HEX Transcript 08/27/2015 August 27,2015 HEX Meeting
rT
OCT X2/0
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
By COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
Naples,Florida
August 27,2015
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Hearing Examiner, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION at 2800
North Horseshoe Drive,Room 609/610,Naples,Florida,with the following people present:
HEARING EXAMINER MARK STRAIN
ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V.Bellows,Zoning Manager
Fred Reischl,Principal Planner
Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney
Page 1 of 6
AGENDA,
THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:00 AM ON THURSDAY,AUGUST 27,2015 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 610
AT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/PLANNING®ULATION BUILDING,2800 N.
HORSESHOE DRIVE,NAPLES,FLORIDA
INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES UNLESS OTHERWISE WAIVED BY THE
HEARING EXAMINER. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS
INCLUDED IN THE HEARING REPORT PACKETS MUST HAVE THAT MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO
COUNTY STAFF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. ALL MATERIALS USED DURING
PRESENTATION AT THE HEARING WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO
ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD
INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ARE FINAL UNLESS APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
HEARING PROCEDURES WILL PROVIDE FOR PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT,
PRESENTATION BY STAFF, PUBLIC COMMENT AND APPLICANT REBUTTAL. THE HEARING
EXAMINER WILL RENDER A DECISION WITHIN 30 DAYS. PERSONS WISHING TO RECEIVE A
COPY OF THE DECISION BY MAIL MAY SUPPLY COUNTY STAFF WITH THEIR NAME, ADDRESS,
AND A STAMPED, SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE FOR THAT PURPOSE. PERSONS WISHING TO
RECEIVE AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DECISION MAY SUPPLY THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. REVIEW OF AGENDA
3. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES: July 23,2015
4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. PETITION NO.PDI-PL20140002486—Habitat for Humanity of Collier County,Inc.requests
an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 07-63, the Habitat Woodcrest RPUD, now known as
Legacy Lakes RPUD, to change the PUD name; to reduce the Residential Tract acreage; to reduce
the minimum lot width, minimum side yard, and minimum distance between structures on the
Development Standards table;to add a note to the Development Standards table relating to corner lot
yard requirements;to revise the minimum lot width on Figure 1;to amend the Master Plan to reflect
existing conditions; to revise the PUD legal description; to revise Deviation #3 to delete an
erroneous reference to a PUD exhibit; to revise the List of Developer Commitments to delete
Planning commitment A, add Transportation commitment H, and amend Utility commitment B to
reflect the new PUD name.The subject property consists of 10.74±acres located on the west side of
Woodcrest Drive, south of Immokalee Road(C.R. 846), and north of Acremaker Road, in Section
26,Township 48 South,Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl, AICP,
Principal Planner]
5. OTHER BUSINESS
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
7. ADJOURN
August 27,2015 HEX Meeting
EXHIBITS
DESCRIPTION PAGE
PDI-PL20140002486
A-Staff Report 4
B-Legal Advertisement 4
C-Revised Copy"Exhibit A"from Mr.Vanasse 4
PROCEEDINGS
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the Thursday,August
27th meeting of the Collier County Hearing Examiner's Office.
If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Some housekeeping matters to start the day. Individual
speakers will be limited to five minutes unless otherwise waived. All decisions are fmal unless appealed to the
Board of County Commissioners,and a decision is rendered within 30 days.
And with that,we'll move into review of the agenda. There is one item on today's agenda,someone
noted on the overhead screen,Legacy Lakes. It's a Habitat for Humanity project.
I've received minutes electronically for July 23,2015. They're good to be filed as submitted.
And with that,we'll move into our first and only advertised public hearing. It's Petition No.
PDI-PL20140002486,Habitat for Humanity of Collier County,Inc.,Legacy Lakes RPUD.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you.
And as far as my disclosures go,I spoke with the representatives for the applicant,reviewed all the
files that were provided to me,plus any I could fmd,talked to staff,and I've had a conversation with the district
commissioner.
There will be,currently,three exhibits.Exhibit A will be the staff report,Exhibit B will be the legal ad,
and Exhibit C will be the revised documents that were provided a copy to the court reporter this morning,and
most of those I have on the overheads that we'll walk through here in a few minutes.
