HEX Transcript 11/10/2016 November 10,2016 HEX Meeting
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
Naples,Florida
November 10,2016
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
Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Director
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,NOVEMBER 10,2016 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: October 27,2016
4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. PETITION NO. BDE-PL20160000863 — Craig and Wendy Lyon request a 67 foot boat dock
extension over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code, for a
total protrusion of 87 feet,to accommodate a new boat dock facility with two vessels for the benefit of
Lots 58 and 59, Isles of Capri Unit No. 1 subdivision, also described as 14 Hawk Street, in Section 14,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator, Ray Bellows, Zoning
Manager)
B. PETITION NO. ZLTR(CUD)-PL20160002442 — Global Properties of Naples, LLC requests
affirmation of a zoning verification letter issued by the Planning and Zoning Division pursuant to LDC
Section 10.02.06, in which County staff determined that the proposed use of indoor air conditioned self-
storage/mini-warehouse (SIC 4225) is comparable in nature to other permitted commercial principal
uses in Tract MU, Mixed-Use Development, under Section I.B of the Vincentian Village MPUD,
Ordinance No. 2015-33, as amended. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of
Southwest Boulevard and U.S. 41 in Section 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida,consisting of±30.68 acres.(Coordinator,John Kelly,Planner)
5. OTHER BUSINESS
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
7. ADJOURN
November 10,2016 HEX Meeting
PROCEEDINGS
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the Thursday,
November 10th 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 S IRAIN: Thank you.
A few housekeeping matters: Individual speakers will be limited to five minutes unless otherwise
waived,decisions are final unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners,and a decision will be
rendered within 30 days.
Review of the agenda: There's two items on today's agenda. The first one was Item 4A. It was
Petition No.BDE-PL20160000863. It was the Craig and Wendy Lyons'boat dock extension on Isles of
Capri. If anybody's here for this matter,it has been moved to the Collier County Planning Commission due to
heightened public concern and letters or emails received concerning its orientation in that particular body of
water. So it will not be heard today.
And that leaves with us one item left for today's meeting. First,though,is the approval of prior
meeting minutes. I've read those. They're fine to be recorded as submitted.
***And that takes us into Item 4B,which is the only public hearing we have today. It's Petition No.
ZLTR(CUD)PL20160002442. It's Global Properties of Naples,LLC,and it's an affirmation of a
comparable/compatible analysis that was created and done by staff.
Would 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: Disclosures on my part: I have talked to the applicants,Chris
Shucart;I've talked to Bob Mulhere. I've had numerous conversations with various staff members,and I have
researched all of the history of the property and various documents leading up to today.
Also let the record note that there's been a supplemental staff report issue for this item,and that staff
report has been--copies have been provided to the court reporter,Exhibit A,in addition to the other documents
we normally have.
So with that--first of all,I have read all of the packages involved. I have a few questions.And I don't
need a formal presentation.
Are there any members of the public here for this item?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Chris,since you're here,would you mind just letting us
know you're here and you represent the ownership project.
MR. SHUCART: Yeah. Good morning,Christopher Shucart. I'm a principal with Global
Properties of Naples representing us as the applicant today.Here to answer any questions you have.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I know Mr.Mulhere is on his way,but he may not get here
in time to even be help on this. I do have a couple of items that I wanted to—between you and staff,basically,
to make sure we're on the same page.
Are you in agreement with the supplemental staff report?
MR. SHUCART: I haven't actually read it yet,but--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Ray,was that sent to Bob at least?
MR.BELLOWS: Yes,it was.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Chris,we can wait till Bob responds,or if you want to give him a
call while I go on and--
MR.SHUCART: Let me read it and give Bob a call and then--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I'm sorry it came out late yesterday. I didn't read it till last
night. So,ideally,it would have been part of the record prior to this,and everybody would have had time with
it. Why don't you take--we'll take a couple-minute break and let you have a chance to read it.
MR. SHUCART: Great,thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll pause for about two or three minutes.
Page 2 of 6
November 10, 2016 HEX Meeting
(A brief recess was had.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Chris,thank you for your patience this morning and,
again,sorry that report got out so late. And have you had time to review it and/or call Bob and see if he's
reviewed it?
MR. SHUCART: Yeah. I've reviewed it. I talked to Bob. He got it late. He hadn't had a chance
to look at it yet,but it looks sufficient to us. The only question I would have is we posed a question regarding
the 65,000 square foot--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Yes,that was--
MR. SHUCART: --and that wasn't part of the revised letter. So I just would want to have that be
included somewhere through the process.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And that is going to be an item of discussion here in just a
minute.
