.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
The Board reviewed the nominations submitted for selection of the Library's Employees of the Month
for November and December 2009. Mrs. Murray moved, seconded by Mrs. Lewis and carried
unanimously, to select Theresa Wagner, Library Assistant at the HQ Library for November. Shelley
moved, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink and carried unanimously, to select Sharon Berrueta, Library
Assistant at the South Regional Branch for December 2009.
In reference to the Senior Resource Center, Mrs. Matthes stated that she has attended various building
planning meetings. She said that the committee is moving forward with plans.
As for the Rose Hall, Mrs. Matthes stated that this project should be finished by January 2010 and that
February 12'h has been set as a tentative opening day.
16/1A4 J
In reference to the South Regional Library, Mrs. Matthes reported that business there seems to be
picking up and that the road signs are finally done.
NEW BUSINESS
Mrs. Matthes requested that the Board change the meeting date in February to a different day. The
Board unanimously decided to meet on Wednesday, February 24'h instead of the scheduled date of
February 17'h
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS - None
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mrs. Matthes reported that the fines and fees changes were submitted to the BCC for their approval.
Some of the changes include charging non-library members a $5.00 fee for 30 minutes of computer time
and $10 fee for non-resident temporary library cards. She also stated that most of the present Job Bank
staff members will be moved to regular positions soon. She's also working on internet safety
requirements as part of the State Aid Grant process. Some of her new year's goals are to consider
RFID's; automatic checkout stations; a 'floating book collection', (these are books that can circulate
throughout the system but are not assigned to any particular branch), and 'wireless circulation', which
enables books to be checked out via a hand-held scanner.
REPORT OF THE FRIENDS
Carla Grieve reported that she had been present at a recent meeting in which Gina Downs was
discussing the possibility of running the Vanderbilt Beach Branch with volunteers and one paid staff
member. No recommendation was made then, but that the concept is still ongoing, Mrs. Grieve said.
Mr. Linn reported that the Red/White/Roulette event had been very successful. It netted just under
$10,000. He said that there are plans to continue doing this again in the future. Mr. Linn stated that the
Friends are unveiling a major marketing campaign to create awareness of their role in relation to the
Library and to increase memberships in both groups. He stated that a tentative lecture series at the
South Regional Library will stop for now. The Friends Board members are being encouraged to visit the
various library branches. There's a revival of the 'adopt a branch program' going on. The calendar sales
are also doing well. T-shirts are being printed with the Friends logo, some of which will be purchased by
employees as a part of the Denim for Dollars contribution. Banners will also be posted throughout the
library system identifying the Friends of the Library group. Lastly, Mr. Linn reported that Bill Forbes, a
member of the Friends, was in the process of establishing credentials with the Spanish Community, as
well.
16/1A4 ~
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the library Advisory Board, Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink
moved, seconded by Mrs. Lieb and carried unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. Time: 11:45
a.m.
Approved by:
C.. \. \_'
~\:'.:'\.J1
Doris J. Lewis
Chair, Library Advisory Board
~:::s ~ 161181 ;
Henning~ Otcember 4 2009
Coyle ~ '
Coletta
INUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY RECEIVE[
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE JAN 29 2010
i<I);.mi ni COlJrHY Comrnlssiol
Naples, Florida, December 4, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, in and
for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in the Collier County Community Development
and Environmental Services ("CDES") Building at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida, with the following persons present:
SPECIAL MAGlSTRA TE:
Honorable Brenda Garretson
ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisij&C. Corres'
Michele McGonagle, Administrative Secretary Date: O;).J d0
IfemIJ:
Copies to
16 , 1 81
1ecember 4, 2009
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Hearing was called to order at 9:00 AM by the Honorable Special Magistrate
Brenda Garretson. All thosc testifying at the proceeding did so under oath.
A. Hearing Rules and Regulations were given by Special Magistrate Garretson.
Special Magistrate Garretson noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, the
Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Invesfigating
Officer(s) for a Resolution by Stipulation; thc goal is to obtain compliance without
being punitive.
