Loading...
HEX Transcripts 02/14/2019February 14, 2019 HEX Meeting TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida February 14, 2019 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Hearing Examiner, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609/610, Naples, Florida, with the following people present: HEARING EXAMINER MARK STRAIN ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager John Kelly, Senior Planner Gilbert Martinez, Principal Planner Scott Stone, Assistant County Attorney Page l of 6 February 14, 2019 HEX Meeting PROCEEDINGS HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, February 14th 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: A few announcements: Speakers will be limited to five minutes unless otherwise waived, decisions are final unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners, and a decision will be rendered within 30 days. The review of the agenda: We have four items on the advertised public hearings. Two of those are being continued. The two continued items will be Item 9B. It's Petition No. BDE-PL20180001709, the Carla Teresa Markey 43 -foot boat dock extension, and it's up in Collier's Reserve. That one's being continued to February 28th. The second one being continued is 9C. It's Petition No. BDE-PL20180000482, the Charles B. Tabeling boat dock extension of 98 feet. It's on Isles of Capri. That one's being continued to February 28th as well. Both of those items will not be heard today. So if you're here for either of those, you'll have to come back another time. Which takes us to advertised public hearings that are scheduled. ***The first one up is Petition No. PCUD-PL20180003162. It's for Colombo Enterprises of Naples, Inc. It's a request for a comparable/compatible use for a vaping -- I hope I said that right -- vaping store. All those interested in testifying 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: Yes, if any of the three of you are going to talk, you need to stand up and be sworn in. Thank you. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: With that, disclosures on my part: I had a meeting with staff. I looked at the files and tried to understand what vaping is. I think I've got it understood now. I've heard the name a lot, but I've never had to look at it too closely, but I have done that through the Internet and other sources. So with that, first of all, is there any member of the public here who is not part of the applicant's team to address this issue? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Well, Chris, you're representing the applicant. If you can, would you mind coming up to the microphone. Could you identify yourself for the record. MR. LASCANO: Chris Lascano, Phoenix Associates. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And I've gone through the staff report, and it's a comparable/compatible. And we've also had a letter of -- one letter of objection from someone in the neighborhood. We'll be talking about that with staff in a minute. There's no staff recommendations other than a recommendation of approval. Is there anything -- I don't need a formal presentation, and since there are no members of the public here, we won't need one either for that reason. So is there anything you want to add to the record? MR. LASCANO: No. We believe that it falls in line with what the use is for that shopping center. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I'll have a discussion with staff. We'll discuss the letter that came in. Staff will respond to it. If there's anything you want to add, you'll have an Page 2 of 6 February 14, 2019 HEX Meeting opportunity to come up if you'd like. MR. LASCANO: Okay, HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you very much. And with that, Gilbert, this was your case, if I'm not mistaken. MR. MARTINEZ: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You had a phone call of concerns, too. Were they anything related to the Land Development Code issues, or were they just general matters? MR. MARTINEZ: I had a phone call that specifically stated that they just wanted to express their opposition to the concept of a vape store. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And there's no stated reason why? MR. MARTINEZ: No. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I did send you a copy of the email that I received, and I'd like to just take a quick look at some of the things that were concerning to the individual that wrote it. First of all, they believe that this should be in an industrial -type setting. I haven't found any reference to that in your staff report. Do you see any reason why it would require an industrial -type setting? MR. MARTINEZ: Not at all. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: The other comment was made there was vaping debris in the parking lot of one of the places that this individual checked. That's not relevant to Land Development Code issues under concern here. And there was a concern over lower property values. There was no evidence supplied to support that. Higher incidences within the neighborhood by clients that frequent these stores. Again, there was nothing supportive that I could see in the record to support such a claim. More added -- more vehicle traffic to an intersection that is already severely congested. Could you tell me how you looked -- you compared the traffic generation on this issue. MR. MARTINEZ: Yes, I can. I did a little research and looked -- came to my -- came to a conclusion that this type of use would typically, in the past tense, be compared as a tobacco store, tobacco shop, which in the latest ITE manual is not found to be as a stand-alone use so, hence, it's part of a general shopping center use, and the traffic analysis would be applied to the general shopping center use. So in this case it would not be a detrimental impact to traffic. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And that information came from our Transportation Department? MR. MARTINEZ: Yes, it did. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. So you talked with someone over in Transportation Planning that basically acknowledged that this is part of the shopping center calculations for their traffic impacts? MR. MARTINEZ: Both; did my own research and verified it with Transportation. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And the last statement made was there was a concern over -- cause of concern over very unhealthy products being sold in this shopping plaza. Again, there was no evidence supplied to support that. But I just wanted to make sure we -- for the record, the comments were read into the record and responded to the best we could. So do you have anything else you want to add in regards to this matter? MR. MARTINEZ: Yes, I do. Staff mistakenly introduced under the staff report and the ZVL the letter of verification that tobacco stores, SIC No. 5993, is a permitted use within the existing PUD. That is not the case, and I'd like to retract that from the record and continue with a Page 3 of 6 February 14, 2019 HEX Meeting recommendation of approval. