HEX Transcript 10/08/2015 October 8,2015 HEX Meeting
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
Naples,Florida
October 8,2015
LET IT BE REMEMBERED,that the Collier County Hearing Examiner,in and for the County of
Collier,having conducted business herein,met on this date at 9:00 a.m.,in REGULAR SESSION at 2800
North Horseshoe Drive,Room 609/610,Naples,Florida,with the following people present:
HEARING EXAMINER MARK STRAIN
ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V.Bellows,Zoning Manager
Nancy Gundlach,Principal Planner
Eric Johnson,Principal Planner
Scott Stone,Assistant County Attorney
Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney
Page 1 of 12
AGENDA(REVISED) •
THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:00 AM ON THURSDAY,OCTOBER 8,2015 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 610
AT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/PLANNING®ULATION BUILDING,2800 N.
HORSESHOE DRIVE,NAPLES,FLORIDA
INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES UNLESS OTHERWISE WAIVED BY THE
HEARING EXAMINER. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS
INCLUDED IN THE HEARING REPORT PACKETS MUST HAVE THAT MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO
COUNTY STAFF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. ALL MATERIALS USED DURING
PRESENTATION AT THE HEARING WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO
ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD
INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ARE FINAL UNLESS APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
HEARING PROCEDURES WILL PROVIDE FOR PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT,
PRESENTATION BY STAFF, PUBLIC COMMENT AND APPLICANT REBUTTAL, THE HEARING
EXAMINER WILL RENDER A DECISION WITHIN 30 DAYS. PERSONS WISHING TO RECEIVE A
COPY OF THE DECISION BY MAIL MAY SUPPLY COUNTY STAFF WITH THEIR NAME, ADDRESS,
AND A STAMPED, SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE FOR THAT PURPOSE. PERSONS WISHING TO
RECEIVE AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DECISION MAY SUPPLY THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. REVIEW OF AGENDA
3. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES: August 27,2015,September 10,2015
4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. PETITION NO. PDI-PL20150000742 -- Petitioners, Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc. and
Parklands Associates I, LLLP, request an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 93-3, as amended,
the Longshore Lake PUD, to allow the permitted off-premises sign located on the southeast corner of
the PUD to be used for the benefit of the Parklands PUD instead of the Terafina PUD, to change the
name shown on the off-premises sign from "Riverstone" to "Stone Creek," to amend the off-premises
sign exhibits, and to amend the off-premises sign deviations to reflect the new name on the sign and
allow the sign to be located more than 1,000 feet from the Parklands PUD. The subject property is
located on the north side of Immokalee Road,just west of Logan Boulevard, in Section 20,Township 48
South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida.(Petition Number PDI-PL20150000742, Longshore Lake
PUD)(Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner)
B. PETITION NO. BD-PL20140000506 — Richard McCord requests a 26.2-foot boat dock extension
over the maximum 20 feet limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a
total protrusion of 46.2 feet to accommodate a new boat dock facility with one boat, for the benefit of
Lot 24, Block S. Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit No. 3, in Section 29, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida.[Coordinator: Eric Johnson,AICP,Principal Planner]
C. PETITION NO. PDI-PL20150000871 —Standard Pacific of Florida requests an insubstantial change
to Ordinance No. 12-26, the Bent Creek Preserve RPUD, to reduce the minimum front yard setback for
single family detached principle structures to 10 feet; to reduce the minimum side yard setback for
single family detached principle structures to 5 feet;and to reduce the minimum distance between single
family detached principle structures and the minimum distance between single family detached
accessory structures to 10 feet.The subject property consists of 138.4±acres located approximately one-
half mile east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road, in Section 26.Township 48
South, Range 26 East.Collier County,Florida. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, A1CP, Principal Planner]
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN HEX
NO.2015—30
PETITION NO. PDI-PL20150000736—Naples RV Resort, LLC requests an insubstantial change to
Ordinance No. 07-85, as amended, the Naples Motorcoach Resort Commercial Planned Unit
Development, to increase the maximum floor area of small motorcoach utility buildings from 100
square feet to 308 square feet; to decrease the minimum setbacks for personal utility buildings; to
replace the Typical Motorcoach Lot detail exhibit; and to increase the maximum length of residency
from 6 months to 9 months per year. The subject property consists of 23.2± acres located on the south
side of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41), approximately % mile east of Collier Boulevard (S.R. 951) in
Section 3,Township 51 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida.
