HEX Transcript 10/22/2015 October 22, 2015 HEX Meeting
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
Naples,Florida
October 22,2015
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
Fred Reischl,Principal Planner
Eric Johnson,Principal Planner
Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Assistant County Attorney
Page 1 of 9
AGENDA
THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:00 AM ON THURSDAY,OCTOBER 22,2015 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:
4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. PETITION NO. PMC-PL20150001668 — Lodge/Abbott Associates LLC and Lodge/Abbott
Investments Associates, LLC is requesting approval of a minor change, pursuant to LDC Section
10.02.13.E.3.c, to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Ordinance No. 2000-88 as amended by Settlement
Agreement and Release approved June 9,2008,to remove an affordable housing commitment to make a
monetary payment of 3 million dollars to Collier County. The property is located on the northwest and
northeast quadrants of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive in Sections 8, 16, 17 and 20,Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 532.09± acres. [Coordinator. Rachel
Beasley,Planner]
B. PETITION NO. PDI-PL20140000640—Landquest Group, LLC requests an insubstantial change to
Ordinance Number 07-54, the Tree Farm MPUD, as amended, to reduce the maximum number of
residential dwelling units from 425 dwelling units to 281 multi-family/townhouse or 138 single-family
detached units;to reduce the density generated from the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict from 7.7
to 0 units/acre; to correct a scrivener's error by changing the density generated from the Urban
Residential Subdistrict, Density Band from 4 to 7 units/acre; to reduce the size of water management
areas from 7.2 to 6.4 acres; to reduce the maximum total allowable square footage within the PUD
Commercial Mixed-Use District from 175,000 to 120,000 square feet;to increase the maximum size of
retail or office uses from 43,500 to 100,000 square feet; to add a deviation to permit residential
components of the PUD to have a maximum wall height of 8 feet along the PUD perimeter and 12 feet
along Collier Boulevard;to update various provisions to reflect the conveyance of a 7.42 acre parcel to
Collier County; to amend residential development standards relating to minimum setbacks; to create a
new Recreational Area section with permitted uses and development standards; to move
clubhouse/recreation development standards from the Residential District section to the new
Recreational Area section; to remove one transportation development commitment; to reduce the
number of required raw water well easements from 2 to 1; to add a utilities development commitment
relating to construction and access to the well easement site; and to amend the Master Plan to reflect
existing PUD conditions and add a new Recreational Area along the northern PUD boundary, for the
PUD property consisting of 58.84*acres located at the intersection of Immokalee Road(C.R. 846)and
Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.[Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach,AICP,RLA,Principal Planner]
C. PETITION NO. VA-PL20140001970 — Geneva B. Spencer, Trustee of the Geneva B. Spencer
Revocable Trust Agreement,requests a variance from Section 3.5 D of Ordinance No. 05-14,the Silver
Lakes Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD),to reduce the minimum front yard setback from
10 feet to 5.9 feet for an existing mobile home with a front yard balcony on property located at Lot 12,
Block 2, Silver Lakes Phase Two-A subdivision, on the east side of Collier Blvd, approximately one
mile south of the Collier Blvd. and U.S. 41 intersection, in Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26
East,Collier County,Florida. [Coordinator: Rachel Beasley,Planner]
D. PETITION NO.ZVL(CUD)-PL20150001787—City Gate Development, LLC requests affirmation of
a zoning verification letter issued by the Planning and Zoning Division pursuant to LDC Section
10.02.06, in which County staff determined that the proposed uses of air conditioned, enclosed mini-
and self-storage warehousing (SIC 4225) and non-air conditioned, outdoor accessible mini- and self-
storage(SIC 4225) are comparable in nature to other permitted principal uses in the area described as
"West of the Florida Power& Light Easement"under Section 3.2(A)of the City Gate Commerce Park
PUD, Ordinance No. 88-93, as amended. The subject properties are located on the east side of Collier
BIvd. (C.R. 951),just north of Interstate 75, in Section 35, Township 49 South,Range 26 East,Collier
County,Florida,consisting of 27.08f acres. [Coordinator: Rachel Beasley,Planner]
5. OTHER BUSINESS
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
7. ADJOURN
October 22, 2015 HEX Meeting
EXHIBITS
DESCRIPTION PAGE
PMC-PL20150001668
A-Staff Report 4
B-Legal Advertisement 4
PDI-PL20140000640
A-Staff Report 12
B-Legal Advertisement 12
C-Recreational Standards Revision 19
ZVL-(CUD)PL20150001787
A-Staff Report 21
B-Legal Advertisement 21
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the Thursday,October
22nd,meeting of the Collier County Hearing Examiner's Office.