RECESS: 9:18 AM
RECONVENED: 9:43 AM
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes:
(a) Under Item V (A), Stipulations were reached in the following cases:
. Agenda #12, Case #CEPM 20080006103 - BCC vs. Bertha A. Hall, et al
. Agenda #11, Case #CESD 20090010025 - BCC vs. James R. Bird
. Agenda #4, Case #CENA 20090015945 - BCC vs. Daniel Guerrero
. Agenda #3, Case #CEPM 20090008288 - BCC vs. Michael DeWitt
. Agenda #8, Case #CESD 20090005170 - BCC vs. Jay Dee Staton
(b) Under Item V (B), "Hearing!!'," the following case was WITHDRAWN by the
Deputy:
. Agenda #1, Case #SO 166065 - CEEX 20090017680 - BCC vs. James
Carroll
(c) Under Item V (B), "Hearings,"thc following cases were WITHDRAWN by the
County:
. Agenda #2, Case #SO 172764 - CEEX 20090017348 - BCC vs. Karolyn
Karnehm c/o William Rogers, PA
. Agenda #7, Case #CEV 20090013307 - BCC vs. Daniel Pisani Tr., Marie
Semore & Betty Israel
(d) Under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following case was
WITHDRA WN by the County:
. Agenda #2, Case #CEPM 20090004038 - BCC vs. Timothy Cotter
The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made
during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 20,2009
Correction:
2
1611 81
.
December 4, 2009
. Under Item V (A). '"Stipulations," in Agenda #7. BCC vs. Arnalda & Josephine
Ayala. the case number should be CEPM 20IJ90IJIJ3953.
The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on November 20,2009 were
reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as amended.
IV. MOTIONS
A. Motion for Reduction/Abatement of Fines - None
B. Motion for Extension of Time:
1. Case #CESD 20080015162 - BCC vs. RosaIio & Juanita Al!.uavo
The Hearing was requested by Respondent, Juanita Aguayo, who was present.
Maria Aguayo appeared as a witness.
Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Weldon Walker, Jr., was also present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building
Regulations, Article U, Florida Building Code, Adoption and
Amendment of the Florida Building Code, Section 22-26(B)(104.1.3.5)
Construction/remodeling being done to shed on property without permits
Folio No: 65070520005
Violation Address: 516 Palmetto Avenue, Immokalee
Juanita Aguayo stated her husband died six months ago, and she resides at 516
Palmetto A venue in Immokalee.
The Special Magistrate noted Maria Aguayo, the Respondent's daughter, submitted a
letter on behalf of her mother requesting an Extension of Time for a period of three
months.
Investigator Walker stated the County would not object if additional time was granted
to the Respondent.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for Extension of
Time.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Stipulations:
12. Case #CEPM 20080006103 - BCC vS. Bertha A. Hall, et al
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Weldon Walker, Jr., who was present.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22 Buildings and
Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code,
3
16 'lIB 1
December 4, 2009
Section 22-231 (12)(A)(B)(C)(F)(l)(P)
Broken/cracked windows; unsafe porch/stairs/railings; roof
damage/sloping/leaking; floor sunk in; building shifting/leaning
Folio No: 56402800001
Violation Address: 103 Eustis Street, ImmokaJee
A Stipulation was entered into by George McKinney, as co-owner olthe property, on
behallolthe Respondent, Bertha A. Hal!, on December 2, 2009.
Investigator Walker stated Bertha A. Hall is deceased and George McKinney is the
Respondent's son and heir. Mr. McKinney had produced a Death Certitieate for the
Investigator to review.
The Special Magistrate aceepted Mr. McKinney as the Personal Representative of the
Estate of Bertha A. Hall and co-owner of the property
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either complete all cited property
maintenance repairs or obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required
inspections, remove all debris to an appropriate waste disposal site, and a
Certificate of Completion on or before January 4,2010, or afine of $200,00 per
day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by
a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to
abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent,
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office
to enforce the terms of the Stipulation,
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.36 on
or before January 4, 2010.
