HEX Transcript 09/27/2018September 27, 2018 HEX Meeting
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
Naples, Florida
September 27, 2018
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
John Kelly, Senior Planner
Scott Stone, Assistant County Attorney
Page 1 of 5
AGENDA
THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:00 AM ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 IN CONFERENCE
ROOM 610 AT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/PLANNING & REGULATION
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. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. PETITION NO. VA-PL20180001625 – The Ohana Group, LLC requests a variance from the
minimum front yard setback in LDC Section 4.02.01.A, Table 2.1 for a single family dwelling on
property zoned RMF-6, to reduce the minimum front yard setback on the east side from 25 feet to
7.5 feet for the building and 5.5 feet for the roof overhang, located on the west side of Curtis Street
between Clark Court and Church Avenue, also described as 2140 Curtis Street, in Section 11,
Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: John Kelly, Senior
Planner]
B. PETITION NO. VA-PL20180002054 – William D. Toler 20-Year Qualified Personal
Residence Trust and Deborah H. Toler 20-Year Qualified Personal Residence Trust request a
variance from Section 10.5.4 of the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, Ordinance No. 77-48, as amended,
to reduce the minimum setback to the north and south property lines from one -half the building
height, or 18.8 feet, to 15 feet, for a single family home located at Lot 30, Southport on the Bay
Unit One, also known as 202 San Mateo Drive in Bonita Springs, in Section 6, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 0.48± acres. [Coordinator: John
Kelly, Senior Planner]
4. OTHER BUSINESS
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
6. ADJOURN
September 27, 2018 HEX Meeting
PROCEEDINGS
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday,
September 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: Thank you.
Some housekeeping announcements. The 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.
And with that we have three adver -- or two advertised public hearings. The first one is 3(A). It's
Petition No. VA -PL -20180001625, The Ohana Group, LLC, for a variance located on Curtis Avenue.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in
the affirmative.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I had a -- for my disclosures, I have had several conversations
with the applicant, and as well as with staff. And that's the extent of it. Also read all of the documents, both
historical and those in the staffs packet. So with that we'll go right into the case.
And is there any member of the public here who is not associated with this project or the applicant that
wants to discuss this?
Okay. With that, who is the representative of the applicant?
Would you mind coming up and identifying yourself for the record?
MR. FREDERICKSON: Good morning. My name is Luke Frederickson. I'm an officer for The
Ohana Group.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And if you -- I have read everything in the packet, but,
because there is a member of the public here, he may not have seen the material or been that familiar.
Could you give a brief picture of what the project is about and what you are trying to do?
MR. FREDERICKSON: Basically it's a five -home development on Curtis Street in which one of the
current lots, 2140, which abuts Curtis Street and the access road, we're asking to decrease the setback on our
property from 25 feet, I believe it was --
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You are considered a double frontage lot because you are on a
corner street?
MR. FREDERICKSON: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And that's the purpose for having the 25 on both -- two sides.
Normally it would be much less. I don't even remember what the number was offhand.
And you are asking to go down to seven and a half with an overhang?
MR. FREDERICKSON: Yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And the overhang is typical.
One question I had, and the research -- and I think I had mentioned it to you a while back, is to verify
there are no utilities, either private or county, in that right -away, alongside the right-of-way. A lot of locations
in the county, the ten foot alongside the right-of-ways are for PUEs, private utility easements.
MR. FREDERICKSON: That's correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Have you done a search with your -- through your surveyor to
see if there are any easements there?
MR. FREDERICKSON: Yes. We had Bruns & Bruns Surveying research that, and there is no
easement.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I didn't see any on your survey. Just wanted to verify that for
Page 2 of 5
September 27, 2018 HEX Meeting
the record. I'll ask staff to verify that they had checked it as well.
Other than that, I don't have any questions. Everything is pretty straightforward at this point. We'll
have to see what we have as a result of public input, and then, after any member of the public speaks, you have
a right for rebuttal.
MR. FREDERICKSON: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: With that, I have no other questions.
MR. FREDERICKSON: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. FREDERICKSON: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Anyone from the public wish to speak on this matter?
Sir, if you want to come up and identify yourself for the record?
I thought you were going to walk out the door just then. It wasn't that hard of a question.
MR. GRANEY: My name is Michael Graney. I'm a resident of 1365 Marlin Drive. I also own the
property at 2296 Curtis, which is right down the road from the property that is being considered for this, this
adjustment to setback.
Fully understanding that, you know, with the building and development of new homes there is going
to be interest in making some adjustments to this. I also own a corner lot, so I understand the double setback
need, or the requirement by the city.
I'm here to say that I'm not opposed, necessarily, to a variance being done, but I am concerned about
the distance that it's coming out. I think going from 25 to 7 and a half could be excessive. I think that the
builders, when they bought that lot, developed those lots, understood what they had to work with and could do
a better job of developing within it.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: One item that I did notice, this is an unrecorded plat. The lot
had a subdivision line on it that was much narrower than the lot being put there today, in the past, and I'll
probably ask the applicant if they have done any research on the width of that lot or the timing of that. Since it
was an unrecorded plat, there is not a lot of documentation available to be found. That may have some bearing
on how this was intended to be when it was first laid out, but I have not found a record on it, so --just to give
you some background. And you may -- having a lot there in another location down the road, you may have
more knowledge of the unrecorded plat than we have.