If everybody will please rise for the pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Thank you.
Housekeeping matters: 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
rendered within 30 days.
The first item on the agenda is the review of the agenda. There has been one needed change. We're
going to have to continue Item 9C. It's the Geneva Spencer Trust variance request for 1063 Diamond Lake
Circle. That item will be continued to November 13th,2015.The continuation is due to an advertising error.
Is anybody here to speak on that matter?
(No response.)
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay.
Approval of prior minute meetings. There haven't been any issued so there's nothing there,so we'll
move directly into our first advertised public hearing.
The first item is 4A,Petition Number PMC-PL20150001668. It's the Lodge/Abbott Associates,
LLC,the removal of an affordable housing commitment in their settlement agreement.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Thank you.
Exhibit A will be the staff report and Exhibit B will be the legal ad.
For my disclosures,I've reviewed extensive files on the project,minutes of meetings going back to the
early 2000s. I've also talked to numerous staff members and to the applicant's representative,Wayne Arnold.
And with that,Mr.Arnold,I have reviewed the package. I don't need a formal presentation. There
are no members of the public here to--there's no information needed for them,other than what you may want
to put on record,so--
MR.ARNOLD: Thank you. For the record,I'm Wayne Arnold with Q.Grady Minor&Associates,
Professional Planner.
Again,this is a fairly simple request,consistent with your Land Development Code provisions for
removal of affordable housing commitments. I guess the unique aspect of this one is that those were
embodied in a settlement agreement rather than a PUD document. The Land Development Code also
references settlement agreements as being applicable for the removal of those commitments.
No dollars were expended but the dollars were requested to be paid upon completion of each
Page 2 of 9
October 22, 2015 HEX Meeting
residential building within the project,and we're seeking the removal of the commitment,as others before us
have.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Thank you.
And isn't that unique,there has been another settlement agreement in which the same provision was
removed. And I'll have testimony on that from staff in just a minute.
MR.ARNOLD: Thanks.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay. I would like to ask that some members of staff who are here answer a couple of questions.
The first one is the county attorney's office.
And,Heidi,I did receive a series of letters that prompted this to have to be into a public process as
required by the code. The letters concerned--were more concerned about whether or not this opened up the
settlement agreement. I don't believe,from this office,we can do that. Can you just acknowledge that?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: The sole issue before you is the removal of the affordable housing
commitment. You are not able,under that section,to open any other provisions of the agreement.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Thank you.
Is Amy Patterson here?
Hi,Amy. You'll have to state your name for the record.
MS.PATTERSON: Good morning. Amy Patterson,Director of Capital Project Planning,Impact
Fees and Program Management.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Thank you.
I have a--I know you and Paula work together on the collections and impact fees and commitments
like this,and so I have a series of operational questions for Paula.
I did want to ask your--since you're the department head,what is your current ability to collect funds
for this kind of particular commitment?
MS.PATTERSON: We're unable to collect funds relative to the affordable housing donations
because it's been--the collections have been suspended by the Board of County Commissioners.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: So currently this particular project is required to put up funds as
each building is moved forward. So if they came in with a check today to pay this,there would be no way that
we could accept that check?
MS.PAIIERSON: We could not.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay,that's all I needed to understand. Thank you very much.
MS.PATTERSON: Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: And Paula,if you don't mind?
MS.FLEISCHMANN: Good morning. Paula Fleischmann with Impact Fees.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: And Paula,I've got a few questions for you.
What is the status of the collected fees since this program began?
MS.FLEISCHMANN: Well,we've collected$604,581,and 499,623 of that has been refunded. We
have 105,000 left to be refunded.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. Was any of that money ever spent?
MS.FLEISCHMANN: No.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: When was the first payment collected? How many years ago?
MS.FLEISCHMANN: 2006 was the first one and then there was a couple of years in between,and
then a lot more came in'08,'09 and'11.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: The money has been sitting in the account that it was deposited in,
it just sat there all these years,and we're looking at almost 10 years for some of it?
MS.FLEISCHMANN: Uh-huh.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: And in the--in that money that you collected,how many of those
were settlement agreements?
MS.FLEISCHMANN: Just two. Sandlewood and Cocohatchee.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. But you haven't collected anything from Cocohatchee yet.
MS.FLEISCHMANN: No. There was never any collected.
Page 3 of 9
October 22, 2015 HEX Meeting
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: What's the status of Sandlewood's contribution?
