HEX Transcript 01/28/2016 January 28,2016 HEX Meeting
0 0 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
V Naples,Florida
January 28,2016
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
Nancy Gundlach,Principal Planner
Eric Johnson,Principal Planner
Scott Stone,Assistant County Attorney
ICI
Page 1 of 7
AGENDA
THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:00 AM ON THURSDAY,JANUARY 28,2016 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: January 14,2016
4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. PETITION NO. PDI-PL20150001593 -Naples Associates V,LLLP requests an insubstantial change
to Ordinance No. 14-10,the Temple Citrus Grove Residential Planned Unit Development,to reduce rear
yard accessory setbacks for screen enclosures on single family waterfront lots from three feet to zero
feet. The subject property consisting of 132.68± acres is located between Airport-Pulling Road (C.R.
31) and Livingston Road, south of the First Baptist Church of Naples PUD, in Sections 1 and 12,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP,
PLA, Principal Planner]
B. PETITION NO. PDI-PL20150001934 - Sterling Oaks Association and Club, Inc. requests an
insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 92-79, the Sterling Oaks PUD, to reduce the minimum PUD
boundary setback line from 20 feet to 12 feet for the western boundary of Tract H within the Recreation
Area; and to provide an exception to the prohibition against buildings or structures within buffer areas
of the PUD, to instead allow a building or structure to occupy the buffer area located along the western
boundary of Tract H within the Recreation Area. The subject property is located in the southeastern
quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail North(U.S.41)and Sterling Oaks Blvd.,in Sections 9 and
10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Eric L. Johnson, AICP,
CFM,Principal Planner]
C. PETITION NO.PDI-PL20150002549—Naples RV Resort,LLC requests an insubstantial change to
Ordinance No. 07-85, as amended, the Naples Motorcoach Resort Commercial Planned Unit
Development, to add unenclosed structures to the Development Standards table in order to clarify that
unenclosed structures are subject to the same development standards as personal utility buildings, and
add pickle ball courts to the Development Standards table in order to clarify that pickle ball courts are
subject to the same development standards as tennis courts. The subject property consists of 23.2±acres
located on the south side of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41), approximately 3/4 mile east of Collier
Boulevard (S.R. 951) in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
[Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach,AICP,RLA,Principal Planner]
D. PETITION NO. BD-PL20150000255 — Richard and Magdalene Talford request approval of a
boathouse pursuant to Section 5.03.06 F. of the Land Development Code, for a new roof over a
permitted boat dock facility located on Lot 44, Block S, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit #3,
also described as 419 Egret Avenue, in Section 29,Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl,Principal Planner]
5. OTHER BUSINESS
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
7. ADJOURN
January 28,2016 HEX Meeting
EXHIBITS
DESCRIPTION PAGE
PDI-PL20150001593
A-Staff Report 4
B-Legal Advertisement 4
PDI-PL20150001934
A-Staff Report 10
B-Legal Advertisement 10
PDI-PL20150002549
A-Staff Report 17
B-Legal Advertisement 17
BD-PL20150000255
A-Staff Report 18
B-Legal Advertisement 18
* * * * * * *
PROCEEDINGS
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the Thursday,January
28th 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: Thank you.
I have a couple of housekeeping matters to announce. Individual speakers will be limited to five
minutes unless otherwise waived.
All decisions are final unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners,and decisions will be
rendered within 30 days.
With that in mind,the review of the agenda,everything is in order. I notice we have representatives
from each particular case here. So we'll leave the agenda as it's noted.
The approval of prior meeting minutes. The January 14th minutes were distributed. I've read those,
and I find nothing wrong with them. They can be recorded.
***Which takes us to our first advertised public hearing. It's Petition No.PDI-PL20150001593,and
it's the Naples Associates V,LLP,also known as the Temple Citrus Grove. And I think it's got another name.
Marbella—
M .RATTERREE: Isles.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Marbella Isles. And for the record,could you state your name.
MR.RATTERREE: Yes,sir. For the record,my name is Kevin Ratterree,vice president with GL
Homes,developer of Marbella Isles.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And the first matter of business will be swearing in.
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: Okay. Disclosures on my part: I talked with staff;I've
reviewed all the files;and I have talked with Bob Duane,the applicant's representative.