6. PUBI.,IC COMMENTS
7. ADJOURN
October 8,2015 HEX Meeting
EXHIBITS
DESCRIPTION PAGE
PDI-PL20150000742
A-Staff Report 4
B-Legal Advertisement 4
C-Development Regulations(Corrected) 7
BD-PL20140000506
A-Staff Report 8
B-Legal Advertisement 8
PDI-PL20150000871
A-Staff Report 19
B-Legal Advertisement 19
* * * * * * *
PROCEEDINGS
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the Thursday,October
5th(sic)meeting of the Collier County Hearing Examiner's Office.
If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you.
Review of the agenda. We have four items up for discussion today. Nothing else has changed.
There's no additions or deletions to those four.
Approval of the prior meeting minutes. I've reviewed the August 27th,2015,and the September 10th,
2015,minutes,and they're both approved as written for recordation.
***That gets us to our first advertised public hearing. First petition up is Petition No.
PDI-PL20150000742. It's the Longshore Lakes Foundation and Parklands Associates,LLP.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. For the benefit of those here--first of all,is there any
members of the public here attending for this particular item?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Then I will not need a formal presentation by the
applicant.
I've reviewed the package. I've reviewed all the information supplied,and we'll move into some
questions from the overhead in just a second.
Exhibit A will be the staff report. Exhibit B will be the legal ad.
For my disclosures,I've reviewed all the files,I've talked to members of staff,and I did talk to the
applicant this morning at the meeting.
Other than that,I'll walk through the overhead,because there are a couple changes that have been
made. I want to make sure the applicant is in agreement with them.
The location is at Olde Cypress'entrance on Immokalee Road. That's the sign that currently exists.
The effort that's here today is simply to change the wording on the sign from River Stone to Stone Creek.
In reviewing this,we've found some development regulations that were written in. What was in the
original packet needed some changes. It went through the County Attorney's Office.
Is Scott Stone here? There he is. Scott,would you introduce the changes that you've suggested to
the record.
Page 2 of 12
October 8,2015 HEX Meeting
This is not the latest one that you showed me yesterday. I don't--I think there were some changes on
one or two of these,unless this is the latest.
MR.STONE: I believe that is the latest version.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: It is the latest,okay.
MR. STONE: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: On this page,I know I asked the applicant this morning if
they've reviewed it. Could you tell us for the record if you have any problem,then we'll go to the second page
in a minute.
MR.RATTERY: Good morning. For the record,Kevin Rattery(phonetic)with Parkland
Associates 1,LLP. We are in agreement with the revised language.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. The second page is right here. And,Scott,the only
question or--and Kevin,both,is that that last line,it says,the PUD is--Parklands PUD is located
approximately two miles from,then it goes to the word"location." I would suggest that the words"the
proposed location"remain in,of the sign,and that is the only suggested change I have.
Is there any--Scott,when you reviewed this,did you have anything else you wanted to add to it?
MR. STONE: No. That may have just been an oversight. That sounds fine to me.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,sir.
Kevin,are you okay with that?
MR. RATTERY: Yes,sir,I'm okay with that change.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And I don't have any other questions. This will be--I'll
need a recordable copy with the correction just noted to remove that piece of the strikethrough.So,Kevin or
Bob,if your office could get us that as quickly as possible,it will help expedite the final issuance of the
decision on this matter.
Those pages I've got,and I have a clean copy here. They'll be--Exhibit C,will be the corrected
development regulations pages that were just shown up here. And I'll provide those to the court reporter at the
end of the meeting.
Is there anybody that would have any other comment on this?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And is there a staff report to follow up?
MS.GUNDLACH: Yes,there is a staff report. We are recommending approval.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Short and sweet,Nancy. Thank you.