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Without that as part of the analysis? MR. MARTINEZ: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. The record does show -- the written record and the backup says 5992. So 5993 is a change as well, the reference? MR. MARTINEZ: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Do you know what zoning category Cl, 2, 3, 4, or 5 a tobacco store is allowed in? MR. MARTINEZ: C3. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And that's similar to the uses that are already allowed in this shopping center, if I'm not mistaken. MR. MARTINEZ: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And with that, let me make sure I don't have any other questions. I don't have any. And I don't know if --you can just shake your head, Chris. Did you have anything you want to say? MR. LASCANO: (Shakes head.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: No. Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing on this matter. Oh, first of all, just to make sure, is there any members of the public here that would like to address this? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I didn't see anybody come in and, sure enough, there is none. So with that, I'll close this matter, and a decision will be rendered within 30 days; most likely a lot shorter period of time than that. Thank you all for attending on this matter, and we're done with that case. ***Next item up is 3D. It's Petition No. VA-PL20180002673, Amanda and William Carey. This is for variances in the -- the street address of 108 2nd Street, Bonita Springs. 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. Would the representative of the applicant come up. And my disclosures, I had talked to staff on this matter before the hearing, and I did introduce myself to the applicant just before we started. And with that, I would -- is there any member of the public here who is objecting to this? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: None. Could you identify yourself for the record. MS. CAREY: Amanda Carey. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Ms. Carey, thank you. I've read the petition. I have a few questions of staff. I don't have any of you, but I did want to provide you the opportunity in case you had something that you wanted to ask about this particular situation or the case or your comments on the submittal. MS. CAREY: I have no questions. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Well, then this will be easy. We should be fine. I'll go and talk with staff. And if you hear anything that you'd like to address at the end, you're more than welcome to; I'll ask again if you would at that time. MS. CAREY: Okay. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And with that, John, good morning. Page 4 of 6 February 14, 2019 HEX Meeting MR. KELLY: Good morning. John Kelly, Senior Planner, for the record. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I have a couple questions that I came up with last night. I know we talked yesterday. On the staff report on Page 3, the very top paragraph -- and it caught my eye last night because of the difference in dates. It says the building permit for the structure was 76-0045, but then it said it had a reported CO of 409-75. That's almost kind of impossible. Sol figured the '75 must bean error, or the '76 in the permit would bean error. I did check records and found out that the CO was actually 49-76 (sic). So I think you want to make that as a correction to the staff report. MR. KELLY: Okay. Noted, yes. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. The other thing, on that following sentence after the CO date, it said, "each reportedly," and you're referring to a series of other building permits were -- over the years, several additional permits were each reportedly made after obtaining the appropriate building permit. Said improvements include, and they list a whole bunch of them. Well, part of the record includes Page 47 of the record which lists all of the building permits on the Tax Assessor's Office. It includes the residence in'76, the garage, a screen enclosure, a pool, a roof, and another addition as recently as 2012. What was the reason for using the word "reportedly"? They're part of the record. And did you ask the Records Department to produce those, and they couldn't or -- why would it be just reportedly? MR. KELLY: Because it's not a record maintained by this division, so it's per the Property Appraiser's report. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. But you just said it's not a record maintained by -- does that mean you went to the Records Department and you asked them to look up those six or seven permits that are listed? MR. KELLY: The only permit I sought out specifically was for the residence, and they were unable to provide a copy of the building permit application as well as no site plan. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. So the other permits you didn't ask for? MR. KELLY: No. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And, John, the word "reportedly" connotates it may not be --they may not be there. We just don't know. We didn't check except for the one. MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Down towards the bottom, you talk about the distance to Valley Drive. I think you mean the distance to the right-of-way of Valley Drive. And we spoke about this yesterday. And I did check. Valley Drive is oddly platted at 100 feet wide, which is kind of strange for a residential community like this. The center line of the asphalt that's there is 50 feet off the right-of-way line. The asphalt is noted as being 18 feet wide. So if you reduce the -- split the asphalt at nine feet, that leaves them 41 feet from the asphalt on top of the 13 feet for the building. So they're a substantial distance from the actual asphalt of the driveway -- the drive lane for that project. And I think it comes to 54.4 feet for the house and 57 feet for the accessory. I understand that the code required 25 feet at the time, and the 25 feet had to be measured from right-of-way. But I think under these conditions, with that additional excess space, it certainly behooves the approval that you've recommended. I agree with you on your recommendation. And with that, I don't have any other comments or questions. That's everything I've got. Is there any member of the public here wishing to address this item? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And, ma'am, you just need to shake your head Page 5 of 6 February 14, 2019 HEX Meeting yes or no. Do you want to add anything to the record? MS. CAREY: (Shakes head.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Nothing, okay. With that said, the hearing -- this meeting is -- this item is closed, and a decision will be rendered within 30 days. Most likely a lot less. MS. CAREY: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you for your time today. That wraps it up. There is no other business. Is there anybody here making public comments? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: None. This meeting's adjourned. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 9:15 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY HEA ING EXAMINER 4MASTRAIN, HEARING EXAMINER ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on Z — Z(' -i 1, as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 6 of 6