The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator petform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.36
1 L Case #CESD 20090010025 - BCC vs, James Bird
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Weldon Walker, Jr., who was present.
The Respondent was also present.
Katherine Bird, the Respondent's daughter, was present to assist her father who wore
a hearing aid.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22 Buildings and
Building Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code, Section 22-
26(B)( I 04. I .3.5)( I 06.1.2)
Shed in rear of property missing window/broken window. Two windows
4
1611 81
1
~ecember 4, 2009
and a door are boarded from the inside out. Main house has been
re-roofed with mctal roof over roll. Permit was issued 12/02/98. Not
C/O'd.
Folio No: 32680280001
Violation address: 1420 Santa Rosa Avenue, Immokalee
The Respondent, who resides at 1420 Santa Rosa Avenue, Immokalee, Florida, stated
his daughter read the terms of the Stipulation to him.
A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on December 4, 2009.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either obtain a Collier County
Building Permit for the unpermitted shed and metal roof, all required inspections
and a Certificate of Completion or obtain a County Demolition Permit to remove
the unpermitted shed, all required inspections, remove all debris to an appropriate
waste disposal site, and a Certificate of Completion on or before June 4,2010, or a
fine of $150.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains
thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special
Magistrate,
If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to
abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent.
Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office
to enforce the terms of the Stipulation.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.56 on
or before January 4, 2010.
The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.56
4. Case #CENA 20090015945 - BCC vs. Daniel Guerrero
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcemcnt Investigator
Thomas Keegan who was present.
The Respondent had been present earlier and entered into a Stipulation, but left before
the case was heard.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article VI, Sections 54-179
and 54-181
Litter consisting of, but not limited to, piles of dead vegetation and
construction debris on residential zoned property
Folio No: 61780440000
Violation Addrcss: 3240 Caledonia Avenue, Naples, 34112
)
16 11 B 1
..,
December 4, 2009
A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on December 4, 2009.
Investigator Keegan stated the Respondent admitted his property was in violation of
the Ordinance.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUlL TY of the alleged violation and ordered to remove the litter to an appropriate
waste disposal site on or before December 11,2009, or afine of $100.00 per day
will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a
subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to
abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent.
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office
to enforce the terms of the Stipulation.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.36 on
or before January 4,2010.
The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance,
Total Amount Due: $112.36
3. Case #CEPM 20090008288 - BCC vs. Michael DeWitt
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Jonathan Musse who was present.
The Respondent had been present earlier and entered into a Stipulation but left before
the case was heard.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22 Buildings and
Building Regulations, Article VI Property Maintenance Code,
Sections 22-23 1(12)(C) and 22-23I(12)(D)
Missing soffits from roof~ also some of the windows are boarded up not
allowing proper ingress and egress from the structure
Folio No: 63405280006
Violation address: 1072 Granada Blvd, Naples, FL 34103
A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on December 4, 2009.
Investigator Musse stated the Respondent admitted his property was in violation of
the Ordinance.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to repair the damages cited on the
Property Maintenance Checklist on or before December 18, 2009, or a fine of
(,
16 J 1 r~ 1
~
Dccember 4, 2009
$200.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter
unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to
abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and al'sess the costs to the Respondent,
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office
to enforce the terms of the Stipulation.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.29 on
or before January 4, 2010.
The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.29
8. Case #CESD 20090005170 - BCC vs. Jav Dee Staton
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforccment Investigator
Jonathan Musse who was prcscnt.
The Respondent was rcprcscntcd by Robert Ricciardelli, Field Manager, J.e.
Kosinski Engineering.
Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended,
Section(S) 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(A), IO.02.06(B)( I )(E), and
1 0.02.06(B)( 1 )(E)(I)
Permit # 2001051852 for a "convenience permit - shingle re-root" was
issued on 5-21-0 I and expired on 11-17-01. Certificate of Completion
has not been obtained
Folio No: 73830920002
Violation address: 1134 Milano Drive, Naples, Florida 34103
Mr. Ricciardelli, who resides at 264 Burning Tree Drive, Naples, Florida, stated he
was employed by J.C. Kosinski Engineering and the Respondent retained the
company to obtain the required construction documentation.
It was noted the Respondent provided a notarized statement to Code Enforcement
authorizing representation by Mr. Ricciardelli.
A Stipulation was entered into by Robert Ricciardelli, as Field Manager/or J C.
Kosinski Engineering, on behalfofthe Respondent on December 4, 2009.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either obtain a Collier County
Building Permit for any construction, additions or remodeling, all required
inspections and a Certificate of Completion or obtain a County Demolition Permit
to remove the unpermitted construction, additions or remodeling, all required
inspections, remove all debris to an appropriate waste disposal site, and a
Certificate of Completion on or before January 4, 2010, or afine of $100. 00 per
7
16:, 1 B1
December 4, 2009
day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by
a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
lf the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to
abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent.
If necessary. assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office
to enforce the terms of the Stipulation.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of$II2.42 on
or before January 4, 2010.
The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.42
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. Hearings:
9. Case #CENA 20090010705 - BCC vs. L&M GBC APT, LLC. RIA Lucv Miller
10. Case #CEPM 20090016733 - BCC vs. L&M GBC APT, LLC. RIA Lucv Miller
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Heinz
Box who was present.
The Respondent was represented by Roger Miller, her husband.
Violations: Case #CENA 20090010705: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54,
Article VI, Sections 54-181 and 54-185(A)
Weeds in excess of 18" and litter consisting of, but not limited to metal,
plastic, and wood at this location
Case #CEPM 20090016733: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord,
Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article II, Florida
Building Code, Section 22-26(103.11.1)
Unsafe buildings or sfructures
Folio No: 00236120000
Violation address: 6900 Airport Road, Naples
Mr. Miller stated his wife is thc Registered Agent for the LLC and he is the Managing
Partner of the LLC and has the authority to represent it.
The Special Magistratc clarified Lucy Miller was not the Respondent in the case.
Investigaor Box introduced four photographs which were marked as County's
Composite Exhibit "A." lIe stated the litter included hazardous materials and
chemicals, i.e., 25-gallon oil drums and paint. He further stated the litter was caused
by the tenant, Tom Williams, who moved his business to another location.
x
16 , 1 81
~
December 4, 2009
The Investigator stated he spoke with Mr. Williams who agreed to remove the debris
but did not. He contacted the County Health Department to remove the oil because it
was a Health and Safety risk since the drums were uncovered.
Mr. Miller stated Mr. Williams had been a tenant on the property but was evicted due
to non-payment ofrent and real estate taxes. He further stated the property is currently
in foreclosure. He stated he filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceeding for debt
reorganization which is pending in Bankruptcy Court.
The Special Magistrate stated since both cases (CENA 20090010705 and CEPM
20090016733) are in Bankruptcy Court, subsequent Court actions are not
permitted.
Supervisor Waldron confirmed the County will WITHDRA W the cases.
The Special Magistrate noted the photographs marked as County's Composite
Exhibit "A" were not admitted into evidence.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Motion for Imposition of Fines:
1. Case #CEPM 20080000939 - BCC ys. Flozell Jones & Danny Thomas
The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff
Letourneau and Property Maintenancc Specialist Joe Mucha.
The Respondents were represented by Sharon Howard.
Violations: Ord. 2004-58, Sec. 16, Sub(s). leA) -l(e), I(E), leG), I(H), 2(A) & 2(B)
Vacant commercial building in deteriorated condition with multiple
property maintenance violations
Folio No: 24371120006
Violation address: 317 South 2nd Street, Immokalee, FL 34142
It was noted that Ms. Jones is deceased and Mr. Thomas is her son and beneficiary.