Okay. Hearing no other comments or requests from the audience,then this item is over with,and a
decision will be rendered within 30 days.
Thank you all.
MR.RATTERY: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: There are a couple housekeeping items I meant to announce in
the beginning. I'll do that right now for those that are interested.
Individual speakers will be limited to five minutes unless otherwise waived. All decisions are final
unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners,and a decision will be issued within 30 days.
***The second case is Petition No. BD-PL20140000506. It's the Richard McCord boat dock
extension at 110 Egret Way.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay. Exhibit A on this will be the staff report. Exhibit B will be the legal ad.
And my disclosures,I've talked with staff,reviewed the files,I've attended the preapp.,and I've had
copies of five different emails,a couple of them were from the same party. One of the emails had a
conditional either for or against. It wasn't absolutely clear;two of the emails didn't have a problem after they
received clarification from staff;and one email that was received by me late yesterday from staff was against
the request.
Page 3 of 12
October 8,2015 HEX Meeting
Now,is the applicant here?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I'm sorry?
MR.NELSON: We're his agents.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. That's fine.That's what I meant.
If there are members of the public here interested in this one,if there are,please raise your hand.
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Eric,that's interesting nobody showed up that had
written any of these letters.
I'll walk through the location of this. This is in Vanderbilt Beach at the end of Egret Ave.That's the
general location of the property. This is an aerial of the site from the Tax Assessor's Office--Tax Appraiser's
Office,rm sorry,showing the existing dock and the house.
That's the existing dock layout. It's a lift over on the north end. The boat,in this particular case,goes
straight in and straight out perpendicular to the seawall,so when it has to exit or come in,it's backing out into
the navigable waterway at least one to two lengths of the boat. It has also a large dock section for moor--side
mooring.
This dock is approximately 72 feet,including a lift in length along the shoreline. This is a revised
dock. It's approximately 62 feet,a little bit shorter. It is requesting a 7.1-foot extension over what is already
there on the site. I believe the site is 39 something and change.
This particular dock would be 51 feet from the riparian line,which is in alignment with the north
property line.
Based on the cross-sections the applicant supplied,they're showing that the depth to get this boat in
from the angle that they're asking is needed in the location they're at.
One interesting thing is that this particular boat angle and access location would actually enhance the
navigability of this waterway because the boat would not need to back out across the waterway as far. It
would be able to go parallel to the seawall instead of perpendicular,so that will actually improve the
navigability of the area.
The home that this is going on is heavily encased or enshrouded with landscaping,as you can see here,
some of which are mangroves. I went to--trying to figure out topography,how high the mangroves are.
Google Earth has a somewhat weird-looking way of looking at it,but this shows you what might be the
relationship. The mangroves and the trees on the north side border the neighbor to the north,who is one of the
people complaining,the only person that seemed to end up complaining.There's a sizable amount of
vegetation there. That looks to be on the applicant's property. So I don't imagine that the applicant's going to
be removing that vegetation. There would be no need to.
And with that,I'll ask—I won't need a presentation from the applicant's representatives.I've read the
report. I don't have any questions from that aspect of it. There may be some from the staff report in
follow-up.
Eric,do you want to provide a staff report?
MR.JOHNSON: Sure. Thank you,Mr.Hearing Examiner. Eric Johnson,principal planner.
As you had appropriately stated,the current boat dock is 39.1 feet from the--I think the property line
or however,where it's measured,and the proposed boat dock would be 46.2 feet,which represents a request of
26.2 feet. It's for one boat slip and one personal watercraft.
Staff reviewed the proposed petition. It meets all five primary criteria of Section 5.03.06 and meets
all six secondary criteria of Section 5.0.--5.03.06. Staff is recommending approval.There are two conditions
of approval. That was provided to us by the County Attorney's Office. If you want,I can read them into the
record.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: They're on the record. I'll ask the applicant. If one of you
would come to the microphone,one of the representatives of the applicant.
Could you state your name for the record,please.
MR.NELSON: My name is William Nelson.