Exhibits today: Exhibit A will be the staff report. Exhibit B will be the legal ad.
Are there any members of the public here for this item?
(No response.)
Page2of7
January 28,2016 HEX Meeting
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And,Kevin,with that in mind,I've already read the staff
report. I have a few questions. If you have anything you wanted to add to the record,you're more than
welcome to at this time.
MR.RATTERREE: Let's let the questions fly.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay, Well,first of all,there were some staff
recommendations. Do you have any objections to those?
MR RA ITERREE:ERREE: No,sir.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Let me pull it up. I need a clarification from staff on the
NIM. There was a NIM held,I believe.
MR.RA ITERREE: Yes,sir.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And,Nancy,would you--I notice it wasn't in your
report,so would you make an acknowledgment as to the conditions of the NIM and anything that may have
occurred there.
MS.GUNDLACH: Yes,sir. Good morning,Mr.Hearing Examiner.
The NIM meeting was held on December 8th,and there were no attendees.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Usually the staff report simply says that. It was
missing this time. I wanted to make sure the record was clear on that.
And I did just catch something. I have a standard note about staff recommendations,but there really
wasn't any in this one. So I appreciate you agreeing to nothing.
MR.RATTERREE: Well,that's my style.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you,Kevin.
There was also an issue involving a notation,and let me see if we can get to it here. On this particular
table,we've added the line that's in the red box,and it basically affects two product types,single-family
detached and single-family zero lot line,the line that would go to zero on a lake maintenance easement,which
is usually 20 feet from the control elevation.
While the two-family duplex notes three feet,which is consistent with how it would read, I would
assume in other locations that that isn't a change.That's still three feet.
MR.RAT!FRREE: That's correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Because that wasn't advertised as a change. In order to be
consistent with that,we were suggesting--and I talked to Scott Stone about this—to add the word
"single-family"in front of the word"lots"on there so that we know the change is limited to what was
advertised,and that was the single-family lots. Is that--do you have any objection to that or concerns?
MR.RATTERREE: Correct,as long as the understanding and interpretation of the term
"single-family"includes both single-family detached and the zero lot line attached units.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And,Scott,does that work?
MR.STONE: I suppose in an abundance of caution,we could explicitly write"single-family
detached and attached,"but I do personally believe that"single-family"covers both.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Then from Ray's perspective,would it matter to you,Ray?
Does it need more clarification?
MR.BELLOWS: I think it's clear enough,though I don't have a problem if you want to add that
additional qualifier.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Well,then,Kevin,if you don't mind,when we get done
today,if you could forward the corrected language to my office,that way when a decision's written up,we can
incorporate that into the language.
MR.RATTERREE: Be happy to.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And that would involve all the various properties that were just
around the lake that are shown on this map. It doesn't involve any other thing that's off the lake,any other
property off the lakes,I believe.
MR.RATTERREE: Just because that map is the entire community. The requested change only
applies to single-family and zero lot line.There's a total of 466 homes in the community,of which only 127 are
affected by the change that's coming forward,which would be those single-family zero lot line lots that abut the
Page 3 of 7
I i
III
January 28,2016 HEX Meeting
lakes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So they'd have to abut one of those eight lakes?
MR.RATTERREE: Well,actually,Lake No.5,6,and 7 are lakes that abut up against the duplex
product,and their amount of--this change did not apply to those particular lots.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Great. Thank you.
MR.RA'I FERREE: You're welcome.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Is there a staff--or anything,conditions you need or
clarifications to the staff report,Nancy?
MS.GUNDLACH: No.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Are there--any members of the public wish to speak on
this item?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Hearing none,we will close this public meeting,and I will have
a report--a decision within 30 days but most likely within 10.
MR.RATTERREE: Thank you very much.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you,Kevin.Appreciate it.
***The next item up is Petition PDI-PL20150001934. It's the Sterling Oaks Association Club,Inc.,
and it's for a setback variance on the west side of the project.
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: Disclosures on my part: I've talked with staff;reviewed the
files;and the applicant,Mr.Cotter,I spoke with him when this originally started,which seems like far too long
ago.
And Exhibit A will be the staff report,and Exhibit B will be the legal ad.