I will be needing--and before you start your presentation,Patrick,we'll need a brief presentation.
We have members of the public here,so I want to make sure they're up to speed on everything you're
requesting.
I'm going to show several of the items on the overhead that were in the packet,and then when you
finish,we'll go through some questions I have that still remain,so...
This is the revised master plan that was--it was in the packet. There was a couple small tweaks
added to this. The cross-sections--since there was another exhibit that referenced cross-sections,we needed
to know how those applied. They weren't on the master plan. They are now.
One of the notes attempted to redefine open space. There was no need for that,so that was removed.
This is the table that was supplied. It's been modified with some setbacks. The language in red is a
suggestion that I'm proposing they consider for Footnote No.2.
This is the cross-sections that were previously unallocated. There's some cleanup needed on those so
the setbacks coincide with the table.
This is some of the pages that needed changes,and one of the changes was made on Utilities A,but the
water management paragraph didn't have the changes caught up to it,so that needs to get corrected.
And that,I believe,is the last piece that I've got at this point.
So,Patrick,I can move to any of those if you want to use any. And that's something--we don't have
overhead in this room,so I try to put as many relevant graphics as I can on the slides to present so the applicant
Page 2 of 6
August 27,2015 HEX Meeting
can use them if need be. I do have some other questions,but we can move through everything after your
presentation.
MR.VANASSE: Okay. Thank you.
For the record,my name is Patrick Vanasse.I'm a certified planner with RWA. I'll keep the
presentation pretty brief. I think we've got one person from the public,and I think everybody else is staff here
or with the applicant team so--and I think this gentleman attended our NIM,so I think he's already aware of
some of the changes we're asking for.
First of all,we're asking to change the name from Habitat Woodcrest PUD to Legacy Lakes.Habitat
bought the property a few years back and had no immediate plans during the downturn,but just recently they've
decided to move forward with this project.
A lot of the stuff that Habitat currently does or has done in the past is single-family attached dwellings.
And they're going with some new product,which are narrow single-family detached dwellings. And one of
the reasons they wanted to make the change to the PUD was to accommodate those units,and that was the
impetus for the amendment.And as we looked through the document we made a few other tweaks.
So,again,we changed the name of the PUD.The client name was revised also throughout for Habitat
for Humanity. You pointed out that we had missed one in there,so we made that correction.
We did some internal reconfiguration of the master plan. One of the things that we did is we relocated
the recreational tract from the entrance to the northeast right by Woodcrest,and we put that at the end of the
cul-de-sac. We figure there's--you know,the entrance right there at Woodcrest is a high traffic area,and
having children play at the end of the cul-de-sac where there's less traffic would be a safer,better configuration.
We also reconfigured the cul-de-sac which was a--I think the--it was slanted upwards,and we
reconfigured that. We also changed the lake configuration slightly. We did some cleanup on the master plan
itself. In the past,some of the requirements was that you put--I think the legal description was on there and
some cross-sections,and those are now attached exhibits to the document,so there was no need to have those
on there.
And,finally,we made some slight changes on the land development—development standards.Again,
to accommodate the single-family narrow product,we had 40-foot-wide lots,and we reduced that to 36 feet.
By doing so,we adjusted some of the side yards--minimum side-yard setbacks from six feet to five
feet,and then in making that change,we then had to change the minimum separation between buildings from
12 feet to 10 feet.
So that summarizes the various changes we've done.
And one more thing also,I think the overall acreage changed just a little bit. We--as part of the
original PUD,there was a commitment for right-of-way for Woodcrest improvements which occurred. Some
of that right-of-way was conveyed,and it makes a small,small change to the overall acreage.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Patrick,because the gentleman is here from Crystal Lakes and
he was someone who I met just before the meeting started,where is Crystal Lakes? I mean,I know. But just
for everybody's benefit,where is Crystal Lakes in relationship to your boundaries?
MR.VANASSE: Crystal Lakes is north of us,I would say;north and west of us. But I don't
think--they do not abut Woodcrest Drive,and probably less than a quarter of a mile from us,I would imagine.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Fred,did you have something you want to add?