Page 4 of 12
October 8,2015 HEX Meeting
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you.
Are you Ben Nelson's--any relation to Ben?
MR.NELSON: No,no.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Ben's in here a lot. I just thought that might be
interesting.
Are you aware of the staff report's recommendations?
MR.NELSON: No,I'm not.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Then we will need to read them for the record,please.
MR.JOHNSON: I'll read them. This is going to be our standard language--this will be standard
language for most of these types of--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Eric,just a moment.Heidi wanted to comment on that.
HEIDI ASHTON-CICKO: I'm going to--I'll just talk really loud.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: No. You turned it off now.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: They're conditions--I'll just talk loud.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well,the problem is the tape's not going to pick you up.
HEIDI ASHTON-CICKO: Oh,sorry.
They're conditions that are required by Section 125.022,Florida Statutes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And if Eric will read those for the record. You just said
those will be standard from now on for dock extensions.
MR.JOHNSON: That's correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay.
MR.JOHNSON: Unless the County Attorney's Office--
HEIDI ASHTON-CICKO: It will actually be for everything you approved.
MR.JOHNSON: Here we go. Number 1,issuance of the development permit by a county does not
in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and
does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain
requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that
result in a violation of state or federal law.
Number 2,all other applicable state or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the
development.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you.
Do you have any objection to those recommendation?
MR.NELSON: No,I don't.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
And I believe that's the only questions I have of you.
Eric,is that the end of your staff report?
MR.JOHNSON: No,not quite.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well,you can sit down if you'd like.
MR.NELSON: I would like to add,though,I was in contact with the neighbor to the north yesterday,
and he just didn't have enough information. And once I provided him some extra aerials,he had no objection.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. That's good for the record to know. Appreciate it.
MR.JOHNSON: Yes. In conclusion,I just wanted to say that I did receive phone calls from
interested members of the public,Michael Korchmar(phonetic)and then Mark Scudillo. I did receive,and I
believe I forwarded them to you already--if not,I apologize--letters or a letter from Kay and Ed
Cunningham--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Yes.
MR.JOHNSON: --and Mark Scudillo,Michael Korchmar,and Robert Cantor. These were emails.
And the Cunninghams had a letter. That concludes my presentation.
Staff is recommending approval of the request.For the record,it was advertised in the Naples Daily
News on September 18th.
Page 5 of 12
October 8,2015 HEX Meeting
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Did you get a subsequent follow-up call from Mr.
Scudillo concerning his objections to this?
MR.JOHNSON: No.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Because yesterday you gave me,late in the afternoon,an
email sent by him outlining his concern. And you've not received a--I understand the gentleman now has
subsequently talked to him. I think the email came in to you around 10:32 in the morning,so he may have
talked to Mr.Scudillo after that email,which he's nodding his head,so that's apparently the case.
So you've got no corrective call countering his objective—his objections?
MR.JOHNSON: As far as I'm aware,Mr.Scudillo is still opposed to the project.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I'm going to put a couple things on record,then,
concerning his opposition. But before I do,you had said that that they met all of the five primary and all of the
six secondary. Actually,they met five of the six secondary,because the sixth one is not applicable. Are you
in agreement with that?
MR.JOHNSON: Which one is that?
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Secondary--
MR.JOHNSON: Number 6.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Yeah. The one in your report that says not applicable.
MR.JOHNSON: I agree,yes,sir,yes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
What I wanted to point out,Mr.Scudillo had some concerns. I want to make sure that—I understand
the testimony from the applicant's representatives,but since he did not call back in, I want to make sure the
record's clear on how his concerns are addressed.
First of all,he suggested that the applicant can move the dock further south on his property and that he
could—the applicant could get permits to remove the mangroves and dredge as he apparently is doing. So he
doesn't--so that this applicant doesn't block his views.
I took a look at his property and what he and he did include in his email an application that he has
supplied and got a permit for from--or is tentatively getting a permit for from DEP. That's his boat dock.