Are there any members of the public here wishing--that will be speaking on this item?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. It's good to see you again. I'm sorry it took so long for
you to get to this point today. I know it's been an interesting road for you. I've seen the paperwork.In fact,I
can't think of many projects where I've had 510 pages of backup. So as much as you've had the trouble putting
it together,I certainly had a time reading it all.
I don't have a lot of questions. There are a couple I wanted to clarify. Do you have anything you
want to add to the data that's been provided to the staff report? Because I have read it all.
MR.CO'I"IER: Not at this time,no.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. First of all,do you agree with the staff
recommendations?
MR.COTTER: Yes,sir.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And I'm sure your answer to this is going to be
affirmative.This request is strictly for the buildings in question,not for any other part of this project.And for
the benefit of everybody,that's the aerial of the maintenance facility that's just south of the clubhouse in
Sterling Oaks,and that corresponds to the tract—it's in Tract H,as laid out here.
And in looking at the file,this is—the rectangle on the right,I believe,is the addition that needs the
bulk of the setback variances;is that correct?
MR.COTTER: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Setback changes,I should say.
In looking at it in the language that was written,the language is pretty broad. Basically anything
going in Tract H would be subject to this language,and I think the intent is that you want the building addition
that you're doing--and I believe the existing building has a slight intrusion into the 20-foot setback as well.
So my suggestion--and I'll get staff to confirm this--is that we write that language that's on that page
there to be more specific and tie it to the surveys that you provided. So basically the two buildings that are on
the survey,which would be both--these are pages from the survey. It's a four-page survey. Those are the
buildings that will be subject to this setback change,not other buildings that could fall within Tract H.
Page 4 of 7
January 28,2016 HEX Meeting
MR.COTTER: No,just this isolated incident only.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And that's acceptable to you as the applicant?
MR.COTTER: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I'll ask staff to confirm that in a minute.
And I did want to check one other thing.According to this,the setback is at 13 feet,but the
advertisement and the request is for 12 feet.And I talked to Scott,and I think there was someone that at the
time thought there needed to be an abundance of caution to make sure that the building was covered,but if this
survey is accurate,we don't need to really be at 12 feet.Thirteen feet would be sufficient,would it not?
MR.COTTER: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Because I'd like to match the survey and read the request
for the setback. If you're at 13 feet by the survey,I don't know why we would need to say 12 unless staff in
their report can tell me something different to that question,so...
MR.COTTER: Yes,I agree with that.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: There also is the issue of a small shed. Apparently that's being
relocated. That was discovered after the fact.
And I believe that is all I have. That's the only questions I have are those there,so thank you.
MR.COTTER: All right.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I'll ask staff to comment on some of the things I just brought
up to you. Appreciate your time.
MR.CO IT ER: All right. Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Eric? This rather voluminous package of information was
yours. And since it's 510 pages,I'm not going to ask you to read the whole thing for the record. So maybe if
you could just answer the--you heard my comment about the clarification to the language. Do you have any
problem or objection to that?
MR.JOHNSON: No,sir. For the record,Eric Johnson,principal planner.
Building on what you were discussing with the applicant,the scope of this application PDI is limited to
that which is shown on the spot survey,a building. Any other encroachment required a separate application.
I think that's the kind of language that we were looking for.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And I agree,and I would want to make sure that the
exhibit that I'm going to use will tie that to the decision,the four pages of the survey. Sitting here,any
problem with that?
MR.JOHNSON: No,none whatsoever.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. This distance that they're requesting is really,by survey,
13 feet,not 12. Do you see any issues there from staffs perspective,reducing the setback to 13 feet instead of
12 feet?
MR.JOHNSON: I don't have an issue with it as long as the County Attorney's Office doesn't have an
issue with it.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Mr.Stone?
MR.STONE: I concur.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Then the other thing I have to ask,Reverend Slater,the
Victor Church pastor who lives right next door,in his letter he wrote that the encroachment was to a 10-foot
landscaping buffer. That is less than the encroachment. It really is a 15-foot landscape buffer. I didn't know
if anybody had clarified with him--that with him,or if you know why it would have gotten in there at 10 feet.
It is a 15-foot landscape buffer,is it not?
MR.JOHNSON: That's correct. It's a 15-foot landscape buffer.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And on Page--and I really wish you had not given me
510 pages. But on Page 502,the staff report is for--and it has a project called Quail Creek Village
Foundation Paving. I'm sure it doesn't need to be part of this staff report. On Page 508 is an application for
certificate that seems to be linked to that project.