MR. SHUCART: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I did want to ask you--the staff report on No.4,it forgot or
omitted the words"air-conditioned." It says,the use is limited to indoor storage only. It is to be
air-conditioned indoor storage only. Do you have any objection to that?
MR. SHUCART: I have no objection to that.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. That's one item that needs to be changed on the
supplemental,but we'll do that through the decision.
Ray,I think the next question,then,comes as a result of Bob's request,and his request started with the
original submittal sometime,I believe,in September,and that second question is that the--specifically we're
requesting determination of SIC Code 4225 limited to indoor air-conditioned self-storage is comparable to
other uses identified as permitted within the Vincentian Village MPUD and,additionally,that this use would
be also deemed comparable to the other uses that are not subject to the maximum 65,000-square-foot
limitation. This includes group care facilities,physical fitness facilities,hotel,and department store.
Now,where that comes from is in Section 1 of the PUD it says that the--that it would allow this
construction on a maximum of 224 multifamily residential dwelling units,up to 250,000 gross square feet of
commercial land uses,a hotel limited to 150 rooms,and an assisted living facility area(sic)of.60,and then,for
sake of the audience,no single use shall exceed 65,000 square feet of gross floor area with the exception of a
group care facility,a physical fitness,a hotel,or department store unless a single use is approved by the
conditional-use process outlined in the LDC.
Now, I discovered this last night,and the supplemental staff report didn't address it either.Originally,
the staff report did not,and originally the first ZVL that went out did not address it,so I don't know if staff
specifically did not address it for a reason,but it needs to get on record as to a response to that.
Heidi?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Actually, it looks like it might not have been advertised to include that
portion to exceed the 65,000 cap.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay.
MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows.I'm filling in for Rachel Beasley on this one.
It was my understanding with my discussions with Rachel before she left that we were only dealing
with a self-storage facility and that the second part of the question really seems to be dealing more with
something that would have to be taken care of as a PDI.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Anybody inform the applicant of this?
MR. SHUCART: Well--
MR.BELLOWS: I'm not sure what Rachel did.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: One at a time,Chris.
MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure what Rachel had communicated.
MR. SHUCART: Nobody communicated that to the applicant.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I know--I wish Bob was here. I know he's very
familiar,being a past,what,manager or director of this building. I'm wondering how his thoughts on this were
and how it could have been accomplished through the comparable/compatible analysis versus a PDI,and why,
Page 3 of 6
November 10,2016 HEX Meeting
if it wasn't addressed the very first time,he didn't have that conversation with somebody.
Did he--any of that--are you aware of any of those interactions?
MR.SHUCART: Well,the reason we put it through as in conjunction with the comparable use
determination is because we felt that the self-storage facility was comparable in use to a hotel,the gym,ALF,
and a department store. So those four items by right can be larger than 65,000 square feet.
So,in turn, if the indoor air-conditioned self-storage was comparable in use and like kind with the
hotel,the gym,the ALF,and the department store,then it would be similar in nature,so it would be allowed to
be larger than 65,000 square feet. It's not an additional use.It's just comparable use. And in conjunction with
those same four,it can be bigger than 65,000 square feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,in the supplemental staff report that was issued,they actually
compared the uses to six different uses within the PUD. They did mention department stores,and they didn't
mention hotels, but those already have a limitation of 150 rooms.
The other elements of those--of that limitation don't seem to be on that list;group care fatality and a
physical fitness facility. And I understand your argument. I'm more concerned that if this needed to be a text
change to the PUD versus a comparable/comparable analysis outcome,that somewhere along the line it should
have happened. And--
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,he wouldn't have been able to add the indoor storage as a PDI,so he
would have--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Right.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --had to go through both processes anyway.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. So from the staffs perspective,are you telling me that
this action has to come back through the process as a PDI now? And,Mike, if you want to join in,please feel
free to.
MR.BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director.
In regards to the application and in regards to the staff review,the focus of the application should have
read and requested a comparable use analysis between the indoor self-storage facility and the uses that were not
restricted for the square foot. I think the questions,being two separate questions,provided for these points not
meshing within the response as desired by the applicant.
From the partial review or partial comparison of the uses,some of the uses that do not have the
square-footage limitation were provided as comparable uses analysis,and we believe that they were similar.
And we agree that those uses were similar to the self-storage or more intense than the self-storage and,
therefore,we found that the self-storage use is a comparable use.
I think a revision to the staff report ideally would have been a revision towards how the question was
asked. The question should have been asked that there's a number of uses that do not have square-:foot
limitations. Those are the uses we are seeking the comparable-use determination upon.