And if you notice towards the bottom of the green circle,his first use of the property is 15 feet off his
riparian line. And the applicant here today is 51 feet off the riparian line. So I think that the condition that he
move the docks further on their own property,they certainly have done that.
Also,the property that you note here,see the small circle in green,it's the 58,and then the other circle,
proposed fix dock and boathouse?Mr.Scudillo is putting a boathouse in. And by scale,that's about 16 feet
high,20 feet wide,and somewhere less than 50 feet long. If there was a view blockage on his property,it
would seem like his own boathouse with that I6-foot high is causing him more of a blockage than anything that
Mr.McCord could possibly.
And in addition,when I looked at the aerials here,that vegetation,unless Mr.McCord wants to tear
down all those trees,it's not going to change his view with this dock out there because the trees are already
blocking it. And unless those are coming down,I can't see the necessity of a view issue here.
And I kind of wanted to make sure staff understands it as 1 do,or is your view orientation--Ray,
you've done docks in this county for longer than I've probably been here.
MR.BELLOWS: Twenty-eight years.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Twenty-eight years.Is the view orientation more from the
riparian line alignment,or is it panoramic?
MR.BELLOWS: It's the riparian line.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to get those clarifications on the record in case
there is any concerns after this is all over with.
So with that,I do appreciate it.
Is there any members of the public that would like to speak on this matter?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: With that,we'll close this public hearing,and a decision will be
Page 6 of 12
October 8, 2015 HEX Meeting
rendered within 30 days.
Thank you very much for your time this morning.
***The next item up is Bent Creek Preserve.That is petition No.PDI-PL20150000871,Standard
Pacific of Florida,for the project off Immokalee Road.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you.Exhibit A will be the staff report. Exhibit B will be
the legal ad.
Disclosures on my part,I spoke with staff,I reviewed the files. We've had numerous meetings with
the applicant and staff to get to where we are today with some of the refinements of this particular project.
And with that,I want to--how many members of the--are there any members of the public here for
this particular item?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. With that,we won't need a formal report. I will walk
through on the overhead some of the changes and conditions that we have as a result of what's occurred,then
we'll have a few questions,and that should wrap it up.
And I do believe Mr.Scott Stone,our assistant county attorney,had some last-minute changes,I think
it was yesterday,that we need to walk through with the applicant.
This is the general location. It's just to the east of 951 on the south side of Immokalee Road. It's a
project that was started by another developer,platted at that time,and bought by a subsequent developer.
This is a color rendering of the project and its ultimate layout with the lot styles that were started with
the platting and as they moved forward through the project.
The changes in the project occurred to the single-family detached. They had a series of different uses
that could be applied to the property. The applicant has chosen,for the most part,and maybe,through
testimony today,is telling us it is all single-family,but that is the category in which they had asked for some
changes in setbacks.
The changes in setbacks,for the most part,were consistent with the changes we have allowed on
projects throughout the county today. The only one that was a little different is the minimum front yard at 11
feet,and the correction there we'll talk about here in just a minute. It was modified slightly to accommodate
for overhangs because along the front of the property there's a public utility easement,and we can't have
anything protruding into that easement.
Then the accessory structure had one change,which is the distance between structures. That's the
minimum that the county's gone to through most of all the applications that come in.
The language that is in the lighter red,or I should say the darker red in the middle,it said—it was a
strikethrough,and it said,roof overhang shall not exceed 12 inches.
The applicant and I had talked. Roof overhangs,at least from my experience in the industry,not
always-- 12 inches is pretty tight.And sometimes they go to 18 inches,sometimes 24,depending on the soffit
and how much ventilation you want through your attic space.
The way this was written,it was intended to apply to the front setback because the rest of the
overhangs are within areas that can take a larger overhang by code.
So I suggested they change the language so that it only is effective to where they're up against
easements. And this is one that Scott Stone had some refinement to the language on.
Scott,could you address—tell us what that refinement was.
MR.STONE: Scott Stone,assistant county attorney.
The proposed new language is acceptable. I would suggest one minor change where it says"shall not
protrude into"public utility easement,"I would cross out"public"and just leave it"utility easements"to cover
any potential county utility easements. It may not be limited to public utility easements.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And then you'd want to cross out--well,let's ask Ray or
Eric. This was one of yours,too,right?