MS.FLEISCHMANN: Sandlewood paid in 57,000. They've gotten--I mean,the potential was
57,000. They only paid in 12,and they got that 12 back.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Thank you very much.
MS.FLEISCHMANN: You're welcome.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: And Ray Bellows,would you mind answering a few questions?
MR.BELLOWS: Sure,I don't mind.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Have any of these--has any one or any of the applications that was
set by the board,and I don't remember the exact year,but I think it was 2012 when the Board voted to have
these commitments--allowed that these commitments to be removed from PUDs as a text change,and they
allowed staff to do it,unless opposed,have you ever had any opposed prior to this one?
MR.BELLOWS: None to my knowledge.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. Have any that you reviewed as the Zoning Manager ever
been denied?
MR.BELLOWS: No.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Do you know of any that have ever been denied?
MR.BELLOWS: None have been denied.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. Is the Board's order to release these commitments still
valid?
MR.BELLOWS: Yes,they are.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: And was there a customary contribution of value ever just generally
used?
MR.BELLOWS: A customary value,as requested by the Board during their hearing,but it's not a
written code provision.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: What was that amount?
MR.BELLOWS: Oh,it was—do you recall the amount?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No.
MR.BELLOWS: I don't recall the amount offhand.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: I,being on the Planning Commission and seeing this come through,
I remember that we would utilize$1,000 per unit,it would seem.
And the reason I ask is because the rate on this particular one was well over 5,000.
And that's the only questions I have of you,Ray. Thank you.
Heidi?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I'd just like to supplement what Ray said. There was one that was opposed.
It went to the Board of County Commissioners,I can't remember the name of the project,and the Board did
approve the removal.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
And that's all the questions I have,and I do appreciate staffs participation.
Wayne,did you have anything you wanted to comment on before we close this hearing?
MR.ARNOLD: No,nothing further. Just hopeful that you will recommend approval and removal
of the condition.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: One last time for any public speakers or any members of the public
here who wish to speak on this matter?
(No response.)
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none,this particular item is closed and we'll move
on to the next item on the agenda. Thank you.
MR.ARNOLD: Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: The next item on the agenda will not be so simple. It is the Petition
No.PDI-PL20140000640,the Landquest Group,LLC,for the Tree Farm MPUD.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
Page4of9
October 22, 2015 HEX Meeting
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Thank you.
The exhibits: Exhibit A will be the staff report;Exhibit B will be the legal ad.
For disclosures, I've talked with staff,I reviewed the files,and I have talked with the applicant's
representatives a couple of times.We had a meeting a day or two ago to go over some of the particulars on this
particular--on this project.
One item that has happened,we had a late review yesterday by the county attorney's office. Pm going
to walk through the aspects of this project so we can address them as they've come up.
And Patrick,you are more than welcome to come on up to the speaker--are there any members of the
public here to address--in fact,I know everybody here,and nobody is a member of the public. That takes
care of that.
Patrick, I've reviewed everything in regards to this project. I don't need a formal presentation. We
will have to walk through the various issues that have arose--that have come up over the last couple of days.
So I know you are aware of them.
And would you identify yourself for the record,please.
MR.VANASSE: Yes. For the record,Patrick Vanasse,Certified Planner with RWA.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. Location of the Tree Farm PUD is at the northwest corner
of Immokalee Road and the future extension of Collier Boulevard,which is 951.
The--our series of revisions to the master plan and to the text of the PUD: This is the new master
plan that resembles somewhat of the old one,but there are some changes that we'll be walking through.
These are some--this is the deviation page indicating what deviations are. We have a new deviation
in the form of two. We'll go over that in a minute.
During the review of some of the text in the staff report,there was a bullet that read as outlined in red
on this page. And it seemed to appear that the retail and office was increasing. That has been clarified. And
what really happened is when the strike-through occurred,it--the staff,I guess,didn't catch--the number one
wasn't struck through and so it looked like they were changing the square footage in the office to be greater
than what the change is really going to occur.
In actuality they're reducing it from 143-5 down to 100 for office. And maximum is going from 175
down to 120.
And,Nancy,as a staff member,if that's not accurate,make sure you say so,okay?
MS.GUNDLACH: For the record,Nancy Gundlach,Principal Planner.
And it is accurate as Mark has stated.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Thank you.
Again,this is the PUD master plan. This is the old one,the one that we're changing from.
And that takes us to what occurred yesterday. Before I get into my questions that are in the text of the
PUD document,I wanted to go over what happened yesterday with a review--a second review by the county
attorney's office.