MR. GRANEY: Ido not. So I just wanted to come and address and let my concerns be known.
Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
I'll ask staff to do a staff report.
MR. KELLY: John Kelly, Senior Planner with the Zoning Division.
What's your question, sir?
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I have two, John. The idea of this public utilities, have you found
any indication there was one --the applicant has not. I just wanted to make sure staff had as well.
MR. KELLY: No. And just, as you stated, Iran into difficulty, finding out that this an unrecorded
subdivision, basically, with no real information.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Yeah. If this corner lot situation didn't apply, the setback would
have been, do you agree, seven and a half?
MR. KELLY: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I don't recall what you have -- a corner lot application
came into play. Do you?
MR. KELLY: No.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any other questions of staff, and staffs
position was a recommendation for approval, with no stipulations that I can find. Is that correct?
MR. KELLY: Correct.
Page 3 of 5
September 27, 2018 HEX Meeting
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. If you want to come back up, Luke, and if you have
anything you want to respond to, you are more than welcome to, otherwise I don't have any other questions at
this point. I understand the gentleman's concerns. I'm --
MR. FREDERICKSON: I think your question was, was this a condition we were aware of during the
development of the proj --or the site development of the project, and it is not something we developed. This is
a very unique property with unique circumstances, unplatted, and things. So we were, you know, at the
purchase of the property -- and we have had many conversations with staff over the years on this project -- we
weren't aware that that was considered a corner lot. Being that the access easement is on our property, we've
decided to pave it because we're improving the neighborhood, but we were not aware we were going to be
considered a corner lot due to a private access easement. So when that came to our attention is when we
started this variance process. So we did not knowingly purchase the property, knowing we were considered a
corner lot.
And there is a -- there is a large easement from the road to our actual property line, so we won't be
seven and a half feet off the street, we'll be seven and a half feet off of our property line, which, if I recall, is
about 25 feet.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I was just going to look at that. It's 22 or 25 feet. I had caught
that when I reviewed this. You are quite a bit of distance --
MR. FREDERICKSON: Overall we're going to be 25 feet, roughly.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And the only way that would change, most likely, is if they
four-laned Curtis Street, and I doubt if Curtis Street could ever rise to the level of needing four lanes, unless
there was an intercoastal or something connecting to it.
MR. FREDERICKSON: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So from that perspective I understand your setback being
significantly greater because of the unused right-of-way --
MR. FREDERICKSON: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- in that location.
I don't have any other questions, so thank you.
MR. FREDERICKSON: I hope I answered your question there.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Is there anybody else here that would like to testify on behalf of
this matter?
If not, we'll close the public hearing on this, and within 30 days a decision will be rendered. Most
likely probably within seven to ten days, based on the workload I have right now.
So thank you all for attending, and I appreciate your comments this morning.
The next item is the second item on the agenda. It's 3(B), Petition No. VA -PL -20180002054, the
William D. Toler Resident Trust for a facility at Lely Barefoot Beach, or a home at Lely Barefoot Beach.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter.
((The speakers were duly sworn and indicated
in the affirmative.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Disclosures on my part. Yesterday I met with the applicants'
representatives to understand some of the details of the architectural plans that were submitted. I also met
with staff, went over some issues with -- I know it was Ray Bellows who I discussed issues with.
And with that, Alexis, if you don't mind coming up and identifying yourself for the record as
representative of the applicant.
MS. CRESPO: Good morning. Alexis Crespo with Waldrop Engineering, representing the
applicant.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Any members of the public here to address this item?
Okay. Alexis, I did read everything on this, so I'm familiar with the documentation you supplied.
Based on yesterday's discussion, I understand now the enclosure of the rooftop area that's -- that's in
Page 4 of 5
September 27, 2018 HEX Meeting
question is also a remodeling of it, expanding it a bit, but all within the confines of the original structure. So
you are not going any further into the setbacks with what you are adding to the rooftop area, if I'm not mistaken.
MS. CRESPO: That's correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. The height, or the zoning height of this particular
location, because it's in a PUD, is based on the PUD language, which is four habitable floors, with the option of
a ground floor for FEMA -regulated issues.
And your structure is going to be 37 -- about 37 point -- 37 feet, 8 inches high, if I'm not mistaken?
MS. CRESPO: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And the only other thing -- I need to make sure I had gotten
everything yesterday -- you have a letter of, let's say no objection from the architectural review board for that
particular neighborhood, too, as well; is that correct?
MS. CRESPO: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I don't have anything else, Alexis. I appreciate your
time. Thank you.
Anybody else here have anything they would like to say on this matter?
Okay. I'll turn to staff for a report.
MR. KELLY: John Kelly, Senior Planner for the Zoning Division.
Our division is recommending approval.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And that is, the height would have required a 18.8 feet variance,
and you are recommending the approval for down to 15 feet, which currently exists today?
MR. KELLY: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any other questions, and nobody from the
public here to address this matter, so we'll close the clearing on that.
And that takes us to the last item on the agenda.
Are there any public comments?
Hearing none, this meeting is 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 9:14 a.m.
COLL CO T G EXAMINER
MARK STRAIN, Hearing Examiner
ATTEST
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on/�� as presented V-1"or as
corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC.
BY ELIZABETH M. BROOKS COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 5 of 5