MR.JOHNSON: That's correct.
Page 7 of 12
October 8,2015 HEX Meeting
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You get them all today,huh?
MR.JOHNSON: That's correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: We have allowances in the code for protrusions into setbacks.
Now,here we're trying to be specific because this is really more attributed to the front setback change that
they're making. But in thinking about it,there are other locations,maybe not on this project,but there could be
on this project depending on how they futurally(sic)lay out the lots where they're up against a landscape buffer
easement or a lake maintenance easement.
Would they be allowed by code,if there's zero setback to those other easements--and I'm not sure
they are in that case. But say they're up close against the other easements,would those protrusions be allowed
in any easement at all? I don't believe they would. Do you have a reading on that?
MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows.No,we would not allow for an encroachment into an
easement,even an overhang,unless the easement holder granted permission.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And I don't believe that the applicant is intending to do
that.And I'll ask the applicant to come up before this is over and acknowledge that. But I think in looking at
this language--and the machine doesn't move as fast as my fingers do. Okay. Now it moved too fast.
"Roof overhang shall not protrude into easements"may be the best way to say that,Scott. Instead of
referencing just the front yard in cases where it occurs somewhere else,and instead of referencing public
utilities,since they couldn't protrude into any easement,maybe we could just--that would be more effective.
What do you think?
MR. STONE: Perhaps adding the word"required"so that you're not catching unintended easements
that may be private.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And I'll--Patrick,are you representing--would you
mind coming up to the microphone.
MR.VANASSE: For the record,Patrick Vanasse,certified planner with RWA.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. If we were to change this language,roof overhang shall
not protrude into easements,period,do you have any concerns with that from your layout perspective?
MR.VANASSE: I like Scott's suggestion about required easements.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. That's what--I should have thrown that word in. Heidi
had a suggestion as well.
HEIDI ASHTON-CICKO: No. My change--my change would be that it does not protrude into any
easements or other tracts or property line,because there shouldn't be,you know,overhangs over the tract line.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Unless it's a zero-lot-line product,then it's allowed,because
that's required to have a 3-foot--I mean,a 3-foot access easement for maintenance and repair.
MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. In a cluster development you'll have overhangs
onto the other property,but there's a maintenance easement.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Right. This is considered a cluster development by the
mere—do you have zero lot line on these;do you remember?
MR.VANASSE: Yes,we do.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Well,then you're clustered.
So I'm not sure we had to address that in this manner you're suggesting before,because we've not
allowed people to extend over a tract unless they are a cluster development and they got the maintenance
easement.
MR.BELLOWS: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Heidi,I mean,to fit your language in,we would probably have
to then write it around the cluster development provision.
HEIDI ASHTON-CICKO: Well,the curious thing is that if you're a cluster development and you're
zero lot and then you need a maintenance easement on the other side and then you're saying you can't protrude
into any easement,then—
1-1EARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Any required easement,so I guess that would be a required
easement.
Page 8 of 12
i -
October 8,2015 HEX Meeting
HEIDI ASHTON-CICKO: Okay.
MR.VANASSE: If I may,this came about because of the front setback production and the public
utility easement,and we clearly--and we have a plat that's under review right now,and it clearly shows a PUE,
public utility easement.That's the way it's identified. That's the way it's labeled on our plans. I think that was
the intent to make sure that we don't encroach that.
I'm just concerned about any unintended problems if we just say easements. You know,perfect
example is,again,zero-lot-line maintenance easement. We'd rather not have to come back here to change this
again because of an unintended consequence.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I wouldn't want to see you come back here to change it
again after--I don't know--oh,there we go.
I wouldn't want to see you have to come back after all the effort it went to get this far. So that's not our
objective. I just want to make sure that in the review that staff would have to do somehow--because the
reduction to your setbacks are so close to the easements,we don't inadvertently have future staff read this as an
opportunity to provide the overhangs and other things that the exceptions of the code allows in a setback to
apply in an easement.