Ms. Howard, who resides at 1202 Mimosa Avenue, Immokalee, Florida, stated she
was authorized to represent Mr. Thomas.
Investigator Mucha stated he has worked with Ms. Howard on Mr. Thomas' behalf
for the past ycar.
Supervisor Letourneau stated the violation has not been abated, and tines continue to
accrue. Operational Costs of $118.22, assessed on October 3, 2008, were paid.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs (for the Imposition of Fines
Hearing) in the sum of $112.49, together with fines in the sum of $41,750 for the
period from June 21,2009 through December 4,2009 (167 days @ $250/day), and
abatement costs in the sum of $3,702.18, for a total amount due of $45,564.67.
'i
1611
i"") .!I,j
~L...}
!I\'
a.....'l ..L,
....t.'"'~.j
December 4,2009
Ms. Howard stated the building had becn demolished on June 17,2009 but the debris
had not being completely removed by the waste hauling company because it was
more than had been initially contracted and funds were not available to cover the
additional cost. She stated Mr. Thomas moved to another address and there was a
delay in receiving his mail.
The County completed the removal of debris in August, 2009. Due to a contlict
between the County-hired contractor and the County, Mr. Thomas has been unable to
obtain a Certificate of Complction.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines
but, due to mitigating circumstances, reduced the total amount due to $24,814.67.
The Special Magistrate reminded Ms. Howard that Mr. Thomas has the right to appeal
the decision and suggested he contact the County Commissioners.
The Special Magistrate expressed concern for the Respondent who was being penalized
due to a situafion over which he had no control, i.e., the contractor owed money to the
County.
RECESS: 11 :30 AM
RECONVENED: 11 :50 AM
The Special Magi~,trate ruled the accrual of fines will be stayed and the case will be
returned in 120 days if the situation has not been resolved. She further ruled that
due to the level of compliance, the fines will be not be applied retroactively.
3. Case #CELU 20090012495 - BCC vs. St. Louis Moise
The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan.
The Respondent was present.
Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sections
2.02.03 & 1.04.04(A)
Residential zoned property being used as storage area for items to be
shipped to Haiti
Folio No: 67491080009
Violation address: 4415 Thomasson Lane, Naples
Investigator Keegan stated the violation had not been abated and the Operational
Costs of $ 117.87 assessed on October 16, 2009 have not been paid.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs (for the Impostion of Fines
Hearing) in the sum of $112.03 togethcr with fines in the sum of $3,900 for the period
between October 27, 2009 through Dccember 4,2009 (39 days @ $1 OO/day) and the
previously assessed Operational Costs of$l 17.98, for a total amount due of $4,129.90.
10
161181 ,
December 4, 2009
The Respondent was visibly upset and stated his house is in foreclosure.
The Special Magistrate noted the Repondent had been ordered to remove the litter
from his property by October 26, 2009 during a Hearing hcld on October 16,2009.
He did not comply with the terms of the Order and fines began to accrue.
The Respondent claimed he did "clean it up."
The Investigator performed a recent site visit and stated the property was not free
from debris and windows, tires, and a large pile of debris covered with a tarp were
visible from the street.
The Respondent stated he will try to sell the items by shipping them to Haiti.
Investigator Keegan stated the terms of the October 16th Order included never using
the property again as an outside storage area in addition to removing the litter.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of $4,129.90 and notedfines are continuing to accrue.
The Special Magistrate reminded the Respondent that he has the right to appeal the
decision and suggested he contact the County Commissioners.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. Hearings:
5. Case #CEPM 20090005155 - BCC vs. Andrew Miller & Lauren Gilbert
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Ron
Martindale who was represented by Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau.
The Respondents were not prcsent.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building
Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-
231(15)
Private swimming pool not maintained containing green, polluted, algae
filled water. Conducive to insect infestation
Folio No: 49660104585
Violation address: 2063 Moming Sun Lane, Naples
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on
November 20, 2009.