I think that the overall conclusion will be the same;that this is a comparable use to those unrestricted
uses or the uses that do not have the square footage based upon the analysis that we've already provided for
regarding department stores and hotels,two of the primary ones.
But the way that the questions were asked separately,it did not allow--and staff should have
probably--staff should have modified or,through discussion with the applicant,requested a modification of
the application to specifically ask the comparable uses to those unrestricted uses. We think the conclusions
will be the same.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well,we've got two levels of concern. Number one, I heard
Heidi mention the issue of advertising. If this is an advertising issue,that may have to--that may be another
element we've got to address. If it's a zoning issue and you guys can resolve it with another supplemental staff
report,we could potentially do a continuance, if that would work for you,Chris,to get this redone correctly.
The last thing I want to do is see you come through this process,find a buyer who comes in, submits a
plan,and then gets stopped in the SDP review because the use is not one of those listed uses;that it never got
addressed. That isn't something that's not happened before. So I don't want to see that happen.
MR.SHUCART: Well,nobody would want to go through this and then have to go read through it
again. I'd rather take another couple of weeks or when--do you meet once a month or...
Page 4 of 6
November 10,2016 HEX Meeting
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: We meet twice a month except on Thanksgiving Day. I'm
willing/to be here,but nobody else is.
MR. SHUCART: I'll be here. I'll bring turkey.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That will work.
So with that in mind--first of all,Heidi,what do we have to do or how are you sitting now in
relationship to the testimony you heard concerning the advertising?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: The advertising did not address the 65,000 square feet part of the request.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Does the advertising need to address that?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: In my opinion,yes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. From staffs perspective,how long would it take to
correct the advertising and run the ad so we can get the meeting reset? Which means it's going to have to
change from an advertising cost so they can,then,readvertise for any date. We're not limited in the time.
MR.BELLOWS: We could have this for the first HEX meeting in December.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Now that means you'd have to get it over to my office
within the--
MR.BELLOWS: I'll work on it today.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. As far as,Chris,you and Bob getting--well,I think
your request is the same, so you don't need to do anything. It's just a matter of getting a supplemental staff
report rewritten to get it out.
MR. BOSI: I would prefer the applicant revise the application specifically to ask that question to
say--
MR. SHUCART: That's fine.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Do you have a problem with that?
MR. SHUCART: No.
MR.BOSI: --to identify it.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Can that get done quickly?
MR. SHUCART: So we're going to revise the application to do a comparable-use determination as it
specifically relates to hotel,department stores,assisted living,and workout facilities.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Then what will happen out of that is the response,then,will be
limited to those,which then will put you into the same category that you're seeking to get in to avoid the PDI
process,which I have no problem with. If we can fit it in this way,that works.
With that,then,I don't have any other issues that were needed to be discussed in this matter today.
Chris,so from your perspective,you're willing to have a continuance until the first meeting in
December;does that work?
MR. SHUCART: Sure. And you had mentioned something about advertising costs. Does that go
back to me?
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That's--I'm going to-- I guess that's a staff question. I don't
know how the advertising is allocated or how it's paid for. That's something I don't do,so...
MR.BOSI: Staff would--because staff has a responsibility that we should have clarified the request
originally and we did not address the square-footage issue within our response,I think staff will bear the cost of
that readvertising.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. That will make it a little bit easier.
MR. SHUCART: That's appreciated. Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. With that,Petition No.ZLTR(CUD)PL20160002442
will be continued until the--well,actually,we're not--Heidi,we don't need to continue it,do we,or does this
one--can this be withdrawn and readvertised for the 3rd of December--for the meeting in December?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,you can withdraw it and readvertise it.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. So that petition will be withdrawn from today,and it
will be readvertised for it to be reheard in the first meeting in December.
MR. SHUCART: And is that December 8th?
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: It's the first Thursday--no, it's the second Thursday. I haven't
Page 5 of 6
November 10,2016 HEX Meeting
got a calendar.
MR. SHUCART: The 8th.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. So it will be advertised to be heard on December 8th.
Okay. With that,this meeting is--well,with no other old business,there's no public comments,this
meeting's adjourned. Thank you,all.
MR. SHUCART: Thank you.
There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Hearing Examiner at 9:20 a.m.
n
COLL COUNTY i; ' NG EXAMINER
to adkj.. 4 _r ^-�
MARK STRAIN,HEARING EXAMINER
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK
These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on =' ,as presented /-----
or
7or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC.,
BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 6 of 6