There were some changes suggested by the county attorney in regards to how this is laid out and how
we look at the recreational area.And I need to walk through these to make sure they're understood and that you
are in concurrence. And if there's any problem,please let me know.
On this page your table of contents, ifs pretty benign. Some of these items have to be changed.
The—and,Heidi,since you wrote this,your handwritten notes where it says"within R district",is that
language that had to be added or was that intended just as a note that you crossed out by that little swirly thing
you got there?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,the whole line is to be deleted.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay.
On this particular page the recreational area is supposed to move up underneath the residential and be
indented so it becomes part of the residential area.
Development standards,and this is--I think,Heidi,you wanted to add four residential units?
What's the verbiage? Right here.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It can either say development standards or it can say for residential units,
either way.
Page 5 of
October 22, 2015 HEX Meeting
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. If they add the standards for the recreational area,that will
be a second section paragraph anyway.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. Your last note is where that new paragraph would come
into play. It would be--
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Permitted uses.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: What's the--does this--
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,just permitted uses.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. Permitted uses for recreational RA within the R District.
On the next page,this gets into the separate,previous section. I think your intention is to see that
section and purpose crossed out?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yes.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: And then we move into a new 4.5,and that would continue with the
language that's here with this new language: "for recreational area(RA)labeled RA on master plan."
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: R.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: This would remain or be added to that paragraph.
And then there are two other--two sections that have to be renumbered to coincide with the dropping
of the RA section.
That takes care of the changes that came in yesterday from the county attorney's office.
Do you have any concerns with those?
MR.VANASSE: No concerns. We concur and will make those changes.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. The--this morning I found this,and I found it a little before
the meeting started,so I tossed it on here. And this is an issue for Mike Sawyer.
Mike,if you'll come up and advise,from the traffic—your traffic department's review,which way
should this--how should this be labeled in regards to the addition to the PUD?
MR. SAWYER: For the record,Mike Sawyer,Transportation Planning.
The second paragraph is the one that should be inserted into the development--developer
commitment section for transportation. It basically limits the overall project trip generation to 580 PM peak
trips.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. Patrick,is that something you can take care of when this
comes back in cleaned up?
MR.VANASSE: We'll do that. No problem.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. That's the last item of new issues that we have.
Patrick,if we go back to the PUD itself and our discussions on whether—Tuesday or Wednesday,
whenever we got today,on Page 3 of the PUD under the list of exhibits and tables,there were some changes to
change the exhibit numbers,drop a couple of them that were redundant because they're part of the PUD,and
then modify that table accordingly.
I believe you were in agreement with that?
MR.VANASSE: Yes.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: That will be done.
There was a series of notations made in the PUD document that were strike-throughs but they weren't
not consistent with the colorations. You were going to make all that one consistent color as it goes forward.
I think most everything else has been--oh,the additions to the recreational standards. We discussed
the fact that the other projects, in a similar nature to yours,when they're up against residential there will be a
buffer with a minimum of 15 feet. Do you have any problem with that?
MR.VANASSE: No. I've got some language that I can show you,if it's agreeable.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Yeah,that's fine,if you don't mind. I'll have to add it as part of the
record.
Good. You've taken into consideration both. What this proposed is a note on the bottom that says,
"Where the recreational abuts residential lots the required 15-foot Type B buffer shall include a six-foot wall."
That's the notations that we talked about the other day,so that works for me.
Page 6 of 9
October 22, 2015 HEX Meeting
I'll enter this as Exhibit C and provide it to the court reporter at the end of the meeting.
And that's the only comments I had left. So thank you.
And are you clear on all the different changes and issues that have come up at the meeting--
MR.VANASSE: Yes,we are. I spoke with Scott and we will make all of the changes;run that by
him to make sure that we haven't missed a thing,and get that back to you.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Thank you,Patrick.
MR.VANASSE: Thank you very much.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: I need a staff report.
MS.GUNDLACH: Good morning. Staff has recommended approval of the Tree Farm PDI.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: That's as--that's as short as it can get,Nancy.
MS.GUNDLACH: rm going to add a little more to it: Subject to the changes discussed this
morning.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. Nancy,thank you. Your work is always thorough so that
does require a minimum amount of input,so I appreciate it.
Patrick, I don't think there's anything else.
Is there any members of the public wish to speak on this issue?
(No response.)
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Hearing none,we'll close that public hearing and move on to the
next item for today.
The next item was the Silver Lakes PUD,just in case anybody came in late. That has been continued
to November 13th.
That takes us to the last item,which is 4(D),the City Gate PUD.
•
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Thank you.