On Page 509 it's talking about a project called Sweetwater Bay and Heron Lakes,neither of which I
think are associated with this project. On Page 510 is a one-page contract between the owner and contractor
Page 5 of 7
January 28,2016 HEX Meeting
that I can't find has any bearing on this case.
So those issues in the staff report,I don't know--when you put another large staff report together,you
need to go through all those pages and make sure they're all relevant to the case,because at least the last five or
six pages don't seem to be.
And with that,I don't have any other questions. Are there--any members of the public wish to speak
on this matter?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll close the public hearing. A decision
will be rendered within 30 days,most likely within 10. I do thank you all for coming.
***The next item up is Petition No.PDI-PL20150002549. It's the Naples RV Resort,LLC,also
known as Naples Motorcoach Resort,commercial planned unit development.
All those wishing to testify on 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.
Disclosures on my part: I've visited the site,talked with staff,read the files,and had conversation
with Mr.Arnold.
Exhibit A will be the staff report. Exhibit B will be the legal ad.
In reviewing the application,Wayne--I hated to see you come back here again. And it's a nice
project. I went down and took a look at it.Everything looked really well.
I don't have any questions from the application. It's pretty straightforward. I don't know if you had
anything you wanted to add to the record. I have read the staff report.
MR.ARNOLD: I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor&Associates,and I don't have any
additional comments.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Is there anything that staff would like to add to the staff report?
MS.GUNDLACH: Staff is recommending approval.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you,Nancy.
Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this matter?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Then we will close the public hearing,and a decision
will be rendered within 30 days,most likely less than 10.
Thank you,Wayne.
MR.ARNOLD: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: ***The next and final item is Petition No.
BD-PL201500002555(sic),Richard and Magdalene Talford. It's a boat dock roof--roofing for a boathouse,
and it's in Connors Vanderbilt Beach Estates.
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.
Disclosures on my part: I did talk with staff. I've reviewed the files.
Exhibit A will be the staff report Exhibit B will be the legal ad.
And is the representative of the applicant here? Mr.Turley,please come on up.
MR.TURLEY: For the record,my name is David Turley. I'm the agent for the Talford family.
And you have to excuse me. I'm getting the flu or a cold or whatever.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Hopefully you won't have to say much.
MR.TURLEY: Between coughs.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I have read your entire report,and I have a few comments. I
just didn't know if you had anything you wanted to add to the report.
MR.TURLEY: No.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. My first comment is,well done.
MR.TURLEY: Thank you.
Page 6 of 7
January 28, 2016 HEX Meeting
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That was one of the cleanest applications I've seen in a long
time,and it's--there wasn't many issues there,so I do appreciate the way you put it together.
MR.TURLEY: I tried to cover all the boundaries just in case.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You certainly did,and that brought down the necessity for any
questions or back and forth.
This is the proposed--at least the conceptual rendering. And I did notice,and I thought it was a good
idea that on this rendering you supplied letters of no objection from the adjoining neighbors. That was a good
move. They actually saw and signed off on what you're proposing.
MR.TURLEY: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Do you have any issues with the staff recommendations?
MR.TURLEY: None whatsoever.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And I'll also note this meets all the criteria. And I don't
think I have anything that needs to be changed.We're good.
MR.TURLEY: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Mr.Turley,thank you.
MR.TURLEY: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I appreciate your application.
Is there a staff report or anything that needs to be added to the staff report,Fred?
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl,zoning division.Nothing additional at this time. We recommended
approval with one condition.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And that's the condition Mr.Turley's already agreed to.
MR. REISCHL: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And with that,are there any members of the public that
wish to speak on this matter?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Mr.Turley,thank you. We'll close the public hearing,
and a decision will be rendered within 30 days,most likely within 10.
MR.TURLEY: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you,sir.
That brings us to our remaining items on the agenda.
One is other business. There is none.
Public comments. Does anybody from the public wish to comment on this matter?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Hearing none,this meeting's adjourned. Thank you.
There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Hearing Examiner at 9:19 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY HE R EXAMINER
; vl
MARK STRAIN,HEARING EXAMINER
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK
These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on - n'~ ''V,as presented
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICE,INC.,
BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 7 of 7