Supervisor Letourneau introduced two photographs, taken on December 3, 2009,
which were marked as County Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence.
He stated the property owners reside in England, and the property is in foreclosure. A
Lis Pendens was filed by a bank on November 9, 2009.
11
16/181
""
,1
December 4, 2009
He confirmed the violation is a Health, Safety and Welfare issue because of the
infestation of insects due to the pool's algae.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either clean and maintain the
pool water to remove all algae, or chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool
pursuant to HUD standards on or before December 14, 2009 or afine of $250,00
per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered
by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to
abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondents.
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office
to enforce the provi~'ions of the Order.
The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $//2.29 on
or before January 4,2010.
The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator peiform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $//2,29
Supervisor Letourneau stated he will forward information concerning the case to the
County's Forcclosure Team and requcst they contact the bank to abate the violation.
6, Case #CEPM 20090011797 - BCC vs. Paul & Linda Christopher
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Ron
Martindale who was represented by Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau.
The Respondents were not present.
Violations: Collicr County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building
Regulations, Article VI Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231 (15)
Failure to maintain private swimming pool
Folio No: 51978032049
Violation address: 14647 Indigo Lakes Circle, Naples
The Notice of Violation was mailed via U.S. (rcgular) Mail and posted at the property
and the Courthouse on Scptember 17, 2009. The Notice of Hearing was posted at the
property and the Courthouse on November 20, 2009.
Supervisor Letourneau introduced two photographs, taken on December 3, 2009,
which wcrc marked as County Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence.
He stated the property is vacant, and the property owners have not responded to the
notification.
12
16 , 1 B 1 '-".
December 4, 2009
He further stated the pool is enclosed with an intact screen, and the violation is a
Health, Safety and Welfare issuc because of the infestation of insects due to the
pool's algae.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either clean and maintain the
pool water to remove all algae, or chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool
pursuant to HUD standards on or before December 14,2009 or afine of $250. 00
per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered
by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to
abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondents.
Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office
to enforce the provisions of the Order.
The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.23 on
or before January 4,2010.
The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator peiform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.23
C. Emergency Cases: None
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Motion to Amend Previously-Issued Order:
l. Case No.: CEPM 20080016535
Owner: Benjamin Vega-Centeno
Otlicer: Investigator Kitchell Snow
Violations: Collier Counfy Land Development Code Ord. 04-58, as amended,
Sec. 12 - Dangerous Building
Folio No: 73180280007
Violation address: 587 9th Street, ImmokaIee, FL 34142
2. Case No.:
Owner:
Officer:
Violations:
CEPM2009000 1294
Fernando Rosquette
Investigator Michelle Scavone
Collier County Land Development Code, Chapter 2004-58, as
amended, Section 12 - Dangerous Building
Folio No: 40570n0003
Violation address: 2365 10th Avenue NE
Supervisor Waldron stated, for eaeh case, the County was requesting to correct
the amount offhe finc by eliminating a previously assessed $100 administrative fee.
13
161 1 B lcemb'4, 2009
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion in each case.
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as referenced in the
submitted Executive Summary.
The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases identified in the Executive Summary and
GRANTED the County's request toforward the referenced cases to the County
Attorney's Office.
B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases
referenced in the submitted Executive Summary.
The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and
GRANTED the County's request to impose Nuisance Abatement Liens.
IX. REPORTS:
None
X. NEXT HEARING DATE - January 15, 2010, at 9:00AM, located atthe Collier
County Government Center, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, 3301 E, Tamiami
Trail, Naples, Florida,
There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by
Order of the Special Magistrate at 12:35 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
HEARING
('
ecial Magistrate
The Minutes we~. approved by the Special Magistrate on ) a n u 4 JS )0 10 ,
as prescnted V . or as amended. I
14