Exhibits will be: Exhibit A the staff report,and Exhibit B will be the legal ad.
For my disclosures,I've spoke with staff,reviewed the files and City Gate had a long history,so there's
a lot of files.
I talked to the owner,Mr.Roger Rice,and this morning I talked to the applicant's representative.
So with that,Fred,did you want to make a presentation?
Are there any members of the public here for this one?
(No response.)
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Seeing none,we don't need a formal presentation,Fred. I know
there's a few things that have to be changed.
MR.HOOD: For the record,Frederick Hood with Davidson Engineering,Certified Planner.
I don't need to make a formal presentation but I would like to go through the changes that we made.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Certainly.
MR.HOOD: Okay. As I'm aware we were just taking out the non-climate controlled section that we
were asking to be listed as comparable in the comparable use determination.
Outside of that,there was a question about--
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Well,actually,there were two substantial changes,and I talked to
Mr. Rice about it on the phone as late as yesterday.
MR.HOOD: Okay.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: One was,he had requested and authorized the change to the
comparable compatible request for only Lots 10, 11 and 12.
MR.HOOD: That's correct.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: He would like to request that that stay, 10, 11 and 12,in contrast to
the zoning verification letter that had 14 various lots.
MR.HOOD: Correct.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: And I concur with you on the statement about the open air
accessible units. He told me yesterday that he met with you or talked with you and that he wanted to drop that
Page 7 of 9
October 22, 2015 HEX Meeting
as a use,comparable use,and leave it the with air conditioned indoor storage.
Is that your understanding of--
MR.HOOD: That is my understanding.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. So we get into the zoning verification letter,it says, "Air
conditioned enclosed mini and self-storage warehouse,SIC Code 4225,"that would remain.And then it said,
"Non-air conditioned"—I'm trying to read--"outdoor accessible mini and self-storage 4225." And it was the
"non-air conditioned outdoor accessible mini and self-storage"that he said he really did not need that use.
MR.HOOD: Yeah,that will be stricken.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay.
And,Ray,I need to ask,what do you see as the methodology to accomplish this? Since the zoning
verification letter is in front of me today for confirmation,I really can't confirm the way it's written,but I want
to make sure that we don't enter it into our database and staff finds the zoning verification fails to realize there
was something further changed on that.
MR.BELLOWS: Yeah,based on the discussion today,we will revise the zoning confirmation letter
that was previously issued with a letter that will supercede it with the corrected language from today.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay.
MR.BELLOWS: And that could be used as part of the HEX determination.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: That's what I was going to ask the county attorney's office. For the
HEX decision on this,we usually have an exhibit as an attachment. Would I attach both the old and the new
or just the new revised?That would be consistent.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Just the new.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. Good.
Some other points in this project: The three parcels that are going to be finalized for this are the three
circled on the bottom.On the plat they show up as Parcels 10, 11 and 12.
And,Fred,if you disagree with any of this,let me know--
MR.HOOD: I will.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: —because this is what I thought had been discussed.
This is the attorney's affidavit in which those lots were the ones that were being requested. And that's
the language that's underlined in red that would be removed,and the reference to 14 parcels would be dropped
to 3.
MR.HOOD: That's correct.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: And that takes care of it. Thank you.
MR.HOOD: Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Is there any further staff comments or report?
(No response.)
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: None?
Rachel,nothing?
MS.BEASLEY: Rachel Beasley,for the record.
Yes,the staff report was provided. Pm not really sure if you—I mean,how you want me to say the
recommendation because it's kind of changing now,but--
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: You concur with the--
MS.BEASLEY: Yes,I do. Yes.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: --recommendations asked on record today that are in another ZBL?
MS.BEASLEY: Yes,I do concur with the changes to the ZBL and attaching the new updated
version with the outcome of today.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. Are there any members of the--anybody else like to
comment on this project?
(No response.)
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none,Fred,I don't think you need a rebuttal.
Thank you for your time today and appreciate your cooperation. We'll have it within 30 days,we'll have a
response.
Page 8 of 9
October 22, 2015 HEX Meeting
MR.HOOD: Thank you all.
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
With that we'll close that item on today's agenda.
And that takes us down to the very end of the agenda which is Other Business. There is none.
Is there any public comment?
(No response.)
HEARING OFFICER STRAIN: Hearing none,we'll--this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.
******************
There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Hearing Examiner at 9:25 a.m.
COLL R COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
MARK STRAIN, H ARING EXAMINER
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK
These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on 3 =- _ " ` ' as presented
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY LYNN BROOKS
Page 9 of 9