Loading...
HEX Transcript 08/27/2020August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 1 of 42 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida August 27, 2020 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 ANDREW DICKMAN ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Tim Finn, Principal Planner John Kelly, Principal Planner August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 2 of 42 P R O C E E D I N G S HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Everybody good to go? All right. Great. Good morning, everybody. Let's get started, and then why don't we get started with the Pledge of Allegiance, if you'll join me, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. It is slightly -- probably 9:02, August 26th (sic), 2020. I want to say my name is Andrew Dickman. I'm a Florida Bar attorney, been practicing land use law for approximately 20 years. I'm recently appointed as the new hearing examiner. I'm happy to be here, and I want to open with a few comments, if I may. First of all, as you know, we're set up for the COVID-19 situation. We're doing everything we can to protect everybody's health and safety. This is a hybrid type of hearing. There will be some folks that have logged on virtually. They will be on the screen. Obviously, there's accommodations for people that are here in the audience. There is quite a bit of technology involved here now because of -- due to the hybrid. If we notice that there are some situations where there might be some corrections that we have to make, I've asked the court reporter to raise her hand if she can't hear anything, or if there are any issues, I'm going to pause for a minute, and we'll get those corrected. I'm going to take -- we're going to take our time, make sure everything gets done right, although, I realize all the applicants have signed waivers acknowledging that they are doing this under -- under the knowledge that they are having more technology than normal. Just a few -- a few other things, the -- we will be observing all the CDC guidelines and County safety rules, meaning, I appreciate everyone wearing their mask and being separated. We are all behind Plexiglas, so we're going to do everything in our powers to make sure that we follow those rules. There may or may not, I believe -- I have hand sanitizer, I don't know if everybody else do. The air conditioner was down due to FPL. It was no fault with the County. It will be cranking up very soon, and everybody will be feeling wonderful by the time the hearing is over. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. If you haven't read the online, there are guide -- there's a guide to public participation for the hearing examiner process. It is a quasi-judicial hearing. The procedure to follow is generally the applicant will go first, the County will go after that, then any witnesses, and we'll go from there; that's a very general process. We have a court reporter who will be taking down everything that's being said. If I start talking too fast, she's going to either throw a piece of paper at me, or knock on her window over there. It's very important that we create a record, and, that, you know, for, you know, keeping this for future purposes and my purposes as well. Everyone will be testifying under oath, and our great court reporter over here -- who sooner than later I'll find her -- I'll figure out her first name. This is my first hearing examiner hearing. I have had no ex parte communications with any applicant. I have visited none of the sites. I have all the materials that were provided online, the agenda, the backup material, everything that's been provided to the County. I have the staff report, so disclosing that's the extent of my information. I will be, as we conduct these hearings, I will be taking notes, and after the hearing -- I will not be ruling today. I have up to 30 days to issue an order, and I will be doing that, and it August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 3 of 42 will be distributed to everybody. There are four items on the agenda today, and what I would like to do at this point, is have -- let's get started with No. 1, and if the court reporter could swear everybody in, I'd appreciate it. (All parties were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. And once again, before we get started, staff, have I missed anything? MR. BELLOWS: That was perfect. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That was perfect? All right. You're not just telling me that, are you, to make me feel good? All right. Great. MR. WRIGHT: May I? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, please, by the way, you're behind -- when you're behind -- when you're in the cubical up there, you're welcome to take the mask off, maybe, yeah, it's probably impossible for us to understand what you're saying behind a mask, unless you have one of those NASA masks that none of us have. MR. WRIGHT: Good morning. I'm Jeff Wright with the Henderson, Franklin Law Firm, here on behalf of the applicant. MR. BELLOWS: Jeff, could you speak into the mic, please. MR. WRIGHT: Again, I'm Jeff Wright with the Henderson Franklin Law Firm, here on behalf of the applicant. With me today is our team, including Lauren Evans with Craig Construction, and Michael Herrera with Grady Minor, our engineer, and we're looking to get an approved -- approval of a proposed site plan with deviations for redevelopment, and there's a specific section in the LDC, 10.02.03.F, like Frank, of the LDC provides this option to applicants for redevelopment of the site. This request will allow the applicant to redevelop an existing convenient store with fuel stations. The site is approximately -- we had a PowerPoint. I don't know if it would be possible to pull that up, but the site, just to give you an idea of the location -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Take your time, everybody take your time. We'll get all this going. Don't worry. Make sure you project yourself, so that everyone can hear. I think the glass also makes it a little difficult. So everyone take your time. Don't worry. We're going to get through this. MR. WRIGHT: And I'm not sure if I have the ability to scroll through that. Okay. We would be on the second page now, that's our team, and the third page, as I was saying, there's a request for a site plan deviations redevelopment. There's a total of ten deviations being requested. Staff has approved -- recommending approval of all the deviations in their staff report. The ten deviations can be broken down as listed there, four for structure setbacks, three for landscape buffers, two more for landscape-related issues, and, finally, a loading zone space deviation. Our teams here, Michael, our engineer from Grady Minor, is going to provide the -- most of the testimony this morning. I don't intend to call anyone else as a witness, but we are here if any questions come up. Now, Michael is a professional engineer. He possesses the knowledge, training, experience and qualifications to testify as an expert today, and we would ask that you recognize him as an expert for today's proceeding. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 4 of 42 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So recognized. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. As you can see we're doing this by PowerPoint today. We have provided copies to the staff, and it's in the record of this case. We appreciate the chance to present our case and appreciate your patience. We're really glad the hearing examiner is back, and at this time we'll turn it over to Michael to give his presentation. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And, Michael, while you're coming up, I'm going to -- I apologize if I've got my back to the screen. I prefer to listen to the witnesses and everybody at the podium. So anybody on the screen that's watching, I've got all the material here, too. MR. HERRERA: All right. So we're here to discuss 7-Eleven as we stated, the ten deviations. If we can go to the next slide actually; just go over a little bit about the site before we go over the deviations. This project is .8 acres. It's located in the Green Tree Center PUD located on the southwest corner, Immokalee and Airport Road. What's interesting about this property, if we can go to the next slide, is this is not a platted tract within the plat of the PUD. It is part of the PUD, but it's not part of the plat. So it's not actually abutting Airport Road right-of-way. There is a commercial strip of land, if you go to the next slide, you can see right there, there's a commercial strip of land between the property and Airport Road right-of-way. So it's truly surrounded on all four sides by commercial property, and that's going to be important, because that sets the proper requirements and setback requirements. Next slide, please. This is a little bit, just to give you an idea of what the project looks like today. This is existing. This is the portion that is between Airport Road and the property, and what you're looking at there is mostly a dry detention area. There's a couple of trees there, but that detention area, even though it's .2 acres, is on our property, it actually services the Green Tree PUD Master Surface Water Management System. The volume of that area is critical to the overall master system, which that impacts our site plan. There's been documented applications. Taco Bell is a recent one, I believe that was in 2012, '14, one of those dates -- 2014. That was recently submitted and is documented on all of the surface water management issues that are occurring out there, and the sensitivity to impacting that dry detention area. Next slide, please. So this is looking from the south looking north. This is the drive -- that drive right there is actually a 30-foot access easement, and this is really just to show that -- how the canopy is, and that this -- this southern side -- has currently has two access points, and that's going to be critical when we go through the access. I think we're improving that access significantly going four existing ingress/egress to two. Next slide, please. And now we're looking easterly, and what this slide also shows on the one to the right, there's two ingress/egress on that one. We're going from -- in that location, which we'll see in a little bit, going from two to one, and then also on the left side of the slide, you can see there's an existing car wash. Also, just to the -- which, just to the north of that, you can barely see on that picture that's the Wendy's is the abutting property owner to the north, that's their trash enclosure, and those are going to be important, because that setback requirements -- existing setbacks requirements -- or existing setbacks, and we're going to show how we're improving those. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 5 of 42 So, now looking at the car wash, back up a little bit. Sorry. The existing facility has fuel stations, convenient store and car wash. The proposed facility is going to have convenient store, fuel station, no car wash. So the uses are going down, in terms of existing versus proposed. Next slide, please. This is just an image, again, looking from -- from the north looking south, basically just to show that there is a gradual slope, and no landscaping between property owners. Property owners being Wendy's and Mobil. Next slide, please. We've gone through some of the historical permits through Collier County, and obtained all the available record documents you have on file, so these are just examples which indicate the permitted buffers, the permitted setbacks, the location as we go through the deviations. This is some of the documents where this information was obtained. Next slide, please. This is the landscaping plan associated with the original SDP. There really isn't a whole lot of landscaping; that's what this indicates, and we'll go through that in some detail in a second. Next slide, please. MR. FRANTZ: Can I ask you to -- MR. HERRERA: Next slide, please. So this is the proposed site plan. It looks a lot different. You can see that on the eastern portion of the property, where the dry detention area is, how it impacts the site. The building is now located along the north property, ten feet from the property line. We have a dumpster enclosure to the west of that with the customer parking directly in front of the 7-Eleven; a new gas fuelling station with canopy, and the new two ingress/egress access points into the site. Next slide, please. This is the proposed landscaping plan that has been submitted as part of the application, and also the site development plan application, but as you can see just from this, there's a large increase in the number of trees, but also in the number of shrubs, and we'll go over that in detail in a second as well. Next slide, please. So that leads us to our deviations. As we said we have ten. The first four we're going to discuss are building setbacks. So the first one is deviation one, and we're asking the deviation from Land Development Code 5.05.05.B.1, which requires a 40-foot setback to structures. We're requesting this to be reduced to a ten-foot setback. The existing car wash that's along that property line is located 5.9 feet from the property line, so we're increasing that setback by 4.1 feet, and that was approved under this SDP 9239, which actually only required a five-foot setback, even though it was built at 5.9. The PUD states that zero or five feet is required, but because the PUD is silent on fuelling facilities with fuel pumps, we're requesting a deviation from the current Land Development Code. The current property to the north is, as I stated, is the Wendy's, and they're open until 3 a.m., so we don't think, we don't anticipate, we don't believe, that this setback is going to have any adverse impacts to the operations of 7-Eleven -- of Wendy's. And also just to mention, their dumpster enclosure is permitted and built ten feet from the property line. Allowing us to locate the building to this location not only -- well, most importantly, it improves the ingress/egress traffic, vehicular traffic, and also improves pedestrian safety. As you can see from the site, you have a new pedestrian walk, that's actually a boardwalk that goes across the detention area, because we can't impact the detention area, to the Airport Road right-of-way. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 6 of 42 So Deviation No. 3, which is also from the north property line setback, and this time it's for the dumpster, again, we're requesting a deviation from LDC 5.05.05.B.1, which requires 40 foot, and we're requesting, again, to ten foot; same reasoning as just discussed for Deviation No. 1, but we also believe -- we also know that the location of this dumpster, and proximity to the property lines, is consistent with other dumpsters within the Green Tree Center. For instance, the Taco Bell that was permitted in 2014 is 12 feet from the property line, and the Wendy's, directly to the north of our property, was permitted and built at ten feet from the property line. Probably the most important aspect of why these are to be located in these locations is because one of the requirements for Waste Management is to have a 60-foot clear zone in front of the dumpster so that the -- so that the vehicles have easy access in and out from collecting the garbage, and this provides that. Next slide, please. So Deviation 2 and 4 are also setbacks, except this time it's to the western property lines. Deviation No. 2 is for the canopy. We're asking a deviation from Section 5.05.05.B.1 again, which requires to the western a 40-foot setback, and we're requesting a 35-foot setback. The ordinance only requires, the PUD ordinance, only requires a 25-foot yard setback, but, again, per the current Land Development Code, it's 40 feet, so that's why we're requesting that deviation. There is a 30-feet access easement off our property along that western edge, that is -- that's how we get into the site, and to the -- so that's just a drive aisle. To the west of that, I'm sure many of you have been to the site, it's all parking. There isn't any buildings for a long ways away, so really this 40 to 35 foot setback, we don't believe impacts, adversely impacts the operations of the Green Tree Center. Also important to note is, although it's not on this property line, the existing canopy on the southern property line is 18.5 feet away from the existing property line. So different property line, yes, but, again, it is still located within -- located 18.5 feet away. We're requesting the western property line to be 35 feet. Last is -- for the setbacks -- is item number or Deviation No. 4, which is for the dumpster, basically the same thing. Requesting deviation from LDC 5.05.05.B.1, requires 40 foot landscape requesting it down to a ten-foot landscape. Justification for that is it's consistent with other dumpsters located within the Green Tree Center PUD, specifically as we spoke earlier, Taco Bell at 12 feet, Wendy's at 10 feet, and, this, again important is the 60-foot clear zone for access to the dumpster, and the location of this provides that. We are requesting some landscaping buffer deviations, but the locations of these buildings and setbacks does not encroach into the proposed landscape buffer, so that's consistent with the Land Development Code as well. Next slide, please. All right. So our first -- now we're into the landscape buffers. This is the first deviation for the landscape buffer. This is along the north property. Wendy's is to the North. This one we're requesting a deviation from Section 4.06.02.C, which requires a Type B 15-foot landscape buffer, and we are requesting a Type B 10-foot landscape buffer. So the amount of material is the same as what's required under the Land development Code, we're just going to provide it in 10 feet as opposed to 15 feet. At the time of permitting the existing site no buffer was required, and based on those images that you saw, there isn't a buffer provided. There isn't any land -- there isn't any trees, there isn't any shrubs. What we're proposing based on the landscaping plan that was previously shown, is we're going to be providing five canopy trees, and 31 shrubs. So we're going to be well above the August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 7 of 42 existing landscaping that's there, which is none. Okay. Next slide, please. So this is a landscape buffer for the western property line. Again, we're requesting a deviation from 4.06.02.C, again, that requires a 15-foot Type B, and we're proposing a 10-foot Type B. So at the time of permitting this side required four trees and just grass. So that was what was required. We're proposing four trees to match that, but with 24 shrubs, so, again, going well above what's out there today. Next slide. And No. 7 is on the eastern property, again, requesting a deviation from 4.06.02.C, and on that one it -- we're going from a Type B 15-foot buffer to a Type B five-foot buffer. So at this time we're -- we're requesting a little bit more in the reduction in the width, and, again, it's important to note that that section is on -- abutting commercial property, and not abutting Airport Road right-of-way. So the permit at the time of permitting had a -- what was required was a five-foot wide landscape buffer, so we're matching that, what was originally required, and they required four trees, but five were planted. We're proposing eight trees, five new trees, utilizing three of the existing trees and 48 shrubs. So, again, the width is going to match what was required underneath the original permit, but we're increasing, significantly, the number of shrubs, and slightly increasing the number of trees. Next slide, please. Next slide. Thank you. Deviation No. 8 is again on the eastern property, and it's a deviation from 4.06.02.D, and this one really is just for the slopes, so that part of the code reads that there should be a ten to one slope for a planting area, and what's out there today is a five-foot buffer with a four to one slope, and we are proposing the same. So it's a five-foot buffer with a four to one slope. Again, in order to get from -- now talking surface water management, but we're required to have certain elevations. So the building elevation down to control elevation, there just isn't room to get down to that elevation without impacting the Green Tree Center Master Surface Water Management System, so that's why we're asking to keep it consistent, so we don't impact the master system. Next slide, please. Deviation No. 9, again, it is a request from LDC 4.06.03 this time, and this is a reduction in the vehicular use area requirement landscaping from 10 percent. We're requesting it at 5.34 percent. So underneath the original permit what they have for VUA was a 614 square foot area, and underneath the proposed site plan, we're increasing that to 781 square feet, which is equivalent to the 5.34 percent. Next slide, please. The last deviation has to do with the loading space location, which, again, we're requesting a deviation to a different part of the code, 4.05.06, and what's required under -- what's required by the Land Development Code is that that loading space be accessible from the interior of the building, and what we're requesting is it to be located across a drive aisle. So it's located in -- it's hard to see. It's located in this little area right here (indicating). So that is the loading space. So vehicles can still get through for passing, but usually they're just parking either for gas. There's traffic through here and then there's ingress/egress this way and around (indicating). That deviation -- the deliveries are during non-peak hours, that's important to note, so it won't really impact on traffic circulation. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 8 of 42 Under -- more importantly is underneath the original permit, a loading space wasn't required, so there wasn't one there -- one was not required, but we are providing one. And I know it's not part of this application, but having loading space is not contiguous to internal buildings. It's a very common and straightforward SDP that don't require DR. So that, I believe, completes the ten deviations. You want to cut back in? MR. WRIGHT: I just have a couple of questions for the witness. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. No problem. Do you want -- do you need his name again? THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Wright. MR. WRIGHT: Yes, ma'am, Jeff Wright for the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, thank you. MR. WRIGHT: Real quick, have you reviewed the LDC criteria -- MR. FRANTZ: Sorry. You're going to need to step up to the mic. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You guys have to separate a little bit, too. MR. WRIGHT: Have you reviewed the LDC criteria that applies to this request? MR. HERRERA: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: In your professional opinion, do these requested deviations meet these criteria's? MR. HERRERA: They do. MR. WRIGHT: That's all we have. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Quick question, if you don't mind? Wendy's, have you all -- I know the notices went out, but any communications with Wendy's or -- with regard to that, or does anybody -- do we have any comments from Wendy's? MR. FINN: For the record, I'm Tim Finn, Principal Planner. We have not received anything from Wendy's. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Very good. MR. WRIGHT: A few comments to close? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MR. WRIGHT: That concludes our presentation, obviously. Our team's here if there's any questions, and we have demonstrated by competent, substantial evidence in the record before you, including our experts, and, hopefully, the County's experts in the staff report, that we meet the applicable LDC criteria for approval. Redevelopment of the site will improve it. It will improve the appearance, safety, traffic circulation and functionality, and will generally modernize the existing site. The requested deviations are necessary to make the redevelopment possible, and we request your approval. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Real quick question, just the big picture, is the entire building, all the structures are coming down? This is a complete rebuild? MR. WRIGHT: It is. I just want to defer to our engineer to make sure. Yes, it is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Great. So it's going from a Mobil to a 7-Eleven? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, and I believe they're going to be offering Mobil Product? MS. EVANS: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. County? August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 9 of 42 MR. FINN: Yes, again, for the record, I'm Tim Finn, Principal Planner. The project is compliant with the Growth Management Plan and the Collier County Land Development Regulations; therefore, staff recommends approval. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. On all the deviations you've recommended approval for? MR. FINN: Yes. Yes, on all deviations. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Any questions for staff at all? MR. WRIGHT: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. For the record, Counsel for the applicant says no. All right. Any members of the public wish to speak? Are there any -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we have one registered speaker, a Jack Crifasi. You can come up to the podium. MR. CRIFASI: Yes, my name's Jack Crifasi, and I -- MR. BELLOWS: Can you, please, speak loudly into the mic? MR. CRIFASI: Yes. My name's -- MR. BELLOWS: You can bend it down towards you, if you want to. MR. CRIFASI: Okay. Jack Crifasi, and I represent the ownership of Green Tree Center. We've been encouraging the Mobil Station to redevelop there for quite some time, and we couldn't be more pleased with the fact that they are doing this. Our shopping center is undergoing a massive redevelopment, and because of that, their current station just isn't to the standards of the rest of the look of what we're doing there. So we're very pleased about that. I just have a couple questions, and I haven't really seen that much previous, as far as the designs and so forth go, and I have not seen the actual rendering of the building, to see what it looks like, and maybe I should've seen it before, but we haven't, and I don't know what it looks like. Do you have photos or renderings of this so I can see what it looks like? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think that's a good question, but, just for the record, I don't believe staff is required to see renderings, are you, for evaluating deviations? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The architectural renderings aren't necessarily a requirement, unless some of the deviations pertain to the architectural treatment of the building, and that would be something we'd want to see a rendering on, but most of these were landscaping and -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Counsel, do you have renderings that you can show? MR. WRIGHT: I don't believe we have any for this site at this time, but I will say it's being built by Craig Construction. If you look around town, the one on 41 in the City of Naples they did, and several others around Collier, they do it to the highest quality standards. MR. CRIFASI: My major question is really the roof, and what color it is, you know, because I don't know that much about what you're doing, and maybe this isn't the place to talk about it, but we just want to know what kind of roof you're putting on the structure? MR. HERRERA: So there's another application that's been submitted to Collier County for the site development plan application, and that's for public record. On there they have architectural elevations, floor pans and landscaping, a whole civil package that's available at records. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Counsel, is it possible that you could get this August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 10 of 42 gentleman some renderings so he could see it? I do think that the shopping center -- I believe I drove by it at one point, I don't know why, but you are doing a nice job. Is it the one where the NCH health center is and all that? MR. CRIFASI: Yes. Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It does look very nice actually. MR. CRIFASI: It's going to be beautiful when it's done, and we think that having them redeveloped, it's just going to be an asset to the whole area. We're very pleased about it. I just wanted to be sure that the look kind of fits in with what we're doing, as far as -- so it doesn't -- I'm not looking for a red roof on a, you know -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm sure they're not either, but this is Counsel for the applicant. They will definitely help you out. MR. WRIGHT: We have provided a business card of Lauren Evans with Craig, and she will provide you with the renderings. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. Anything else? MR. CRIFASI: Just a couple other questions. I was -- it's pretty hard to see from back there -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. CRIFASI: -- the site plan, and I wanted to see the landscaping on the western -- on the western property line. What -- it's pretty hard to see it from there. What is the landscaping going to be? That's the part -- the western property line is the property line that basically abuts our shopping center from the property, and we just don't know, you know, maybe you showed it, but you can't see from back there, and so I was just trying to understand what you're doing there. MR. HERRERA: So I don't have the landscaping plan. Again, the landscaping plans were submitted as part of the SDP. Lauren will be happy to send it to you. MR. CRIFASI: That will be great. MR. HERRERA: But on the eastern edge, we are going to -- MR. CRIFASI: No, it would the western edge. MR. HERRERA: The western edge. Sorry. Yeah. MR. CRIFASI: And the southern edge. MR. HERRERA: Right. So four trees, 24 shrubs. MR. CRIFASI: Okay. MR. HERRERA: The specifics of those materials are landscaping. MR. CRIFASI: Okay. MR. HERRERA: Our architect isn't here today, so I can't speak to those, but what -- what's out there today is five trees -- four trees and a five-foot grass strip. MR. CRIFASI: Yeah, it's a mess out there, so I'm very happy. MR. HERRERA: The trees are staying the same, the number of trees, but you're getting 24 shrubs. MR. CRIFASI: What about the southern property line? MR. FRANTZ: If I can just interrupt for just a moment? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. FRANTZ: When you're using that handheld mic, I need you to hold it very close to your mouth in order for the people on Zoom to hear you. MR. HERRERA: Is this better, hopefully? August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 11 of 42 MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. MR. HERRERA: The southern one we're not asking a deviation from, so that will -- MR. CRIFASI: Stay the same? MR. HERRERA: That will be -- the requirement for the Land Development Code so that -- MR. CRIFASI: Whatever is there now? MR. HERRERA: No, it will be enhanced. MR. CRIFASI: Oh, that's what I was wondering. MR. HERRERA: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We're not asking a deviation from -- MR. CRIFASI: Okay. MR. HERRERA: -- on width or type of buffer. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sir, just so you know, all of these documents are all online. MR. CRIFASI: That's fine. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I know you want to know a lot of things, but if anybody wants to see any of these documents ahead of time, just type -- Google Collier County Hearing Examiner. The agenda has clickable items, is that correct, with all of these 600 pages of information of all that you want to know, but it sounded as though they're enhancing all the landscaping all the way around. MR. CRIFASI: Sounds great. One last question, the dry retention area in the front, because you had mentioned that is -- are you going into that retention area, so you're not changing -- that's going to stay the same, nothing's going to change there? MR. HERRERA: We can't afford to impact that. MR. CRIFASI: Okay. So it's just going to stay there the way it is now? MR. HERRERA: Right. MR. CRIFASI: That's all I have. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers have registered. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No other speakers, okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. I have no questions. I've reviewed the documents. I think you've done a really nice job, staff, and applicant and everyone. Unless you have anything else you want to say? Are you done? Sometimes it's better to be done when you're done. Okay. With that then, we will close this item, and I will prepare an order. You'll get it within the required 30 days. Correct me -- stop me if I'm not -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct, 30 days. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We doing all right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. First hearing examiner for me, and it's been a couple months since we've had some, so I'm going to ask staff to, like, throw something at me, raise a hand, yell at me, do something. So bear with me, okay, everybody? All right. I appreciate everyone coming out for this item. Thank you. MS. EVANS: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And as we switch to the next item, I do want to remind everybody about any kind of electronics, phones, anything you have, turn them off. If August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 12 of 42 you do have to take a call, step out in the hallway, please. And then at the same time, let's try to keep all the comments to five minutes, if we could, public comments. I appreciate that. All right. Let's call the next item. This is 3B; correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Who do we have? MR. BELLOWS: This is the PDI for the DeVoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Okay. All right. Yes. (All parties were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So we're going to swear everybody at the beginning of each item, instead of the -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, because more people might walk in. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Okay. Everybody -- great. How are you, sir? MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold. I'm a certified planner for Q Grady Minor & Associates. I'm here representing St. Matthew's House. We are in for an insubstantial change to the DeVoe PUD that's located just south of Davis Boulevard and Airport Road. I have a presentation, Jeremy, that was preloaded. I don't know if you can bring that up? It will be helpful to go to a couple slides in and see an aerial photograph. But the DeVoe PUD was originally developed for the DeVoe family. It was their Pontiac dealership for many years. St. Matthew's House purchased it. The south portion of the property is not in the PUD, but it's operated as their thrift store. The north side, which is in the DeVoe PUD, is under construction for a new restaurant and training facility for them, and farther north of that, and adjacent to this property is the St. Matthew's House shelter, and their administrative offices. And this proposal is a very simple one, and it's to amend the PUD master plan to add a vehicular interconnect that would connect the DeVoe PUD property with the shelter, and I have a couple exhibits when Jeremy's able to pull that up -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. MR. ARNOLD: -- to show that to you and the public, and, hopefully, you've seen that in the application packet, but we held a neighborhood information meeting as required. We had no attendees. And I know there is a representative from the apartment complex immediately to the east that is here. I don't know if they're planning to speak or not, but representatives from St. Matthew's House have spoken to representatives of the apartments. So, Jeremy, if you could go on into the aerial photographs, appreciate it. There, that one is a good one to stop on. The property that's outlined in yellow is the DeVoe PUD. There's an access easement, Great Blue Drive, that goes to the apartment complex that separates the property. This has no impact on that access point. Our proposed interconnection is a north/south interconnection at the terminance of the driveway that's shown in the parking area. If you could advance that next slide, Jeremy. This is a close-up showing where the internal driveway, that's in place for the PUD, will interconnect with the C4 property that's the shelter to the north. And if you'll go to the next slide, Jeremy. This is existing master plan, and if you'll look at the northern boundary, there's no August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 13 of 42 reference to a vehicular interconnect at that location. And if you'll go to the next slide, Jeremy. This shows, and it's highlighted in yellow on the right side, it's a blowup of what the master plan would say. It's referencing now a pedestrian and vehicular interconnection to the St. Matthew's House, not part of this application, but a separate site development plan amendment was recently approved by Collier County for the interconnection on the St. Matthew's House side. So this would be the mechanism for us to go and get a insubstantial change to our site development plan for this property to physically make that interconnection. The benefit to the general public of that is the existing access onto Airport Road for St. Matthew's House's facility would be eliminated once they perfect this, and it would enhance traffic circulation. I don't think the County has ever been pleased with the exit only that's on Airport Road, and the St. Matthew's House has access to the signal that's shared with Home Depot, if you're familiar with that area? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I am. MR. ARNOLD: So in a nutshell that's really what we're proposing. We've addressed the criteria that are in the code for an insubstantial change, and it would be nice if there was another mechanism, but access is one of those issues that does require at least a PDI, and a public hearing process. So we're pleased to be here, and hope you can recommend approval. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Do you have anybody else you want to bring up or is that -- MR. ARNOLD: I do not. I failed to introduce them, but I have Steve Brooder and Jill Mesner from St. Matthew's House, who are here if there are any operational-type questions you may have of them. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So in essence you're seeking better access from both Airport and the other roadway; is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct, and since it's the same ownership entity between the two parcels, it just functionally makes sense for them to have an easy connection between the two facilities. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. Right. Okay. So the Cadillac store has gone? MR. ARNOLD: Pontiac is no more. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Pontiac. Any questions, staff? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with the Planning and Zoning Division. Staff has reviewed this request and found it consistent with the insubstantial change criteria as outlined in Page 6 of the staff report. It's found consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and we are recommending approval. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Approval. Okay. Anybody here from the public, or anybody virtually from the public that would like to speak? MR. BELLOWS: We do have one registered speaker, George Powell. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Mr. Powell, come on up. While he's doing that, are we -- we're cleaning the podium as we go; right? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. MR. POWELL: Good morning, Mr. Dickman. My name is George Powell. I'm an attorney with Akerman. We're located in North Naples in the Mercato project. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 14 of 42 We represent Westshore Point Naples, LLC, which is the owner of the Point at Naples Apartment Project, which is adjacent to and neighboring on the eastern boundary line of the DeVoe Pontiac PUD. We have interests in this project, not only just overall as a neighbor, but we have two specific easements that will be somewhat impacted if this is approved. Currently, there was a permanent easement in place along the north boundary line of the DeVoe Pontiac PUD ten feet wide that extends from Airport-Pulling Road due east 200 feet and then turns south 120 feet. It's ten foot wide. It's not depicted on the plan that was submitted, and if you look at Page 330 for the application, you will see that is depicted a 15-foot Type B buffer and a ten-foot A buffer but we -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can we bring that up? Is it possible to bring that one up? He's in control of the graphics here. MR. FRANTZ: What slide? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: He mentioned a number. MR. POWELL: I only know what page number it's on. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: It's not on our PowerPoint. It's probably on the application. MR. POWELL: Okay. I'll tell you on the PowerPoint, if you look at Slide 7, I think you can see the area that I'm talking about. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I have the -- I have the aerial up here. So you're saying it's on the northern boundary line coming off of Airport running east approximately how far? MR. POWELL: 200 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 200 feet. MR. POWELL: And it's ten foot wide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And then ten foot wide and then jogging -- MR. POWELL: South. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: South. MR. POWELL: And goes 120 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: To the apartments -- are these apartments or townhouses? MR. POWELL: These are apartments, these are rental units; one, two and three-bedroom. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. And what's the purpose of that easement? MR. POWELL: It's a utility easement. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. POWELL: And we're getting utilities serviced through there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What type of utilities? MR. POWELL: I -- I don't know. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. POWELL: The owner didn't know. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, you didn't go dig them up? MR. POWELL: No, I didn't go dig them up. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 15 of 42 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Right. Great. MR. POWELL: So that's one of our concerns is that, initially, we would like to have that easement referenced. It's referenced on the PUD for DeVoe Pontiac, but if it's going to be on this application for a insubstantial change, we think it's only fair that this be put on the plan, so when this goes forward, and anything else that happens with the property, the County staff will be made aware that that easement exists. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So is the actual pavement of the new access going to be directly on top of that? MR. POWELL: It appears to be, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So, and currently it's not, it's just pervious grass and landscape? MR. POWELL: Well, actually, I went out there yesterday and photographed it, and it appears that the driveway connection coming off the St. Matthew's property to the north has been constructed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. POWELL: There is a blockade there. There's some signs and some concrete and it -- it prevents any vehicle from crossing that area to go into the already-improved driveway going into the PUD. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. POWELL: So it appears it's a matter of doing some cleanup and some linkage and removing the obstacles. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Have you had any conversations with the applicant about this? MR. POWELL: No. Our client had received a call some months ago regarding an easement, but it -- nothing ever developed from it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, and there was a NIMS, too, you knew about that; correct? MR. POWELL: Pardon me, sir? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: A neighborhood information meeting. MR. POWELL: We were not advised. I'm not saying the client wasn't advised. We were not advised. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You all, okay, your client didn't tell you about this. So there are, as you know, you're an attorney, there are mechanisms to deal with easements, and things of that nature, when someone's building on top of it or utilizing it or accessing it. Those things can be worked out, I believe, but you're -- I see someone nodding their head. So I want to sort this out. You want them depicted on the site plan, right, or on the -- MR. POWELL: On the application before you today, we would like to have it amended just to show that that easement is annotated there to show where it is, so it's not overlooked going forward in any kind of a subsequent plan review; that's all. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, it's in the record, isn't it, and it's recorded in the public record? MR. POWELL: Oh, it's recorded in the public record, yeah, it absolutely is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's zoning titled. MR. POWELL: But it's referenced in many other documents on the PUD for DeVoe, August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 16 of 42 and it didn't seem any reason not to have it referenced here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. POWELL: That's all. That's all we're asking for. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Staff, do you have any comments to that? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows, and looking at the documents and plans associated with this site, that access -- that easement is not an access easement, but maybe a utility easement, and it is part of a platted record of that, so as part of the site plan, a PDI application, to show this interconnect, that part really wasn't changing, so that's probably the reason why it wasn't depicted on the plans today. I don't know. It's not necessary. It's still part of the official record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right, that's what I was getting at. I mean, is it -- I don't know that it's critical that it's reflected on the plans, and I don't think it's going to interrupt any -- we don't even know if there is any utilities going through there, but I don't see how it's going to interrupt any acknowledgement of an easement there. MR. POWELL: I don't disagree with that, but I think that like belts and suspenders, it sometimes doesn't hurt to have more things conveniently at your fingers than not. So that's a request, and that will be up to you, sir, how you want to treat that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And so any -- well, you want to finish your remarks? MR. POWELL: Well, I just had another, the other impact that we have, the other interest we have, and it's not really fully bearing on this, but the only access into the Point Apartments, which is at 2155 Great Blue Drive, Great Blue Drive is not actually a dedicated street. It is another permanent easement that comes from Airport-Pulling Road directly into our main entrance for the Point at Naples Apartments. So my questions were simply this: When would the construction -- it's already sort of there, but when would that be finished and when would this interconnection be planned to open? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think that's a question for the applicant. Do you -- is that your last question? So there's two things -- MR. POWELL: I have a couple questions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You have a couple of questions. All right. MR. POWELL: I can go through them first. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Why don't you go through your whole thing and I'll take notes. MR. POWELL: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Just for your information, we did put on this screen a portion that shows that it's a utilities easement that's already there, so that's why staff didn't require it to be a part of the plans for today's access. MR. POWELL: Right. That's on the plan, yes, you're right, sir, that is, but it wasn't on this application, but it is there for the PUD plan. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. MR. POWELL: All right. So when can we anticipate construction to commence on the interconnection? To the extent that there's something already there, I don't know that it's going to meet code or anything, but I just want to know when would you plan construction on that? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 17 of 42 MR. POWELL: And when can we expect construction to be complete, and do you have any idea of what the anticipated volume of traffic would be through the interconnection? And the reason I'm asking that is if the right-hand exit closes out of the St. Matthew's site north of this, which I have no problem with, and I understand the County would probably favor that, how much traffic will then be dumping into the PUD, which ultimately would be going down to Great Blue Drive to access out onto? So if there's going to be some increase in volume, we're just trying to get a handle on what that volume will be, because that's going to be feeding into our only primary ingress/egress out of the apartments. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. I'm taking note of all this. So No. 4 is during construction you want to know about the traffic circulation, temporary traffic circulation plan? MR. POWELL: Well, we want to know when the construction is going to start, and when they think it's going to end, so the interconnection will be open for business. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's your third question. MR. POWELL: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What's the fourth one? MR. POWELL: Oh, the fourth one was, what is the anticipated volume of traffic leaving the north side of the St. Matthew's site into the DeVoe Pontiac PUD as a result of the closing of the right-hand exit out of the north St. Matthew's site? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right, and what else? MR. POWELL: And the only other thing is, is -- can St. Matthew's House tell us now whether or not you're going to be coming in for a change of the DeVoe Pontiac PUD going forward? Is there any anticipated application coming in to change that? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. POWELL: And that's it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you are here for information, there's no objection or support, or do you support or object? MR. POWELL: We're not supporting or objecting, we're just trying to get information. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Informational. All right. All right. So, thank you. Are you done? MR. POWELL: Yes, I am. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'll ask the questions. MR. POWELL: Okay. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If that's not satisfied -- did you get those? Did you get those notes? I can help you, if you want. MR. ARNOLD: I think I did. Is this active? I'll just speak from here, if that's okay? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I can hear you. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I can hear you well. MR. ARNOLD: I think I took those notes, and as Mr. Bellows indicated, for this PDI application the current PUD master plan does not reflect any easements of record, only the one for Great Blue, which is the access easement that goes to the apartment complex that was just referenced, and the other easements are noted on boundary surveys, they're on the site plan development plan approvals, which are the engineering drawings for both of these projects. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 18 of 42 MR. ARNOLD: So I don't know that there's a need to depict one separate small utility easement for the entire PUD on this application. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: It's easy enough to do, but it just seems out of character with the balance of the plan. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let me stop you there. So on that issue, Counsel, your -- your question is so noted. I think the information that is in the documentation, plus the record that you made, I think it's clear that, you know, it's acknowledged that there is an easement there for access. MR. POWELL: And that's why I'm happy to have made the record so -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, I'm glad you did. I question why you wouldn't. All right. No. 2? MR. ARNOLD: No. 2 question I wrote down was when will construction commence. We are in for the insubstantial change to the site plan for the DeVoe Pontiac PUD, and it's ready to be approved, waiting, for, hopefully, recommendation of approval from your office. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: If that happens, St. Matthew's House is prepared to go to construction immediately so that they can join the two facilities. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And what's the time frame, three months, four months? MR. ARNOLD: Ideally they would love to be complete by the end of the year. I don't know that that will happen, just mobilizing contractors, but that's anticipated that if your ruling comes down favorably within 30 days, they're ready to mobilize and start construction. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Okay. That gives you a timeline. So from -- just giving counsel a little -- so from the time my office issues an order, and they can get the permits through, it sounds like it's going to happen pretty quick. And what was -- do you have any other questions? MR. ARNOLD: And the other was volume of traffic utilizing the interconnect on a daily basis. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: I don't have a definitive answer for that, but the DeVoe Pontiac parcel has multiple access points on Airport Road. There is one north of Great Blue Drive that is going into the site today. It's been constructed. There's a new building that's their commercial kitchen that you've seen, and the traffic will be between primarily -- it would be a convenience, primarily, for the St. Matthew's House facility to utilize it. I don't see that as being heavy traffic volume. Southbound traffic, they have access to a signalized intersection at Glades Boulevard. So northbound traffic, they could also use Glades for convenience to pull in, and come a couple hundred feet south and utilize the entrance on Airport Road without ever having to go down to Great Blue Drive. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let me stop you there. Staff, is that a criteria to issue traffic studies and so forth and so on for this application, or do you have any information that you could use to elucidate? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The type of amendment or insubstantial change is an interconnect with the adjacent parcel to the north. It's not increasing August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 19 of 42 the intensity of the project or -- which will result in additional traffic. So it's not changing the amount of traffic coming in, but it does improve traffic flow on the subject property between north and south properties. I don't see it impacting any surrounding properties. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So in staff's professional opinion there's not going to be any substantial change in the traffic volume? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. MR. ARNOLD: The last comment that I had noted was any other anticipated changes to the PUD coming through by St. Matthew's House, and we have not discussed any with St. Matthew's House coming forward with any other PUD amendments. We're not proposing any new uses or changes that I'm aware of. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I did catch one other question. I know that they -- they indicated that there was -- Counsel indicated that Great Blue Drive is their only access; is that -- I'm sorry. Come over here. MR. ARNOLD: That is correct, that is their only -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Their only ingress/egress; is that it? MR. ARNOLD: Jeremy, can you pull that up? MR. POWELL: That is correct, only ingress/egress. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So will you just understand that during the construction, and try to make sure that there's no blockage, that is kind of crazy that they have only one way in and one way out, unless they have helicopters, but let's just be sure that there's no -- there's no interference there. Okay? MR. ARNOLD: Absolutely. MR. POWELL: And the reason why I ask the volume question, actually, was in looking at the St. Matthew's north site plan that was approved, it is two-way traffic in and off of Glades and out onto Glades and -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. POWELL: -- but when I actually drove it yesterday, it was very congested and it didn't appear that you really had an option to leave the site to back onto Glades to go out, so that's why I was concerned about it. It looked like a very logical thing to do to leave St. Matthew's north, through the intersection, down to Glades and then out either north and south, anyway you want. So that was the reason for the question. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So noted. Staff, do you have any comments at all on the traffic circulation for the gentleman's client off of Great Blue Drive? Do you see any problems there? MR. BELLOWS: It's the opinion of staff when we're reviewing this that traffic circulation would be improved with -- especially in relationship to Airport-Pulling Road, the elimination of the right in, right out. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: The internal traffic circulation is going to be improved so that people visiting the site doesn't have to leave the northern site, circle around to come back in to access the southern portion, or the PUD portion of the project. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 20 of 42 MR. BELLOWS: So there is definitely no increase in traffic, but it improves circulation throughout. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. If you two don't already know each other, maybe you can exchange information? MR. POWELL: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I note, again, there was a neighborhood information meeting. I guess you're late to the game, maybe your clients didn't know about it. This was adequately noticed, but I'm glad you're here and you're asking good questions. MR. POWELL: I have no problem with the notice thing. If my client didn't respond, I can't help that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I know. MR. POWELL: So I'm here today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, those NIM meetings are scheduled. MR. POWELL: And it's my birthday today, and I don't normally work on my birthday. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Happy birthday. MR. POWELL: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Congratulations. MR. POWELL: Right side of the grave. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You look great. MR. POWELL: Thank you very much, Mr. Dickman. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. POWELL: Congratulations on your appointment. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, I'm happy to be here. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Dickman, if I might, just in your informational packet you're going to find this location exhibit, and you'll note that where Caledonia Avenue accesses Airport Road is the second access point that goes into the DeVoe PUD, which would be closer to the St. Matthew's House facility, so I don't think most of our travel is going to be down to Great Blue Drive. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. Great. Sounds like you guys are going to be great neighbors, and I know you all do great work. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anybody else do we have here for this? MR. BELLOWS: No other registered speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So we're going to close the public hearing. Again, unless there's anything else from staff, I will have my order rendered in the appropriate time. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you so much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And, once again, happy birthday, Counsel. MR. POWELL: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Go enjoy the rest of the day. MR. POWELL: I am. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Take the rest of the day off. Okay. Moving right along. I'm counting that we're at 3C; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: 3C. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 3C. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 21 of 42 MR. BELLOWS: It's a variance, VAP-PL20190001980, and it's John D. Bruce. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Do we want to do the swear-in? (All parties were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How are you, sir? MR. BRUCE: I'm very well. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm glad to see you here. MR. BRUCE: I'm glad to be here. THE COURT REPORTER: State your name, please. MR. BRUCE: My name's John Bruce, and I'm the owner of 184 Briarcliff Lane. I purchased my home in December of 2018. I'm requesting a variance to reduce the rear yard accessory structure setback from 10 feet to 1 foot 8 inches for a pool screen enclosure. This would be over the existing pool and patio installed and permitted in 1972 at the time the home was constructed. The special conditions and circumstances that are the subject of this request are not the result of any action by me, but are preexisting conditions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Correct. MR. BRUCE: Any enclosure would require a variance to the rear setback since the pool edge is on the 10 foot setback mark. The need for an enclosure is evident by the ongoing debris, phosphates, and water fowl that make the pool their home. The request provides for surrendering some of the patio, as well as removal of portions of the existing retaining wall that encroach on the Hibiscus Golf Course. Removal of the wall will provide access for maintaining the property beyond the wall where it is not encroaching. The variance as requested will provide space for cleaning the pool, and providing safe access for me and others. The enclosure will minimize phosphates causing mustard algae that require excessive use of algaecides and chlorine that negatively impact the water quality. Lely Golf Estates is a bird sanctuary and they're abundant. Hibiscus Golf Course has several water features that attract the birds. When they get low or dried up, the pool is one of their second homes. Some pictures have been submitted, and I think there are a couple of short little videos I took last week of the current birds. Do you have those, John? MR. BELLOWS: We're pulling them up in a second. MR. BRUCE: Okay. Several of my immediate neighbors have submitted correspondence in support of this request. And the provisions in Section 9.04.03, A through H, used by the planning commission to analyze this request have been adequately satisfied. The approval of this request will allow the safe and enjoyable use of the pool, improve the site, enhance the home value, as well as the neighborhood's. Your consideration and approval is most appreciated, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do we get to see the birds, the wild birds here? MR. BRUCE: This is what it's like through the summer season. That's-- that is just a swale that fills, and that's where the birds hang out when there's water, but when that dries up in the winter, then they choose my pool, which is where I'm taking this shot from. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So I have a couple questions for you. Do you agree to the terms of removing the wall? MR. BRUCE: I offered that, yes, from the beginning. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's one of the conditions. MR. BRUCE: Yes. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 22 of 42 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And the other question, are you in the back nine or the front nine? MR. BRUCE: I'm on the second -- I see the second fairway green and the third tee box. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, that's usually where golfers are, like, you know, slicing, and you usually find you get a little better on the back nine. So you've probably seen some golf balls there, too? MR. BRUCE: You know, if you look at the site plan, I don't. Actually, the golf course is -- I don't see any. My neighbors, I stayed in their house during my remodel, and I collected a full bucket of balls from their yard, but I'm pretty good. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Yeah, I have -- I've experienced some of those migrating birds, myself, in the pools, but I sympathize with you. So as long as your, you know -- do you have any other comments here? MR. BRUCE: No, please. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. MR. BRUCE: Please approve the request. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for handling this yourself. I hope -- you know, it seems like you had to get a surveyor for yourself, but you've done a great job. MR. BRUCE: I had to get a surveyor and I had to do -- get somebody to design the cage, the patio footings, and I looked for help, but I couldn't get anybody that would touch a variance. I don't know who does them. I mean, I guess I'm learning, but I had recommendations from -- from the guy who did my site plan. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Yeah. MR. BRUCE: And none of them would touch it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Well -- MR. BRUCE: So I did it myself. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- at least you stayed away from those lawyers. MR. BRUCE: That's right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. And your neighbors, your abutting neighbors both sides are okay with that? Did we get e-mails? Both sides; right? Let's go to County staff now. Sorry. MR. KELLY: For the record, John Kelly, Senior Planner. This was reviewed pursuant to Section 9.04.03.A of the LDC, and staff finds in favor, or is supportive of the application. If I could get you to open Attachment C -- actually, before I do that, let me state that I need to amend the staff report by adding Attachment C, which is letters of support. I provided you with a copy of Attachment C, as well as the court reporter earlier this morning. If I can get the staff to open Attachment C and go to the first page, I added a graphic to demonstrate that there were five letters in support of this variance request, they're the red circles. The yellow circle is the Petitioner so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sir, have you seen Attachment C? Have you had a copy -- do you have a copy of this Attachment C? MR. BRUCE: No, but I know they wrote letters. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. There you go. I just want to make sure. I do have a copy of it, and I don't know, I'd rather see red as green. Red always seems bad. I August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 23 of 42 get it. The red is for go. Good to go. MR. BRUCE: The one missing is an absentee owner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Absentee owner? MR. BRUCE: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Do you have an HOA in here? MR. BRUCE: HOA didn't -- they had nobody responded. HOA actually doesn't own anything. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Okay. MR. BRUCE: My HOA is $100 a year. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Gotcha. MR. BRUCE: The golf course didn't respond. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Well, we don't have any objections, right, from anyone? MR. KELLY: I have a copy of Attachment C for the applicant, that's currently out, okay, and with that said, staff recommends approval for Petition VA-PL20190001980 to reduce the minimum accessory structure rear yard setback from 10 feet to 1 foot and 8 inches for the pool screen enclosure, with the condition that portions of the wall that encroach on the neighboring property are removed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And the applicant has said on the record that he wants to remove the wall, or will remove the wall. So we've got all that cleared up, so, anyone from the public here who wants to speak? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No one has registered to speak. Okay. Great. Well, I thank you, sir, for that, and do you have anything else you want to say? Otherwise, we'll close the public hearing, and I will issue my order within the appropriate time established. So you're good to go. MR. BRUCE: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You can now view the birds from afar. All right. Moving right along. We're -- we're at 3 -- 3D; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Have the nice day, sir. MR. BRUCE: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: This is a boat dock extension, with Petition No. BDE-PL20190001640 for Lodge/Abbott and Associates. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Why don't we do the swearing. (All parties were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Let's get started, applicant? MR. ROGERS: Good morning. Welcome. For the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall & Associates. I'm here representing the applicant, Lodge/Abbott and Associates, and I do have a PowerPoint. No rush on that. I am -- I'm representing the client and working along with Karen Bishop as the agent on this, and the civil engineer of record is Jay Westendorf. Site location, if I can get the PowerPoint up, that would be great, but it's at the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Slow down, they'll get it up. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 24 of 42 MR. ROGERS: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One sec. We've got plenty of time. MR. ROGERS: It's right at the west end of Wiggins Pass and Vanderbilt Drive. Next slide. This slide here will show you the property owned by the applicant. Again, Wiggins Pass Road is right there, and Vanderbilt Drive, we've got Wiggins, the actual Wiggins Pass right there. The applicant owns the submerged bottom lands where the proposed structure is located, which on this, as you can see, the boardwalk is labeled right in the middle, right below the eagle's nest and the edge of mangroves. This is an existing PUD and it has multiple constructions going on of high-rises currently going up. We are requesting a boat dock extension for a proposed boardwalk, gazebo, with associated kayak launching only, which is what is allowed within the PUD. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can we have that slide, by the way? Is that one of the slides? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can we -- MR. ROGERS: Which one? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The closer one showing the boardwalk. MR. ROGERS: Yes. Go to the next slide, please. There's the proposed -- one of the images of the proposed boardwalk. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. MR. ROGERS: As you can see it snakes through the mangrove conservation easement area. We are going through a heavy mangrove area; however, the reason for the design/footprint of this is to ultimately try to avoid the removal of any large mangroves existing, especially the black mangroves. We have walked through there numerous times to locate this, and worked with the state and federal agencies to avoid impacts as much as possible. There will be heavy, heavy trimming done, no true removal of any mangroves will be required. What removal at the agencies is, basically pulling the root system up out of the ground. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: The Army Corps of Engineers considers that a dredging activity at that point, so what we'll do is go out there and cut the trees that have to be ultimately cut right at the base of the mud line, and, basically, this boardwalk is going to be a lot like what's currently out at the Pelican Bay boardwalks, the County's boardwalks that are out there. We are proposing a gazebo area for gathering of the residents of the development. We are also proposing a kayak launch and float structure, which will -- the residents will be able to store kayaks out there, ultimately, and launch the -- launch their vessels into the water on a floating structure. If you go to the next slide, I think I've better detail of the floating structure. There is a cross-sectional view of the boardwalk with the roof. It does have a roof. We're not here today to really talk about the roof. The boathouse roof material, as per the requirements of the LDC, will match the upland structure's clubhouse. We could not ultimately match the high-rise buildings. The roof, obviously, is more concrete than a typical tile roof or metal roof. So what we decided to do was match the community structures there, which are the August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 25 of 42 clubhouse and gathering areas for that. So everything will be consistent in that regard. Real quickly I'd like to run through the criteria, and just get on record how we do meet the criteria. Primary criteria No. 1, whether or not the number of facilities or boat slips as proposed is appropriate with relationship to the waterfront. Basically, there are no boats proposed with the proposed project. It's just kayaks and canoes only. The proposed facility includes an elevated boardwalk through the mangroves leading out and extending only out as far as we need to to get to sufficient water to launch the kayaks, as well as to get the gazebo out over the water, and, again, let me stress, this is all located over our own bottom lands. Whether -- No. 2 on primary number -- primary criteria, whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch, or moor at the mean low tide. Again, we are proposing non-motorized vessels only, which is what is allowed within the PUD, and also stated in the state and federal permits. So no motorized vessels or mooring will take place on this structure. No. 3 on primary criteria, whether or not the proposed dock facility may have adverse impact on navigation. If we can go back a slide potentially, Jeremy, one more, please. If you see that -- where our western property line is, it actually runs right along the thread of navigation, the Intercoastal Waterway, let's call it, of this subject waterway. So we are well outside of the navigable channel. We're not impacting that at all. The width of waterway, I believe is right around 14 -- 1,478 feet wide. We're going out 132 feet from the mean high waterline, so we're well within the 25 percent width of waterway, and, again, we're not -- navigation is not happening with where this proposed structure is located. No. 3 -- sorry -- No. 4, the proposed -- the -- whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes 25 percent. I touched about that. So we're at 11 percent with our structure, going out 132 feet from the mean high waterline. I will stress that the overall length of the boardwalk, though, is 533 feet long. However, the boat dock extension criteria -- if we can go forward to other -- another couple forward, Jeremy, if you would, two slides. You can see where it starts, and the overall length is on the top of the drawing, it's 533 feet and a half, basically, and that leads from the upland facility all the way out. The blue line depicted, that also snakes through the mangroves, is the located mean high waterline by a certified surveyor. Per the LDC and the boat dock extension criteria, the most restrictive point here is the mean high waterline. So our overall protrusion is 150 -- 150 -- excuse me -- 132 feet from the mean high waterline. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can I stop you there real quickly? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING OFFICER DICKMAN: On the terminus where your boardwalk starts on the dry land, what is that? Is that a -- MR. ROGERS: Just pedestrian pathway. HEARING OFFICER DICKMAN: Just a -- MR. ROGERS: Sidewalk. HEARING OFFICER DICKMAN: Cement sidewalk? MR. ROGERS: Yeah, it's a walkway. HEARING OFFICER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: I believe it's a cement sidewalk. Karen Bishop is here to clarify some August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 26 of 42 things in that regard. HEARING OFFICER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: It's not a -- MS. BISHOP: It's a walkway. MR. ROGERS: It's a walkway. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's a walkway. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, not a -- not a concrete walkway. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One second. Can we maybe ask the folks that are talking outside the door to -- I have, like, super sonic ears. I can hear everything. Thank you. MR. ROGERS: No. 5 of the primary criteria is whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. As I showed on the previous slide, the location of this is very isolated, not within any other adjacent neighboring structures, as the applicant owns, you know, the whole entire shoreline here, so no other structures, or neighboring structures are within the area of this. Now, moving to the secondary criteria, whether or not special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location, here it's the mangrove fringe, that is also a conservation easement. We did locate it where it is potentially one of the skinniest areas of the fringe that we would potentially impact. As you can see it does increase as it goes north and to the south. So we tried to pick the most least-impactive area to propose this structure, and we also had to work with the state feds on that; many years of trying to get this approved. No. 2, whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable safe access to the vessel for loading and unloading. The proposed boardwalk, gazebo, kayak launch have all been designed for multifamily utilization. ADA was taken into consideration on this. The width of the boardwalk is eight feet wide, which will provide plenty of room for patrons to walk by each other. The bump-out that you see on the north side, that's about 52.5 feet long, was for a golf cart turn-around that they were ultimately, you know, proposing originally. It's still an option. It's still there, that's what was permitted with the state and federal agencies. The applicant is not 100 percent sure we're going to be utilizing golf carts on this, but it's what was permitted with the agencies, so, therefore, we're sticking with that, unless we had to go back and modify the permits, which it's just easier to have this this way. The single-family -- No. 3 on the secondary for single-family dock facilities whether or not the length -- (A court reporter interruption was had. The proceedings continued as follows:) MR. ROGERS: -- on the secondary criteria -- sorry, ma'am. It doesn't apply to us, because this is not a single-family dock facility, so that's not applicable for this project. No. 4 for secondary criteria, whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on waterfront view of neighboring waterfront owners. Again, I could go back to the other slides, but on the location of it, we're considerably far away from any other developments, don't expect any views. We've reduced the protrusion into the waterway as much as possible in order to provide the kayak launch and the gazebo out over the water. Depths here, just so you know, we're talking extremely shallow. We're talking about a foot to a foot and a half of water. So there is no access for boats at all in this area. Again, it's August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 27 of 42 kayaks, paddle boards and canoes being proposed. No. 5, whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. We did swim this. If we move forward there's a couple slides showing what we did locate. Jeremy, I think it's one or two slides forward. Next one, keep going. There you go. This shows the requirement for the boat dock extension criteria's that we surveyed/assessed. The 200 -- within a 200-foot area of the proposed structure. So this depicts what we swam. The black lines are indication of our transacts that we walked/swam. We did find the -- red hatching that you see on the far west end of the transects are observed scattered oyster debris. There were no seagrasses located within the surveyed areas so -- but the oysters are there, and we're not impacting them at all with this project. So no seagrasses will be impacted. No. 6, whether or not the proposed facility is subject to the Manatee Protection Plan and requirements. Typically multifamilies are 100 percent subject to it; however, in this case we're not proposing any motorized vessels, so, therefore, it's not subject to the Manatee Protection Plan. Other than that, basically, just want to go over it one more time, we're asking for 132 foot -- .3 foot -- excuse me -- maximum allowed protrusion from the 20 feet. Total protrusion from the most restrictive point is 152.3 feet. Overall length is 533.5 feet. If there's any questions, happy to answer them. We did receive state and federal permits for this. It is going through a conservation easement, but, however, it's allowed use within it, and it's also included on the PUD for this property. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: A couple quick questions for you. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So Kalea Bay is how many towers, or are they all built yet? MR. ROGERS: They're not all built, I know that. How many towers? I'm going to have to defer to Karen. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I guess what I'm getting at, this is for the entire -- MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- project? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I was just wondering, are you anticipating more of these? MR. ROGERS: Boardwalks? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Is this -- this is going to serve the whole facility; right? MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop, agent for the owner. Yes, this particular facility will serve the whole project. So there is no other boardwalks proposed -- planned. We do have some planned docks in the future, maybe, down at the south end of the project. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. There where the navigational area is? MS. BISHOP: Correct, adjacent to, I think it's Aqua. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Couple other questions, are you extending lighting out there, electricity, things like that? MS. BISHOP: We're probably most likely going to have what you call ground lighting -- August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 28 of 42 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh. MS. BISHOP: -- for safety reasons on the dock. Any other lighting that would be on the top of that, would be down -- would be facing downward. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Low-level lighting? MS. BISHOP: All low-level lighting. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And are there any plans for hours of operation? I notice you said they're storing kayaks out there? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is it going to be 24/7? Anybody can go out there at any time? MS. BISHOP: No. I mean, the project, in general, has operational hours for their pools and -- but at this particular -- I don't have those. They haven't said what they're going to be, but I can tell you, I kayak out there. It gets pretty dark. I can't imagine after dark it's going -- you have too many people out there, but they may have, for instance, like a birthday party out there occasionally, or some sort of thing that -- that would be utilized for the viewing area, but not for the kayaks. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. So that's where I was going next, is that, occasionally these types of things turn into venues for parties, and so forth and so on, which can be much louder than a very subtle kayak launch and quiet, peaceful enjoyment of the area. MS. BISHOP: Well, that's -- that would be true, but we would still have to adhere to the Collier County Noise Ordinance. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. BISHOP: So the noise ordinance changes at 10:00 from 60 decibels to 50. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MS. BISHOP: So if there's any type of issue with noise, I'm guessing that the people that live in our project would be the first to complain, and then, you know, I can't imagine how much farther away you would have to be to hear it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, you'd be surprised at how fast and far noise will travel on the water. MS. BISHOP: Yeah, no, I'm not surprised at all. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: On the water it does travel quite a bit. MS. BISHOP: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I hope you'll be cognizant of that. MS. BISHOP: Absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I mean, it's being presented as a nice place to go out and launch kayaks and people to enjoy the nature out there. I'm familiar with the waterway. It's beautiful. It's gorgeous. MS. BISHOP: Great fishing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, great fishing if -- if the pass stays open. MS. BISHOP: Yeah, I know. The backwaters back there, the red fish are huge back there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, lots of manatees and dolphins. All right. Thank you. Staff? MR. KELLY: For the record, John Kelly, Senior -- John Kelly, Senior Planner. Staff reviewed this personally to the primary and secondary and boathouse criteria contained within August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 29 of 42 the Land Development Code. We found that it met four of the -- sorry. It satisfies four of the five primary criteria, four of the six secondary criteria, one of which is not applicable; therefore, it's staff recommendation for approval. We would recommend that the -- to be compliant with the Planned Unit Development documents, that motorized vessels be prohibited from using the dock facility, and I believe that's already agreed upon by the applicant. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I notice you said that you -- it sounded like you said you don't anticipate motorized vehicles there. So I'd like it on the record that you will not have any motorized -- I know it's very shallow, but motorized can be small, electric motors and things of that nature. So let's get that on the record that there's absolutely no motorized -- MR. ROGERS: Absolutely no motorized vessels allowed. It's stated in the PUD document, as well as state and federal permits. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. I just wanted that on the record for staff. MR. ROGERS: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Staff, are you satisfied with that? MR. KELLY: Yes, and this is also compliant with the Growth Management Plan. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Good. Gotta be compliant with that. Great. Anything else from staff? MR. KELLY: No, that's it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. What about the public? I notice there was some comments. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have three virtual speakers who want to speak, and six others who are monitoring, but we'll read their names in case they want to -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Let's get going. Great. MR. BELLOWS: The first caller is Douglas Dick. MR. DICK: Hello. Yes, hi. I'm Douglas Dick, and I'm a resident of Arbor Trace, and I'll be speaking for the two Arbor Trace Condominium Associations that represent all of our residents. Would it be possible to put up the comments, our comments page on the screen? Maybe not. MR. BELLOWS: We're attempting to find it. MR. DICK: Okay. In the meantime, I can just start out. Arbor Trace is a senior living community of about 280 residents -- thank you. Great. It's immediately adjacent to Kalea Bay to the north. Therefore, it's affected by and has a direct interest in Lodge/Abbott's Petition. We do realize that Kalea Bay will be enhanced by this proposal, but we have several areas of concern that were not addressed in the petition, that is to say some unanswered questions. One was actually referred to -- several were referred to just a few minutes ago. There are three main categories: The operation of the project, the environmental aspects, and safety. On the operation of the project, these are -- these questions are primarily quality of life questions. Lighting just was addressed, actually. We were wondering what kind of lighting would be installed, how late they'll be operational. We're concerned with how bright they'll be, as well as where they'll be directed. As I understand from the speaker who just spoke, that they will be August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 30 of 42 directed down primarily, but the lighting is of concern. The sound is more of the major concern for us, because of our nearby location we are directly affected by sound, especially from a gazebo. We're wondering about excessive noise. This was mentioned earlier, too. Will there be parties there? Especially, will there be music? We would request that there would be sort of an enforced time limit for any parties and music. Hours of use, we don't know anything about that yet. We'd request that the dock and gazebo be closed at a reasonable hour. Will it be used after sundown? Will the facility be gated and the hours enforced? Watercraft is the next one, that was mentioned, too. It -- we request actually, again, this has already been mentioned, that only kayaks and canoes of that sort be allowed. We were wondering, besides non-motorized things, that wouldn't necessarily exclude sailboats, small boats being tied up there, or permitted, attached or something, so that would be a consideration, too, but as I understand, definitely no motorized vehicles. The environmental considerations are -- have been pretty well dealt with. Short-term we realize that many of the construction things have been considered, but we would like you to adhere as possible to the construction guidelines recommended by the Southwest Florida Nature Conservancy. And then longer term, hopefully, the materials being used are environmentally friendly, and environmentally appropriate for the long-term viability of the mangroves and surrounding vegetation and waters. Safety is more in regards to winds, especially, as is the sound. We hope that the walkways and gazebo would be built to withstand high winds, such as tropical storms and hurricanes. We're just a little concerned about the break-up and the float, we are a ways away, but conceivably we could be hit in our building, and also we live in a conservation area. So hopefully it will be able to sustain high winds. As I stated earlier, we do realize that this project would benefit Kalea Bay, but we would stress that the petitioner's proposal significantly changes the nature of the project. Whereas, before it was primarily a viewing area and maybe fishing, it's now a kayak dock and launch area, and, obviously, this is going to increase the uses considerably. Arbor Trace is a senior living community, has many elderly residents. We're concerned about the environmental impact of the project, but really we're also concerned about the quality of life issue that the petition raises. Bright lights at night would affect many of us, but excessive noise, loud music, parties, will negatively affect all of us, and there are many considerations for us, at least, if this petition is not addressed. Therefore, we feel that this petition should not be approved until the above-mentioned questions have been answered satisfactorily. Now, I was wondering if you could put up our summary of questions, the next page, if possible. There's one more page, or I can just read them off here. There's a summary of the questions that should be considered. Lighting, we already talked about that, the type, the hours that they're going to the operational. Thank you. How bright they're going to be, the direction of them. The sound, excessive noise, parties, music, et cetera, the hours of use is very important. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 31 of 42 I know from having been in other communities that sometimes you can have parties at 3:00 and people get drunk enough -- so is the facility going to be gated, and how will it be enforced. Watercraft, we talked about, and many of the environmental and safety issues have already been mentioned, too. But in summary, we do feel that the petition should not be approved until these questions, and especially the quality of life questions, have been addressed. Thank you very much. I appreciate the chance to propose this, and I appreciate being able to do it through Zoom. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you very much. I've seen these. They were in the record. I assume you all saw them as well? MR. ROGERS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you have any comments to these? MR. ROGERS: We have -- on our PowerPoint we have a response to all of these questions -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: -at the very end of it, if you'd like for us to go through it? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, let's go through that and get that out of the way. MR. ROGERS: No problem. I believe it's the last three slides of our PowerPoint. In regards to lighting, I mean, we, Turrell Hall designs docks all over this county and state, and it's going to be all low-voltage lighting. It's going to illuminate the walkway. This will have handrailings. So what we typically do, it looks like little hockey puck lights that points downward and illuminates just the walkway, so no light is shot out. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 12 voltage type of thing? MR. ROGERS: Yeah, 100 percent, yes, sir. So here is the questions that we received that the gentlemen was just discussing: What type of lighting will be installed, just talked about it, low-voltage dock lighting. How lighting will be -- or how late will lighting be operational? Like as Karen stated, it has not been determined yet. How bright will the lights be? Low-level, downward lighting. Excessive noise, no, there -- we're not putting any kind of stereo or systems out on this facility. Doesn't mean someone couldn't have their iPhone playing music, but that's only certain elevation, you know... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me stop you on that point. You do have a security guard management onsite, I would assume; right? MS. BISHOP: Yes, 24/7. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. So, I mean, as a lawyer, I've been involved in these types of issues for a long, long time. You probably have some operational issues where if some kids or somebody is out there with their jam box, and they're just going wild, somebody would -- MS. BISHOP: Pinches their head off. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The point that I'm saying is that I don't want to leave it to somebody else offsite to have to report that, that you all would monitor that and say you guys -- you know, the whole point of this is to have a peaceful environmental experience; right? August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 32 of 42 MS. BISHOP: That would be it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I thought so. So somebody would be monitoring this. Great. MS. BISHOP: Absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And perhaps you can make ya'll's contact information known to the gentleman at the -- that was on the phone or whoever the leadership is? MS. BISHOP: Yeah. We actually communicate with them, and several people over there on a regular basis. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So they'll know how to call management? MS. BISHOP: Absolutely. They have my cell number, actually. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do they really? MS. BISHOP: They do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, let's prove it. Hey, you guys, call her. MS. BISHOP: They've got it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That -- I think that's a good point to be made, and, you know, as far as them bringing their own lighting out there and starting to throw --- I would assume that you have somebody onsite that would say, "You guys stop it." MS. BISHOP: That's true, and that's a long way to, you know, to haul stuff out there, too. I can't imagine you bringing lights out there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And you wouldn't want -- obviously, for safety purposes you wouldn't somebody intruding onto your property, coming in late at night, stealth, climbing up on the boardwalk and getting into your property either; right? MS. BISHOP: No, and actually they might end up putting cameras out there, too -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. BISHOP: -- to keep that, because we're not going to gate the facility, you know, at the boardwalk. We're not gating that, but this place is highly secure, as far as the monitoring of the facility, in general, because we also have a clubhouse. So it's all tied together. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Correct. Okay. You want to keep going down the list? Thank you for that. MR. ROGERS: Sure. So then it seems like we touched on all these, music. We touched about hours have not been fully determined, and as Karen just stated, no specific gate will be on this thing -- on the dock. Next slide. Will any other -- it's all non-motorized boats. I stated that as before, and it's required in the PUD as well as in the state and federal permits. The boardwalk, such as structure will adhere to construction guidelines recommended -- of course. We have coordinated with them throughout the state permitting process. Again, let me stress that's why this boardwalk meanders, let's call it, through the mangrove fringe, in order to avoid impacts to mangrove. The cheapest and most cost-effective way to build a structure is a straight line right out. So the applicant is absorbing major additional costs to construct this, and also just let me note that we are not allowed to put any heavy equipment on the ground here. A, due to the mucky soils that couldn't support it, but, however, it's required to basically build this as we go out. So we'll put pilings in, walk the machinery out, deck it, boom, boom, walk out. So it's going to be a very expensive construction process. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you're not bringing a barge in to lift it? It's August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 33 of 42 all going to go from land out? Okay. MR. ROGERS: Correct, yeah, the water depth out in this area where the actual gazebo is going to be is, again, like a foot deep so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Are you going to be jetting in the pilings or pounding them in? MR. ROGERS: Correct, jetting. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just jetting them in? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. Again, it's muck, so once we put the piling in, it will start, yeah, doing its thing, so gravity will help. State and federal permits and building codes will be followed. Materials to be used, environmentally appropriate, yes. It's going to be a typical, most likely a synthetic wood. I believe we specked out a Wear Deck material, it's called, that's the manufacturer. It's a very popular material that we use for docks, longevity, low maintenance on it, less heat for people on their feet so it's -- the railing will be of the same material, and the roof, again, let me stress, the gazebo will match the upland clubhouse, so it will look part of the whole Kalea Bay Development. Were there any previous provisions to ensure the facility and equipment are anchored to prevent -- yes, this will be built per the Florida Building Code. We build -- Turrell Hall, when we engineer our docks and everything, we build these things to withstand Cat 3 winds, at least, and this is going to follow that exact code that we typically apply. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Lighting, typical down lighting, we just talked about this. It looks like they're really stressing this. I totally understand it, but, again, it will be low-level lighting. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So to that point, I notice you mention that you're just trimming back the canopy? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So are you suspecting the canopy is going to grow over a little bit? MR. ROGERS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So, in essence, if you're looking down from above or whatever, to even that degree, your low-level lighting would be blocked? MR. ROGERS: Correct. Yes, sir. Yeah. And it will take some time because we'll go out and pull the mangroves back and then they'll grow. The lateral branches will then start to grow over the boardwalk. We will be able to maintain the lateral branches that come over the railing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. MR. ROGERS: So we can maintain the walkway a little bit. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Still be growing on the site? MR. ROGERS: Correct. So from an aerial view, a bird's eye view, it will be covered over time. Lighting, let's go to the next slide. Can't talk about lighting anymore. Sounds, Karen has talked about that. Noise ordinances will be followed, and security gate -- or security guards onsite will also help us maintain that. No gate on it and hours still to be determined. No motorized vessels allowed at all. We cannot put in sailboats. I heard the gentleman bring up sailboats. No -- nothing is allowed to be tied off to this structure as the August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 34 of 42 typical docking structure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. There's not going to be any drop on, drop off people, you know, they tend to do that? MR. ROGERS: Right. No, there will not be any of that. We have a slide that's basically proposed to get the kayaks from the boardwalk elevation down to the water. You put the kayak on, we call it a kayak slide. It's just wooden bumpers that will allow you to not have to carry your kayak down the stairs to get to the floating structure. So you can just let it kind of go down with you and help you get out. So it's going to be a really good structure for the whole community and the surrounding neighborhood. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sure. MR. ROGERS: Environmental issues, I mean, state and federal permits have been gone through. We've mitigated for impacts for the whole project years ago, so everything has been taken into consideration in regards to the environment. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Next slide. These are the final questions. Long-term materials used to construct -- yes, stressed that before, and, yes, it will be built to withstand at least a Category 3 hurricane. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. And, of course, God forbid we do have a hurricane, and I feel for Louisiana and Texas right now, you'll get those kayaks out and everything else that's wind -- MR. ROGERS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- that will turn into flying objects very quickly. MR. ROGERS: We don't have any -- you know, I can't say there's any requirements now, but, yes, I believe the community will have to comply with those. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, I would think for liability purposes -- MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- you guys would really want to do that. Let me ask one question. Staff, any environmental comments on this? I know they have go through a plethora of permits through the state and federal government, but any concerns on the County's part? MR. BELLOWS: We have Craig Brown with our Environmental Review Team here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hi, Craig. MR. BROWN: Nice to meet you. Craig Brown, Environmental Review. Basically everything that Jeff said complies with the environmental aspects of this project. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BROWN: They've gone through the state and federal evaluation process, so they've met the requirements. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Okay. Now, I know the Conservancy is always worried about mangroves. Anybody hear from them? Anybody talk to them? We don't have any comments from them? Okay. All right. They're usually on top of this, so I guess they're okay. Anything else? MR. KELLY: Yes. Again, John Kelly, just one housekeeping item. With the staff report you received already the correspondence from the public. We would just like to add that as attachment D to the staff report. It's been provided again to you today and to the court August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 35 of 42 reporter. As I said, you already had a copy of that, as did the applicant. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. For the record, I did read all of that, and I believe the gentleman said he was speaking on behalf of all. It's looks like they're coming from the -- is it the Towers? What was the name of the facility, Two Towers? MS. BISHOP: Two projects. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anyway, where they came from, it looked like the same spot. He was speaking on behalf of all of them. I read all of the correspondence that came, for the record, so everyone knows, but I do want them in the record, and I appreciate you all taking the time to answer those. I was going to ask you those questions anyway, so I guess you anticipated that, and, Ray, it looks like you want to talk? MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker, if you're ready. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, yeah. Okay. Great. MR. BELLOWS: Marla Fischer. MS. BISHOP: I think she left. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I don't know. Is she here live? MS. BISHOP: She was here. MR. FRANTZ: Marla Fischer is on the Zoom call. She just needs to unmute. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Marla, unmute. MS. FISCHER: I have just become unmuted. Hello. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Welcome. Yes, we hear you. MS. FISCHER: Oh, okay. My name is Marla Fischer, and I'm a resident of Tower Point, Arbor Trace, a senior living community that is on the northern boundary of Kalea Bay, and could you, please, show the Kalea Bay ad, Fischer 1? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What was that? Slide 1, okay, Jeremy. We're going to -- this is working out really well, everyone, but, so we're just going to take our time. I know it doesn't go as fast as it usually does, but it's going good. All right, ma'am, is that the one you wanted? MS. FISCHER: I can't -- I'm actually not on the computer. I'm on the telephone. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, good. Well, we're looking at a -- it looks like an advertisement with -- from a balcony. MS. FISCHER: Kalea Bay? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. Yes. It looks like your advertisement. Okay. It says "appreciate" on the left-hand side. MS. FISCHER: Oh, thank you. You can do the rest of the presentation then. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sorry. MS. FISCHER: That is, in fact, is what I wanted to point out, is that it does say "appreciate" written in bold letters on the side of the page, and at the bottom of the page it reads, and I quote, "Appreciate the view. Forever views, that are forever yours," end quote. And that pledge may once have been true, but I think it will no longer be true if the developers are granted permission to go forward with this proposal. Excuse me. What we're looking at, and you've addressed many of those concerns, so I'm kind of cutting back on some of the things that I was going to read in my statement, but we see from our building, particularly from our upper floor where we go to socialize, it's an observation deck, we will be able to see this large structure, just as they will be able to see it, and so we, in effect, see August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 36 of 42 that as beautiful green space at this time, and it will dramatically change, and to our mind be visually polluting. Separate from that visual pollution, we also are very concerned about the noise pollution, and since the noise travels five times faster across bodies of water, the sound from people in high spirits, which is wonderful, but they're jumping in and out of kayaks, going up and down aluminum gangway stairs, boats are hitting against aluminum racks, coupled with sounds of boats moving up and down a slide, along with the sounds from large groups of people congregating in the boathouse, it's going to make for a beehive of activity, and it substantially changes the environment in which we live. And what was presented in the original 2004 proposal was a much shorter boardwalk, less impact on the mangroves. It was a quiet pathway. It was a place to commune with nature and observe -- excuse me -- the surrounding flora and wildlife. And this new proposal that they're describing is merely an extension of what was already approved, is in truth, much more than that. It's an additionally proposed structures and activities, and it will change the whole scope, purpose and impact of the earlier proposal, and so we're extremely concerned about the visual, about the auditory impact. And I guess as a quick aside, a concern, a personal concern, is that many of these Kalea Bay boaters will be entering the bay channel with many larger boats moving at considerably higher speeds, and they create large wakes capable of capsizing the lighter watercrafts, and I fear it will result in numerous accidents. So, in summary, the proposed changes that they're making to this conservation area will create visual pollution due to their size and elevated structures. It's going to create noise pollution due to boat usage, potential parties. It will lead to additional boat traffic, increasing the likelihood of accidents, and most significantly it will cause increased destruction to our bay mangroves which acts as storm barriers, and in the process destroy the habitat of numerous fish and wildlife. For those reasons, I'm asking the hearing officer to do no harm, reject the large epic proposal, and make these developers keep their pledge of forever views that are forever yours on behalf of both of their own residents and their adjoining neighbors. Thank you for your time. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate that. Do we have any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's just get through all the speakers. MR. BELLOWS: Cole Henry? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Cole, you should be unmuted now. Cole, if you are speaking, we cannot hear you. I'm going to mute Cole again. Maybe we can move on to the next speaker and come back to this person at the end? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let's do that. MR. BELLOWS: Amanda Martin? (No response.) MR. BELLOW: She had originally indicated that she was only wishing to view, but we're calling her name in case she does have a question now. MR. FRANTZ: She's on mute. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. And then we'll go to Karen Wohn, W-O-H-N. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 37 of 42 (No response.) MR. BELLOWS: The next speaker is Sharon Umpenhour. (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: I think there were some who indicated only that they are wanting to view, and then there are some that indicated they would like to view, but also indicated Kalea Bay. I think we can just call those that indicated both. MR. BELLOWS: Okay, then Denise Cobb? (No response.) MR. BELLOWS: And the other was county employee Craig Brown so... MR. FRANTZ: Denise, if you could unmute yourself? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Denise is here and available, but asking to unmute. I'm just waiting for Denise to unmute. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can you chat with them? Are you able to chat with them to tell them to unmute or -- I'm concerned that folks are -- have all these individuals submitted written comments as well? I saw a number of them. MR. FRANTZ: Ms. Cobb can't seem to unmute herself. So we did get another late registration from someone named Brian Cobb. I'll try to unmute. Brian Cobb, if you are available to unmute yourself, you can now. (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Okay. I am seeing Cole Henry with their hand raised, and so I'm just going to allow them to talk now, and try and come back to Denise and Brian. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. FRANTZ: Mr. Henry, if you are able to unmute yourself, you'll be able to speak. Henry, in order to unmute yourself, I believe you may need to press something like star six. (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So everyone who is listening and wants to call in, I do believe that star six is what unmutes you. I don't know if you have those instructions? MR. KELLY: Excuse me. You asked who we had correspondence from. I have Mr. Dick and Ms. Fischer, both of whom you have heard from. There's also an affirmative letter in the package -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I saw that. MR. KELLY: -- from a Ms. Strohman. Other than that, I don't have anything else as far as correspondence. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Jeff, let me ask you a couple questions. I'm sorry, ma'am, your name? MR. FRANTZ: Looks like one of our public speakers has unmuted themselves. Let's see if -- Henry Cole or Cole Henry? MR. HENRY: Hello. I'm Cole Henry. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Need you to speak louder, sir. MR. HENRY: Okay. Can you hear me now? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, perfectly. MR. HENRY: Okay. My name is Cole Henry. I'm sorry for the technical difficulties there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's all right. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 38 of 42 MR. HENRY: I'll introduce myself. My name is Cole Henry. I am a resident of Kalea Bay, Tower 100, and for full disclosure I am on the board of directors, and I am the treasurer of Kalea Bay Tower 100 Condominium Association, and have been a resident there since January of 2018. Most of my questions and concerns have already been answered through the previous presentations. There was one remaining question that I had concerning the utilities out along the boardwalk. Lighting has been clarified. Will there be any water run out to the end of the gazebo? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Jeff, can you... MR. ROGERS: No, no proposed water. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. There is no potable water out there; correct. MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So no fish cleaning or any of that stuff? MR. ROGERS: No hoses, no water source at all. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Awesome. Thank you. MR. HENRY: Okay. Thank you. And then just a couple of additional comments responding as a Kalea Bay resident to the concerns proposed by a couple of the other speakers here. I don't know if anyone has tried to go out into the mangroves after dark, but the no-see-ums and mosquitos will run off anything and anybody that tries to do that. So I seriously doubt you're going to have 2:00 in the morning parties out there. It's terrible. And I'm also an avid environmentalist. I was an environmental science major in college. I'm an avid paddle border, and I paddle board all through those back bays all the time. The -- the young lady who just spoke was worried about boat traffic back there. The average depth, and this has been mentioned a couple times, is about a foot or two feet. You can't even get a jet ski back there. I personally do not want boats back there, so I'm very happy with that, but I think the concern of motorboat traffic along the dock way is unfounded and unreasonable, actually, because it's just too darn shallow. I have trouble getting my paddle board in there, because the stake hits the mud. Other than that, most of the -- well, actually, every single resident that I've spoken with is generally supportive of this amenity for our community. We do not consider it being intrusive to Arbor Trace. We do not consider it to be intrusive to the environment. We are concerned about those environmental impacts and being noisy neighbors, but overall I think Lodge/Abbott has done a very good job of thinking this through, and with kayaks and paddle boards and canoes only, and also the boardwalk is going to be environmentally sound. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Our pleasure. Thank you for calling in. Jeremy, anybody else? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah, I'm going to try to unmute Brian Cobb one more time. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. FRANTZ: Brian Cobb, if you are there -- Brian Cobb, if you are there, you will also need to unmute yourself on your end. (No response.) August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 39 of 42 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is he calling in by phone or -- MR. FRANTZ: No, these are regular Zoom attendees. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So -- MR. FRANTZ: Okay. I'm going to move on to Denise Cobb. (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So if you're on Zoom, I believe the mute and unmute is on the left-hand side of your screen at the left bottom corner of your screen. Just like that one. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. I'm not seeing Denise unmute on her end. Those were our last two zoom attendees that have not spoken. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. What about -- are you able to send them a message through chat, and just do that, and then we'll go ahead, and if I can ask Jeff, and I'm sorry, ma'am, what is your name and title? I think it was from -- MS. BISHOP: I'm Karen Bishop. I'm the project manager for entitlements. I've been working on this job since the 90's. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The 90's. Okay. MS. BISHOP: The longest living consultant. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can someone bring up a -- I'm looking at the project site, the larger site. I want to know where the tower point is located, so can I get a graphic of that? Is there a possibility of that? MS. BISHOP: Go back to our slides. MR. ROGERS: We can go back to our slides of the overall property. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: The second slide, I believe it was? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, looking at the project site slide. Is it west of Vanderbilt? MS. BISHOP: Correct. MR. ROGERS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Directly to your north? MR. ROGERS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. And how tall are their towers roughly? MS. BISHOP: Theirs are 12 stories, I believe. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And your towers are? MS. BISHOP: 12 stories or 17 -- they may be 15. We have 20 stories on the -- MR. BELLOWS: Can you speak into the microphone, please? MS. BISHOP: Sorry. We have 20 stories for the ones that one, two, three and four. The fifth tower, which is adjacent to them, is 17 stories. I think theirs is close to that anyway. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Okay. MS. BISHOP: Now you can see where our towers are. You can see where the -- you see that big lake on the west side? So they are west of that big lake. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So they're up to the north of that? Okay. MS. BISHOP: Yeah, they're to the north. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And there was a -- they mentioned something, you had already originally had a boardwalk planned at some point. Is this an August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 40 of 42 extension of that boardwalk or... MS. BISHOP: It's the same boardwalk. We changed the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Configuration? MS. BISHOP: -- shape of the gazebo at the end. It used to be an octagon shape. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MS. BISHOP: And we added the kayak launch, which we were allowed originally. You know, back in the 90's, nobody was really kayaking. It never occurred to us to allow for that, but now because of everybody kayaking, we've added that amenity. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. Okay. So it's the same boardwalk that would go out there, but you retrofitted it for kayaking -- MS. BISHOP: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- other people. Yeah, so I think canoes have been around for a while. MS. BISHOP: Well, that's true, but they're a little heavier than the kayaks. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. I prefer canoes. I can't sit in a kayak. I don't know. MS. BISHOP: You can in mine. It's a big one. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So we answered the utilities issue and water, so we know about electricity. I think we answered that part. Was there any other questions that you heard? I think you covered all of them. The lighting, the noise, no-see-ums. You're not going to be able to get rid of those. Sorry. MS. BISHOP: No. The mosquitoes are as big as dogs out there. I think his point was definitely something to take into consideration. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Welcome to Florida, everybody. MS. BISHOP: Exactly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Was there anything else? I want to make sure all the public has had an opportunity. Jeremy, have we got any success over there? MR. FRANTZ: Well, we can give it one more shot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's do it one more time. MR. FRANTZ: Brian Cobb, if you would like to unmute yourself? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They also have telephone ability if they wanted to use the phone number on the agenda? MR. FRANTZ: Yes. If you're struggling to join via the typical zoom connection, the invitation that you received also included phone numbers. You could attempt to call in. (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Not seeing any change from Brian Cobb. I'm going to allow Denise Cobb to speak. (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Let me do that, have you all heard -- do you know the Cobb's at all? Have you heard from the Cobb's, not at all? MR. ROGERS: I have not. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So what I'm going to do in fairness, I'm going to ask them if they want to type up an e-mail and send it in, we'll provide it to you. MR. ROGERS: Right. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 41 of 42 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If you have any further comments, we'll make them part of the record. I know that's a little unusual, but I also want to make sure that people have due process, and, apparently, we're having some technical issues, but I suspect that they're probably going to be very similar questions as well. MS. BISHOP: Well, my cell number is on the application. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It is? Okay. MS. BISHOP: So anyone could call. I've not gotten any calls. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. You all have that invitation to call this young lady at any time with your questions and concerns, but I will go ahead, since the Cobb's aren't -- is it both a Mr. and Mrs. Cobb or you don't know? Okay. Well, we've given it a lot of time. I'll let them send in an e-mail, if they like. MR. ROGERS: Maybe one last thing, real quick? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, go ahead, Jeff. MR. ROGERS: I don't want to do too much, but the view impacts that I forgot who was talking about -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: View impacts. MR. ROGERS: All the residents of Kalea Bay were aware that this was part of the overall project from the get-go. This is part of the original permits, part of the original PUD. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. Right. MR. ROGERS: So this is not a new thing that we're proposing. All residents, this is part of the advertisement of the community as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. I got that part. It sounds more of an operational code enforcement, but, of course, code enforcement's tricky, so a lot of this is going to rely on you all to do fantastic management at Kalea Bay, and I suspect the no-see-ums might help out with that as well. MR. ROGERS: Definitely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You never know, there's some spray out there that will give you cancer at some point but, you know -- all right. Anything else from you all? MR. ROGERS: I think that's it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. MR. ROGERS: Thank you for your time. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate your patience. This was a complicated project, I'm sure. A little history, once upon a time I was in marine construction myself as a teenager, and I used to lug around those pilings, and it's not fun. MR. ROGERS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's why I went to college, to get away from that job. MS. BISHOP: Environmental control. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. So we'll close the public hearing. Is there any -- so that's the last of the applications; right? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So why don't we do this, is there any other business that we need to talk about? MR. BELLOWS: No. August 27, 2020 HEX Meeting Page 42 of 42 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I do want to complement staff and everyone. We did a dry run about a couple weeks ago and this has gone off rather well. I apologize to the Cole -- to the Cobb's for not being able to get in, but, you know, we -- we're doing the best we can under the circumstances. So my thanks to the County for setting this up. You guys did a great job. I appreciate being here. I think I'll come back. Thanks for the water and everything else, and I appreciate everyone observing the CDC Guidelines and doing that, so, have we got any additional public comments? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think we've gone through all that. With that, unless anybody has any last-minute comments, I think we'll adjourn the meeting. (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Meeting is adjourned. Great. Thank you, everyone. * * * * * * There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 11:11 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER ________________________________________ ANDREW DICKMAN, HEARING EXAMINER These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on ________, as presented ________ or as corrected ________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY JANICE R. MALINE, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.