MR.REISCHL: Thank you,Mr.Strain. Fred Reischl,zoning division.
Crystal Lake is west. Bent Creek Preserve is directly north of you.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Bent Creek's got some changes they're looking at,too.
Okay. As far as your setbacks and standards go,I checked them against the minimum standard for,
like,clustered housing,which a lot of this is considered. And you are in line with those.
I have some questions,Patrick,that I'm going to go through.
MR.VANASSE: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Some may be staffs,but I'll ask you,and if you can't,staff might
be able to answer.
MR.VANASSE: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: One of the comments in the staff report was revise Commitment
Page 3 of 6
August 27,2015 HEX Meeting
C under environmental to delete the percentage of native vegetation. Please note the acreage has not been
revised. If the acreage hasn't been revised,why are you concerned about deleting the note for native
vegetation;percentage,at least? Do you--
MR.VANASSE: What exhibit?
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: It's Commitment C.
MR.VANASSE: Commitment C.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I did--it is--I mean,it did get revised and,I mean,I don't
necessarily have a problem with the revision.I'm just—I want to understand the intent. If you're going to
leave the acreage the same,what does it matter whether the percentage is there or not? And maybe,Fred,if
you can help him,since you reviewed it as well.
MR.VANASSE: If I recall,that may have been a request from staff. I don't know if we requested to
make that change as part of the application,and I just can't recollect exactly how it occurred.
MR.REISCHL: That might have been. During my review,since the acreage didn't change,it didn't
matter to my review that the percent was gone.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I don't necessarily think we ought to remove things if we don't
know why we're removing them. It doesn't hurt having--Patrick,do you see a reason why it couldn't stay like
it reads?
MR.VANASSE: As I said,my recollection is I think staff may have requested it and--
MR.REISCHL: Because as the acreage got smaller with the percent change,is that—
MR.VANASSE: Yes.
MR.REISCHL: --the rationale?
MR.VANASSE: I think maybe since the overall acreage has changed slightly,it could have—you
know,on a--from a decimal standpoint,it could have been slightly different. That could have been it.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: But if the overall acreage changed--
MR.VANASSE: It would have been--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: --because of that right-of-way,your--your minimum would
have gone down,wouldn't it have?
MR.VANASSE: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Fifteen percent of a smaller number would be--
MR.VANASSE: What we were--yeah,we'd be providing more from a percentage standpoint.
Like I said,I really can't recall how that occurred.Either way,I don't think we had any desire to get that
removed.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Like I said,it's not an issue that's concerning. I was just trying
to understand the reasoning behind it,and I couldn't figure it out.
Either way it will work; 1.68 or whatever the number is is what's got to remain.
Number 2,footnote,do you have any objections to adding that? I didn't create whole'nother slide just
to add the footnote,but at the end of the footnote,as it reads now,it currently says,"No structure shall be
permitted in the required 20-foot lake maintenance easement or,"and I would suggest adding LBEs,landscape
buffer easements.
MR.VANASSE: We don't have a problem,and it's kind of become the standard right now,so we're
fine with that.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Right. You removed the--No.2 on here used to be the
reference to open space. That's now gone.
MR.VANASSE: Uh-huh.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Your cross-sections are now shown.
And the only other note I had left after the clarifications that you already are going to do here,to make
sure it's consistent with the table,is to change that to your new entity.
And those are all the comments I have at this time.
And with that,Patrick,I'll see if there's a staff report,and then we'll move to public speakers.
MR.VANASSE: Okay. I actually have a few little tweaks that I'd like to bring forward,just--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Let's walk through them then.
Page 4 of 6
August 27,2015 HEX Meeting
MR.VANASSE: Yeah. You know,I think you had told us you had some--a few little cleanups,so
I went back last night and looked through this thoroughly and noticed just a few little details that would
probably be good cleanup items. So if you go to the footnotes to the development table.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I've got the development table,but I didn't type out all the
footnotes.
MR.VANASSE: So what we did is we changed the side-yard setbacks,and our development table
allows for single-family attached and single-family detached. Our immediate concern was really the
single-family detached,but as part of this process,we also changed one for single-family attached to five feet.