And maybe,Ray,that's simply said,that exceptions to the setbacks don't apply where there's an
easement.
MR.BELLOWS: If I understand correctly,we're really talking about the public utility easements
versus other kinds of easements such as maintenance easements where that kind of overhang was intended to
address. So maybe just refer to that specific utility easement in this case.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That's fine. I mean,I was--if you guys,from staffs review
perspective,wouldn't allow it in an LBE or an LME anyway,we're in probably good shape.
MR.BELLOWS: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. So--now going back to the way this language needs to
be redrafted and sent back,so we can use this as a backup to a decision,roof overhang shall not be provided
into the utility easements,period. Is that sufficient,or do you want to reference the front yard?
MR.VANASSE: No,that's fine.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Scott?
MR.STONE: If you're not limiting it to front yards,then that will require changes to the location of
the asterisk within the Development Standards Table. Right now it's specifically attached to the front yard
setback.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: But that's the only place this occurs,so I think we can leave it,
then,to the front yard.
MR.STONE: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Ray,do you see a problem with that?
MR.BELLOWS: I don't see a problem.
There was one other issue that we don't want to change was if there's a tree overhang in the rear
crossing over,that there would be a maintenance easement for branches and trees;is that correct on this one?
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: We have a second--that's coming up. We're just on the roof
over--like a roof overhang for—
MR.BELLOWS: Then I'm fine.
I-WARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Patrick,are you clear enough on what we've now gotten
to that you can refine this and get it back?
MR.VANASSE: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Let's move to the next page,because there's a change
there as well.
On No.4,the firewall protrusions are into required yards or permitted up to three feet,and again,it's
except where there are easements.
Scott,did you have some changes to that,if I recall? I'm afraid to ask.
MR. STONE: Yes,I do. It may be subjective,but my proposal would be to change it to"but shall
Page 9 of 12
J
October 8,2015 HEX Meeting
not encroach into any easements."
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well,that just says the same thing.
MR. STONE: Right. That's why I said it may be subjective.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: By the way,Scott's an individual that really likes grammar,
so--he's corrected grammar many times.
So I have no problem with the correction. I think it means the same thing. Patrick,are you okay with
it?
MR.VANASSE: I guess my only question would be,again,what about a maintenance easement?
How does that apply? And I'm not sure of any kind of models that my client has with firewalls.
No concern on your part? Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I don't know why I'm--I don't even know why this is in there.
I've never seen it in a PUD before,but I just wanted to make sure it wouldn't provide latitude that came across
with something unbeknownst to what you intended,so...
MR.VANASSE: My client just gave me the nod,and he's fine with it.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. So based on Scott's change in grammar,we'll go ahead
and make that change.
And then the last item addresses,Ray,I think the issue that you were addressing--
MR.BELLOWS: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: --involving the canopy of the trees. This was crafted by staff.
Because of the reduction in easements,we do have canopy tree requirements for the lot,and we wanted to
make sure that the lot can still afford those canopy trees.
And staff was--this was through staffs coordination,correct?
MR.JOHNSON: That's correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I believe that's the last issue we have. I hit the button
for it to change,but electronics between this machine and that machine,there's always a delay.
Let me check my--I'm making sure I don't have anything else,Patrick. Nope,that's it.Okay. I don't
have anything else. Patrick,is there anything you want to add for the record?
MR.VANASSE: I'd just like to thank staff and the Hearing Examiner. I know you guys have spent
a lot of time on this trying to help us out and trying to resolve some of these issues. We understand the
concerns that you've articulated about open space and meeting tree requirements.And we're happy with the
condition that we came up with,and I think we addressed those concerns.
And,just for the record,through the exhibits we've provided--sorry--I think we've demonstrated that
we meet our open-space requirements and that we'll be consistent with code with regards to landscaping.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I think we came to the same concurrence after the efforts we all
went through to get there,so thank you.
MR.VANASSE: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Eric,do you have a report?
MR.JOHNSON: Yes,I do. For the record,Eric Johnson,principal planner.
This item was advertised in the Naples Daily News on September 18th. Basically you have the staff
report. We went through some of the issues.
For the record,the petition--you have outlined in your staff report how the petition addresses Section
10.02.13.E.1,Letters A through K,as well as Section 10.02.13.E.2.
There are two conditions of approval and,like the last time if you would like,I can read them into the
record.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: No. I would believe that Patrick's very familiar with them at
this point.
MR.VANASSE: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So we won't need to do that in this particular case,so--the same
as they were read before anyway,if I'm not mistaken.
MR.VANASSE: Very well. Yes,that's correct.
Page 10 of 12
October 8,2015 HEX Meeting
With respect to Note No.8,as we have just discussed,that was--the genesis of that was to ensure that
each lot would have that requisite tree. And so it's staff's understanding that the tree,as in the working
drawings,would be in the rear yard and that a portion of the canopy,should it overhang,could overhang into
those affected areas as indicated No. 8.
Let's see. We already went through the recommendations of the County Attorney's Office from the
Table 1.
I'd like to just point out that we'll need a clean version of the updated information. There's two types
of documents in here. There's a struck through,or the stricken through version as well as the clean version.
So the clean version will have to be updated as well. Also--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: We use the strikethrough for the decision exhibit,just so you
know.
MR.JOHNSON: Okay. Then it's really a nonissue then.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Right. Because we want staff to clearly see what this case was
requesting and doesn't intention--doesn't unintentionally go into another factor. And that way,when you
compare it to the original PUD,you know specifically the changes that were made,so...
MR.JOHNSON: And if it matters,the narrative that the applicant submitted,there are notes--or
there's three points,one,two,and three,and they would have to strike out the reference to single-family
attached and multifamily in Notes 1 and 2,as this--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I'm sorry. Is it referencing notes on this page?
MR.JOHNSON: No,it's not.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Because the narrative isn't going to be part of the
decision.The record for the narrative is already established by the issuance of the staff report,so--
MR.JOHNSON: Okay. I just wanted to--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: --just to clarify that for the record.
MR.JOHNSON: --for the record,state corrections.
So with that,I have no other comments other than staffs recommending approval subject to those two
conditions of approval.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So you don't even want to tell Dan Smith what a great job he did
in helping with the landscaping,huh?
MR.JOHNSON: Well,I did indicate in here,so--
MR.SMITH: I appreciate that.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Dan,thank you.Your efforts and your landscaping experience
was certainly a help in resolving the issues that had to be discussed on this,so we appreciate your assistance on
that.
MR.JOHNSON: Oh,Mr.Hearing Examiner,for the record,I did receive a phone call from a woman
named Rola,R-o-1-a,and her last name is spelled M-u-a-k-k-a-s-s-a,and she was just inquiring about the
property,and I believe I forwarded her the information.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay.
MR.JOHNSON: I forwarded my staff report to her.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there anybody else that would like to
comment on this particular application?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none,we will close the hearing,and a decision
will be rendered within 30 days. Thank you all for your time and effort to resolve these issues today.
***We have one other item on today's agenda.It's under other business. It's a scrivener's error
cleanup. Petition No.PDI-PL20150000736.It's the Naples RV Resort,LLC.
This particular issue occurred several months ago on Decision 2015-30. What happened is when we
went back and forth to get corrective copies for the decision to be issued,the last line on one of the pages had a
change in the numbers for a setback of other accessory structures. That was caught by review staff as a change
that was not acknowledged in the public process.
Page 11 of 12
October 8,2015 HEX Meeting
The applicant's been notified,and that has been subsequently changed through this re-recordation of a
new decision that will have the right documents attached to it and be so noted on the zoning map.
And with that,there are no other items of business today,and this meeting is adjourned.
Thank you all for your attendance today.
There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Hearing Examiner at 9:40 a.m.
COLLIER CO •IT, HEARING EXAMINER
P' oitil A...Th.)
MARK STRAIN,HEARING EXAMINER
t
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK
'
These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on 1\- 1. -1 ,as presented V
or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICE,INC.,BY
TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 12 of 12