We omitted(sic)to change Footnote No.3,and what Footnote No.3 says is where a detached
single-family unit is proposed adjacent to an attached single-family dwelling unit,a minimum 12-foot building
separation shall be maintained.
If you look at the development standards,we went to five feet and minimum separation 10 feet.So for
consistency sake,my thought is we could just remove Footnote No.3. It doesn't apply anymore.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I fully agree. That would be fine.
MR.VANASSE: Okay. And if you have a copy of the cross-sections--they're not very clear,and I
have--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well,that's the best I could do off the documents I had.
MR.VANASSE: Yeah. And all we could find going back through our files was a PDF,and that's
why it's not very clear. We couldn't find the exact CAD file. But we've reworked it,and we'll be emailing
that to you.
This was really associated with showing the buffers and the deviation of where the wall would be
within the buffer,so that was carried forward.We omitted(sic)to change the minimum setbacks that is shown
for the buildings. They still show six feet. That should be five. So we've made those corrections.
And I think some of those lines weren't clearly identified as project boundary and property line,so
we've cleaned that up and will be emailing that to you.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I think you showed me those before the meeting started--
MR.VANASSE: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: --and they look consistent with what you just said,so that will
be great.
MR.VANASSE: That's it.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much,Patrick.
Fred,do you have any staff report?
MR.REISCHL: Thank you,Mr.Strain. Fred Reischl,zoning division.
I received a phone call yesterday from the gentleman that lives in the single-family home directly west
of the project,and he just wanted to know if there were going to be any changes to the preserve. I said they
would stay the same,and he was very happy.
Staff has listened to and I spoke to you about these proposed changes,and we have no objection and
we recommend approval.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Fred.
With that,is there any members of the public that would like to speak on this matter?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay.
Patrick,I have one other question. It's kind of not on topic,but it is in a way.
MR.VANASSE: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I heard you are going to be leaving RWA.
MR.VANASSE: I will not be leaving RWA,but I will be going to a part-time status. I'm going to
be staying on taking on a bit of a different role.I am actually starting a new niche building and development
company that is going to be looking at building pocket neighborhoods. If you're not familiar with those,
they're small infill projects.They're going to be green building,walkable porch-front type of communities with
coastal architecture in keeping with your local environment,your local context.
And we hope to start off,you know,small with maybe some one-off projects here and there to prove
Page 5 of 6
August 27,2015 HEX Meeting
the concept,demonstrate how--the type of quality we can build,and we are going to be using modular
construction,and we are looking at providing both wood construction and recycled steel.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay.
MR.VANASSE: So an interesting concept.We're looking forward to it. We may have to work with
staff and the county at looking at the code and how--what kind of deviations may or may not be needed. But
we're looking forward to it. I think it will be something different for this market,and I'm excited about it.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: It sounds good. It's something that sounds like it's got a strategy
for the future. And with you at the helm,I'm sure it will come out very well. It's been a pleasure working
with you at the different stages,both here and at the Planning Commission,so I sure do wish you the best of
luck,Patrick.
MR.VANASSE: Thank you. Appreciate it.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you for your past frame of mind to always try to
cooperate.
MR.VANASSE: And I'll still be around. And I've got Ashley here with me,so you'll seeing Ashley
way more. And she's been doing a great job for us,and I'm sure she'll keep working well with staff and doing
a great job for her clients.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well, I was wondering why your company would steal one of
the most competent people in the county away from us,and now I know why. It was a strategy,so--
MR.VANASSE: And I'm sure you'd much rather see her face than mine,so it's a benefit for
everyone.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: But I bet I'll see both in the future. So thank you, Patrick. I
appreciate all your efforts.
Okay. With that,there is no public comment,and we will close this public hearing. I'll have a
decision rendered within 30 days,most likely within a week to 10 days if everything goes well.
I will need the cleanup documents from you as fast as you can produce them and make sure we copy
our planner with them,and we'll be good.
Does anybody else have any other issues for today's meeting?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Hearing none,this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.
There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Hearing Examiner at 9:20 a.m.
COLIAE:LIN7 RING EXAMINER
MARK STRAIN, HEARING EXAMINER
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK
These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on 10--F- I ,as presented ` .
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF
GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.,
BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 6 of 6